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.

 Filch wrote:
if that is the case then why bother taking helfrost?

fnp and fething rp cheats it?

Yeah, every Multi-wound model in the game has FNP that auto passes.

blaktoof wrote:
FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?

Unfortunately that rules interpretation is in direct contradiction to the new Dark Eldar FAQ. FNP happens when the wound is suffered, but the effect that is triggered doesn't take place until the end of the phase.

By your interpretation of "Suffers an unsaved wound" the Shadow Field would not be lost. Therefore you interpretation cannot be correct, and discounting a wound does not negate any effect caused by "Suffering an unsaved wound". Or to put it another way. You still Suffered an Unsaved wound, even if that wound was later discounted, which seemed to me to be the obvious interpretation since 7th edition dropped.

Let me offer a scenario where it might seem more obvious. There is a Tyranid Warlord trait called "Adaptive Biology"
"If the Warlord suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, it gains the Feel No Pain (5+) special rule at the beginning of its next Movement phase and keeps it for the remainder of the game."

They also have an upgrade called "Regeneration"
"At the end of each friendly turn, roll a D6 for each model with the regeneration biomorph that has less than its starting number of Wounds, but has not been removed as a casualty. On a 4+, that model regains a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."

So if a Hive Tyrant with Regen, and the Adaptive biology trait perils and takes a wound in the psychic phase, and then Regenerates that wound at the end of its turn, does it gain the effects of Adaptive Biology at the start of its next movement phase? By your interpretation it wouldn't because even though it suffered a wound, that wound was later regenerated, and therefore it has been retconned that the wound never happened? Does that seem like a more reasonable scenario than "Suffering an Unsaved Wound" effects can still be triggered even if the current wounds characteristics are at full? Because to me, the wound was suffered, and then regenerated. Or in the case of Feel No Pain, it was Suffered and then Discounted. No matter what, it was suffered.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...

Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?

If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?

I think I already explained this many times. But no, if I resolve FNP first and it succeeds, then I do not roll Helfrost, because as you say, the wound will be treated as saved after the FNP roll.

But if I already have rolled Helfrost, and removed the model, and after that roll FNP, even if the roll passed, the model has already been removed, and FNP can't do anything about that.

The wound is however treated as saved from that point, so it should not count negative when seeing who should do a model check, for instance.... I don't see this as breaking any rules... I follow the rule for fnp because I do treat it as saved from the point when the fnp roll is passed, as that rule say. Also I follow sequencing rule, rule for helfrost and so on.

Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?

I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.

I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.

You are adding the qualifier "from that point", when the rule never states that

The wound is saved, which is past, present and continuing on. The wound was never unsaved

Hellfrost aside,

Well either resolved rules change and FNP breaks the rules by trying to activate on something that doesn't exist so the wound is then again unsaved since FNP no longer applies... Unless anyone can quote why everything else on a unsaved wound would care but FNP would not, it's a pretty game breaking interpretation.

Or accept resolved rules don't care that the unsaved wound is gone. And everything functions properly.

You could also argue 'From this point on' is the default, and if it's any time not at present in the rules it requires a stipulation to tell us when it is treating it as something else.

Deepstike.. count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except
for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles)

Levitation: ..and all models count as having moved in the Movement
phase for the purposes of shooting weapons in the Shooting phase

Both of them use the same grammatical tenses as FNP, one specifies that it counted as moved in the previous phase, one specifies that it's counts as moved in a phase that hasn't happened yet. FNP contains no specific wording as to when to treat the unsaved wound as saved, but since we've already suffered a unsaved wound the only time would be at the time of resolution or later.

But for FNP to be resolved first, the best case is arguing it somehow fits into explicit that it is to be resolved before others per the sequencing rules, but then the FNP VS threads are self implication that it is not. GW has a RAW system for deciding sequencing, either the player decides or the rules that are meant to be resolved first are explicit in the fact they do so. Sequencing based on potential resolution is both none existent in the rules, and unnecessary since 'how to sequence' in this circumstance already has rules.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.

Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.

 Nem wrote:
Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?

I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.

I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.

The shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers one or more unsaved Wounds.

So as per my description earlier: it triggers upon failing a Save. Even if FNP would then activate and "remove" the unsaved Wound, by then the rule is already activated. (I'll Add it to the list below in my reply to chanceafs.

chanceafs wrote:
Going back and reading your arguments, I disagree with that assertion. The phrase 'for each wound suffered' that your argument hinges on doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the timing of that roll. It is merely a reminder that no matter how many wounds are taken you have to make the test each time. However since wounds are still applied one at a time, each the Helfrost roll would be made each time 'the model suffers and unsaved wound' which is again at the same time as FNP. There for if FNP must happen before the wound is taken off, then so must Helfrost. And both of them would then prevent the other from resolving, as Helfrost no longer cares about the wound cause the model is now being removed, and FNP turns the unsaved wound into saved so from then on you treat the wound as saved negating Helfrost. No matter which comes first they both have to be FULLY resolved before the other one can start.

If it worked as you suggested, then you would have to wait to make Helfrost until all the wounds had been allocated, saved and removed, in which case there is no long a model to make a save against, and in the case of a multi-wound model you would have to apply several wounds to it, then make your str tests which would drastically change results, as 1 failure for the first wound would mean the other wounds are supposed to be allocated elsewhere.

No, my timing explanation does not cover multiple Wounds (so taking 3 Wounds and then applying Helfrost). It is all in the resolution of a single Wound allocation, which follows the following RaW:

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

You follow the above for every single Wound, correct?
I have shown how the above splits up:

 BlackTalos wrote:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound. Shadow Field happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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

This is the process for 1 Wound only: Helfrost happens just as the model "for each Wound suffered" (Step 2) above - but it does not modify step 2, so it come just after you've suffered the Wound) but it also happens before you check if the model has 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.
If the model has 6 Wounds, the process above will be:
Fail Save --> Roll FNP (Fail) --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test (Say you fail this, then the model is removed here) --> Remove model if Wounds =0. (After this check, you would allocate the second Wound, and go through the process again.)

tag8833 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
FnP is done before you remove any wounds from a model, which is the act of suffering wounds. How many wounds has a model suffered that has an unsaved wound but has not rolled FnP? the answer is 0, because the models wound value is unchanged. The model may have suffered 'unsaved wounds' but the RAW of helfrost does not say to roll for each unsaved wound suffered, but for each wound suffered. So at the time you can roll for FnP the model has suffered 0 wounds, so how can you roll helfrost?

Unfortunately that rules interpretation is in direct contradiction to the new Dark Eldar FAQ. FNP happens when the wound is suffered, but the effect that is triggered doesn't take place until the end of the phase.

By your interpretation of "Suffers an unsaved wound" the Shadow Field would not be lost. Therefore you interpretation cannot be correct, and discounting a wound does not negate any effect caused by "Suffering an unsaved wound". Or to put it another way. You still Suffered an Unsaved wound, even if that wound was later discounted, which seemed to me to be the obvious interpretation since 7th edition dropped.

Let me offer a scenario where it might seem more obvious. There is a Tyranid Warlord trait called "Adaptive Biology"
"If the Warlord suffers one or more unsaved Wounds, it gains the Feel No Pain (5+) special rule at the beginning of its next Movement phase and keeps it for the remainder of the game."

They also have an upgrade called "Regeneration"
"At the end of each friendly turn, roll a D6 for each model with the regeneration biomorph that has less than its starting number of Wounds, but has not been removed as a casualty. On a 4+, that model regains a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."

So if a Hive Tyrant with Regen, and the Adaptive biology trait perils and takes a wound in the psychic phase, and then Regenerates that wound at the end of its turn, does it gain the effects of Adaptive Biology at the start of its next movement phase? By your interpretation it wouldn't because even though it suffered a wound, that wound was later regenerated, and therefore it has been retconned that the wound never happened? Does that seem like a more reasonable scenario than "Suffering an Unsaved Wound" effects can still be triggered even if the current wounds characteristics are at full? Because to me, the wound was suffered, and then regenerated. Or in the case of Feel No Pain, it was Suffered and then Discounted. No matter what, it was suffered.

Poor comparison - Regeneration never says the wound was saved.
And indeed - pre-FAQ the Shadowfield wasn't lost. And using something that specific as precedent for a RAW is tenuous at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jay_mo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
You've made your point, but none of these examples talk about going back in time and reversing effects due to the "treat as" rule.
In all of these rules, "treat as" can be interpreted as "treat as from now on", without any of the effects you mention...

Can you give an example of a rule that breaks if you treat "treat as x" as "is x from now on, until other stated", but do not "is and has always been x" ?

If the wound is saved, how are you rolling to see if Helfrost removes the model?
Do you do that if the wound is saved?

I think I already explained this many times. But no, if I resolve FNP first and it succeeds, then I do not roll Helfrost, because as you say, the wound will be treated as saved after the FNP roll.

But if I already have rolled Helfrost, and removed the model, and after that roll FNP, even if the roll passed, the model has already been removed, and FNP can't do anything about that.

Why are you rolling Helfrost if you don't know the wound is unsaved? Does it apply on hits?

Shadow field happens at the end of the phase. But is triggered by the failed save, and cannot then be un triggered.

tag8833 wrote:
Shadow field happens at the end of the phase. But is triggered by the failed save, and cannot then be un triggered.

Only because of the FAQ. Pre-FAQ this was false.

 Nem wrote:
Can anyone drop the relevant wording for Shadow Field?

I've considered the *intent* of FNP before *could* be to only stop the model losing a wound characteristic, and it wasn't meant to interfere with triggering of any other rules which come off the unsaved wound, mainly based on the first sentence of FNP, and combat resolution's ''wounds actually suffered'' statements.

I don't think there is any RAW logical reason for the FAQ but I wouldn't say it is obviously not intended with those rule sets, like we have known some others to be. But I don't have the rules for SF in front of me either.

Shadow Field Rule "A shadow field confers a 2+ invulnerable save. The Shadow field save is lost for the rest of the battle at the end of any phase in which the model suffers on or more unsaved wounds."

rigeld2 wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
Shadow field happens at the end of the phase. But is triggered by the failed save, and cannot then be un triggered.

Only because of the FAQ. Pre-FAQ this was false.

Why? because by the time you reached the end of the phase, FNP had removed the trigger? I'd say it would still have triggered. By the FaQ, this would be RaI (It's not an errata?)

Ed: Ah i see from the wording: "phase in which the model suffers", which would not be true at the time of checking (End phase)

 BlackTalos wrote:

No, my timing explanation does not cover multiple Wounds (so taking 3 Wounds and then applying Helfrost). It is all in the resolution of a single Wound allocation, which follows the following RaW:

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

You follow the above for every single Wound, correct?
I have shown how the above splits up:

 BlackTalos wrote:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound. Shadow Field happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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

This is the process for 1 Wound only: Helfrost happens just as the model "for each Wound suffered" (Step 2) above - but it does not modify step 2, so it come just after you've suffered the Wound) but it also happens before you check if the model has 0 Wounds and is removed as a casualty.
If the model has 6 Wounds, the process above will be:
Fail Save --> Roll FNP (Fail) --> reduce Wound by 1 (because ID said more, but EW modified) --> Roll Strength test (Say you fail this, then the model is removed here) --> Remove model if Wounds =0. (After this check, you would allocate the second Wound, and go through the process again.)

Let me fix this for you to make it RAW

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FNP happens here. RP happens here. Shadow Field is lost here (but we are told this happens even if FNP also happens so no need for sequencing). Helfrost happens here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Take the wound
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Remove the model

That is LITERALLY what the rules say. Trying to put Helfrost later in that list is not what the rules say. To make this clear I'll quote the rule again for you.

Helfrost:
When a models 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.

When must it pass a separate Strength test for each wound suffered? When it suffers the unsaved wound. That's EXACTLY the same time that you roll FNP. This is the rule.

The fact that it states that it rolls for each wound is to help people who use fast dice understand that you roll for each wound, not once for all the wounds. If you're not using fast dice it's very simple:
You roll one save. You failed it? You roll a strength test. You failed that too? You're removed from play. You didn't fail it? You roll your next save.

With fast dice being an option they had to explain that you made the roll for each wound. You're taking the fact that they got sloppy with that part of it and said "for each wound suffered" to try and make Helfrost happen later than it should. But even this is not RAW since we are very clearly told when to make the Strength test. When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds.

But WHEN the roll is made is clearly stated at the beginning of the rule. When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds

When is FNP rolled? When a model suffers an unsaved wound

If we disagree then we disagree and I can respect that you have a different opinion than I do. I can even see why you believe what you do.

We'll leave it at agree to disagree. I think you are just using RaW in a too simplistic way and not seeing the depth of it.

When must it pass a Strength Test?
For each wound suffered.

Does this rule apply to all Wounds that the model takes? Dangerous terrain, etc?
No, when a models suffers () unsaved wounds from this weapon.


"suffers () unsaved wounds" triggers the rule, like it triggers FNP and many others.
"For each wound suffered" is when the test actually takes place.

If it makes it easier: (Actually i was incorrect with Shadow Field too)

 BlackTalos wrote:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound(Fails the save). FNP, ID > EW, SF, Swarms, Helfrost are triggered here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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(if W=0)

Obviously only if you can see that the rules triggering and when the effect of them happens is a different timing. With Shadow Field "happening" at the end of the Phase.

Still can't believe this debate is still going. The fact is FNP and RP are not saves and so they cannot save an unsaved wound.

Just because it says treats as saved does not make it saved as they both state explicitly "this is not a saving throw." The treats as saved portion is simply telling you how to deal with a Wound that has been discounted.

If this was not the case there would be no reason to state that it is not a saving throw or to ever call the unsaved wound discounted instead of saying it's simply saved.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.

Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.

Sure in no particular order: The activation sentence in FnP, Soul Razor, Instant Death, Concussive, and Soul Blaze

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound
A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule....
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule
If a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule....
When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon.....

For the Animus Vitae If an unsaved wound is inflicted with the animus vitae, all models with the power from pain special rule......
For the Parasites Kiss Each time the bearer inflicts an unsaved wound with the parasite's kiss it immediately gains one wound lost previously in battle.

Note all the suffers an unsaved wounds listed up there. In the mechanics of the rules, both Soulrazor and Fnp say to do something for each wound suffered. I am going to have to make the assumption that the frost weapon uses similar terminology to soulrazor.

Mordaem wrote:
Still can't believe this debate is still going. The fact is FNP and RP are not saves and so they cannot save an unsaved wound.

Only if you ignore the actual rules.

Just because it says treats as saved does not make it saved as they both state explicitly "this is not a saving throw." The treats as saved portion is simply telling you how to deal with a Wound that has been discounted.

If this was not the case there would be no reason to state that it is not a saving throw or to ever call the unsaved wound discounted instead of saying it's simply saved.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You are adding the qualifier "from that point", when the rule never states that

The wound is saved, which is past, present and continuing on. The wound was never unsaved

No, as much as I'm adding "from that point", you are adding the "past, present and continuing" part. The rules states neither of them. Which means treating it as x from now on, as much fulfils the rule as treating it as it was always x.

If a rules says "the magician turns your model into a pig, treat it as a pig", that doesn't mean you have to treat it as it was always a pig, backtracking all shooting attacks that your model did since the game started. It means treat it as a pig from now on. In that case it is obvious, in the FNP case it is less obvious, my point is that it is an equally (or more) valid interpretation to add the "from now on" than adding the "past, present and future" -thing.

rigeld2 wrote:Why are you rolling Helfrost if you don't know the wound is unsaved? Does it apply on hits?

It is unsaved when Helfrost is rolled. And when FNP is rolled. FNP is not a save. It says so in the rules. An unsaved wound is something that wasn't saved by a save. FNP has the ability to flick a magic wand and turn an unsaved wound into a saved wound. Like turning a model into a pig. But the wound has still been an unsaved wound once and it that was during those times the Helfrost was rolled.

Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.

jay_mo wrote:
Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.

So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?

And you're asserting that's legal?

 BlackTalos wrote:


When must it pass a Strength Test?
For each wound suffered.

Does this rule apply to all Wounds that the model takes? Dangerous terrain, etc?
No, when a models suffers () unsaved wounds from this weapon.


Obviously only if you can see that the rules triggering and when the effect of them happens is a different timing. With Shadow Field "happening" at the end of the Phase.

You do realize that FnP says "Roll a D6 each time an unsaved wound is suffered."
Sounds an awful lot like "take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered"
Or "take a LD test for each wound suffered"
Using the full rule for other rules and not the full rule for FnP to try and prove FnP goes first doesn't work when you further look at the FnP rule and see it says the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.

So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?

And you're asserting that's legal?

Have you even read my posts? The answer is there.

FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?

jay_mo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.

So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?

And you're asserting that's legal?

Have you even read my posts? The answer is there.

I have. And your statements lead to an illegal situation - either you're rolling for Helfrost before you know if the wound is saved or not, or you're rolling for Helfrost when the model has not suffered a wound.

Either way - your method breaks rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jay_mo wrote:
FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?

FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
Nowhere in the FNP rules does it say that the unsaved wound that FNP turned into a saved wound was never an unsaved wound. In fact, it says it WAS once an unsaved wound. It was when it triggered the FNP.

So you're doing something that requires an unsaved wound when the only wound that ever happened has been saved?

And you're asserting that's legal?

No, we are applying all the rules equally. All said rules activate when a model suffers an unsaved wound. We then apply sequencing, meaning your turn FnP goes first, and our turn the other rule goes first.

As a further question, How do you know you are allowed to use FnP until you know if you are going to suffer a removed from play or instant death attack? Unless you are are asserting that FnP can work against instant death. Because you know, instant death isn't valid until it is known if the wound is unsaved or not. Just because there is another step to it does not remove the fact that it has a rule that prevents FnP from working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

It only creates a paradox with itself when you don't look at it linearly. You know, the way the rules are written. The linear quality of the rules backed up with the sequencing rule proves my point. Everything happens in an order, no going back in time. Thus the sequencing rule telling us how to resolve rules that activate at the same time, and how to resolve them.

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?

FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

The thing is, you are saying that my interpretation of the rules are illegal, I am merely trying to explain to you, in all ways I can think of, that there is a way to interpret the text in the manner I do, just as it is possible to interpret it the way you do.

I haven't said that you are wrong, I'm just saying I'm not wrong either. As I've said, it is nothing paradoxal with treating the wound as saved from when the FNP roll is made, but once unsaved before. So that when using sequencing, if Helfrost resolves before FNP - Helfrost is allowed to happen, while in the opposite order Helfrost can be prevented by FNP. And it is still following the rules as they are written.

I'm not saying you are breaking the rules, since 40k-rules often are open to several interpretations. I just say I don't choose to follow your interpretation, because I believe mine is just as valid, and makes more sense in my opinion.

jay_mo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jay_mo wrote:
FNP requires an unsaved wound just as much as Helfrost. Why don't you wait rolling FNP until you know if your FNP roll passes?

FNP creates a paradox with itself. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

The thing is, you are saying that my interpretation of the rules are illegal, I am merely trying to explain to you, in all ways I can think of, that there is a way to interpret the text in the manner I do, just as it is possible to interpret it the way you do.

I haven't said that you are wrong, I'm just saying I'm not wrong either. As I've said, it is nothing paradoxal with treating the wound as saved from when the FNP roll is made, but once unsaved before. So that when using sequencing, if Helfrost resolves before FNP - Helfrost is allowed to happen, while in the opposite order Helfrost can be prevented by FNP. And it is still following the rules as they are written.

I'm not saying you are breaking the rules, since 40k-rules often are open to several interpretations. I just say I don't choose to follow your interpretation, because I believe mine is just as valid, and makes more sense in my opinion.

The problem with your interpretation is that - as I've said - it breaks rules.
It's also illogical - Sequencing effects like that so I survive better on my turn? That's stupid.
You haven't made a single RAW argument other than sequencing, and I've shown why that's flawed. Your interpretation requires it to be correct. Since it isn't, your interpretation cannot be correct, regardless of your belief.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I don't know the Hellfrost rule, but what about the Direswords Soulrazor rule? It activates when a model Suffers and unsaved wound. Using the exact wording as FnP. How about the Dark Eldar's Parasite's kiss, which immediately replaces a wound when it inflicts an unsaved wound, unlike the animus Vitae which requires it to be inflicted.

Do you think you could quote the important line for those? For comparison's sake.

Sure in no particular order: The activation sentence in FnP, Soul Razor, Instant Death, Concussive, and Soul Blaze

When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound
A model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon with this special rule....
If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack with this special rule
If a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds from an attack with this special rule....
When a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds from this weapon.....

For the Animus Vitae If an unsaved wound is inflicted with the animus vitae, all models with the power from pain special rule......
For the Parasites Kiss Each time the bearer inflicts an unsaved wound with the parasite's kiss it immediately gains one wound lost previously in battle.

Note all the suffers an unsaved wounds listed up there. In the mechanics of the rules, both Soulrazor and Fnp say to do something for each wound suffered. I am going to have to make the assumption that the frost weapon uses similar terminology to soulrazor.

I need the entire rule and its effects to compare. Not just the "suffers an unsaved wound" trigger. I have repeated (too many times now) that the trigger for all these rules is exactly the same.

But the effects are at different times. Like Shadowfield effect are at the End of the Phase.....

 megatrons2nd wrote:

You do realize that FnP says "Roll a D6 each time an unsaved wound is suffered."
Sounds an awful lot like "take a S test for each unsaved wound suffered"
Or "take a LD test for each wound suffered"
Using the full rule for other rules and not the full rule for FnP to try and prove FnP goes first doesn't work when you further look at the FnP rule and see it says the same thing.

You got those quotes wrong. I hope that when you quote the other rules you are copying the exact RaW?

RaW: "pass a separate Strength test for each Wound suffered"

Where did you find the word "unsaved" in this?

The strength one I do not have access to as that is a marine codex and I only used what I read on here, because I hate marines and their rules and think they are the most god awful pieces of stolen/copied/regurgitated material in the history of man. The Tau are more original than marines, and we know where those came from.

For FnP it is in the FnP rule on page 164 fourth paragraph of the FnP rule(including the fluff paragraph)
For the Soul Razor rule is copied, though truncated, direct from the Eldar Codex.

GW uses Wound and Unsaved wound interchangeably.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
GW uses Wound and Unsaved wound interchangeably.

And it seems most participants here agree.

I think they are very clearly different terms. As for Helfrost, maybe read the very first Post of the thread?

BlackTalos, just so that I understand your position better, am I correct in understanding that you say we can never use the trigger for any rule in the book to know when it happens but instead we have to read the rule and interpret what it does to tell us when it happens for sequencing?

 NightHowler wrote:
BlackTalos, just so that I understand your position better, am I correct in understanding that you say we can never use the trigger for any rule in the book to know when it happens but instead we have to read the rule and interpret what it does to tell us when it happens for sequencing?

Slightly different. My position, summarised as aptly as i can is this:

You use the trigger to "have" the Rule, so for the current example:
-As soon as the model fails the save roll (he Rolls a 1), he is under the effect of 5 rules: - FNP + ID + EW + Helfrost + RP.

Although the model now "has" 5 rule effects on it, do they clash?
Yes: EW effect mentions that ID only does -1W
Yes: RP says it much choose RP or FNP (<--- correct me here)

No other clashes. Why? Because no other effects interact with each other.

So you apply them in the order that their effects go by.

 BlackTalos wrote:

1) Suffer an unsaved Wound(Fails the save). FNP, ID > EW, SF, Swarms, Helfrost are triggered here.
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(if W=0)

These are when the Effects happen. Not the trigger. But they still all trigger.