Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I have said it before, and will sat it again.

"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.

Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.

I agree with everywthing, excepto that "treat as saved" is not equal to save, but it is treated as save for rule purposing.

But again, simultaneous ruling is the most objective way to deal with it.

The same FAQs of one special rule can't be always applied to another special rule. Though being no good ruling, I'g go with the rule that applies to the closest scenario.

In my eyes this is actually pretty clear. There are two rules in the FnP ruling. Since they are both written they must both be taken into account.

1. FnP is not a save.
2. On a successful FnP roll, the wound in question counts as saved.

So a DP with the black mace swings it at a 1-wound 4++/FnP dude and does 1 wound. Dude takes his save but misses it. At this point the dude ought to suffer an unsaved wound. Dude hasn't suffered the wound yet though otherwise he would be dead (ergo removed from the table atm). Then FnP kicks in. The same FnP that is not a save. Dude makes his 5+ FnP roll. Ergo the wound in question "counts as being saved". The obvious result from this chain of events is that the dude does not die FROM THE WOUND.

Then the black mace effect wants to kick in but there is a catch. Said wound counts as saved. Now it is obvious that a saved wound cannot also be an unsaved wound at the same time. Ergo the black mace does not work as it can't find an unsaved wound to apply itself.

I understand that a FnP is not a save. However, this does not mean that "saved wounds" can only occur from saves. As FnP clearly shows, it is not a save that can make wounds count as saved. So regardless of whether or not FnP is a save or not, a successful FnP roll makes the wound in question equal to a "saved wound". And since a saved wound cannot be an unsaved wound, the black mace is shutted down.

Wallur wrote:
"Feel No Pain... When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved wound it can make special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded "

"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test."

I keep reading it, and can't think of other way to resolve that than the way I already said.
Those are 2 rules that triggers at the same time.
Apply Rulling for simultaneous rules.

The difference is the word immediately, meaning it needs to be taken first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
In my eyes this is actually pretty clear. There are two rules in the FnP ruling. Since they are both written they must both be taken into account.

1. FnP is not a save.
2. On a successful FnP roll, the wound in question counts as saved.

So a DP with the black mace swings it at a 1-wound 4++/FnP dude and does 1 wound. Dude takes his save but misses it. At this point the dude ought to suffer an unsaved wound. Dude hasn't suffered the wound yet though otherwise he would be dead (ergo removed from the table atm). Then FnP kicks in. The same FnP that is not a save. Dude makes his 5+ FnP roll. Ergo the wound in question "counts as being saved". The obvious result from this chain of events is that the dude does not die FROM THE WOUND.

Then the black mace effect wants to kick in but there is a catch. Said wound counts as saved. Now it is obvious that a saved wound cannot also be an unsaved wound at the same time. Ergo the black mace does not work as it can't find an unsaved wound to apply itself.

I understand that a FnP is not a save. However, this does not mean that "saved wounds" can only occur from saves. As FnP clearly shows, it is not a save that can make wounds count as saved. So regardless of whether or not FnP is a save or not, a successful FnP roll makes the wound in question equal to a "saved wound". And since a saved wound cannot be an unsaved wound, the black mace is shutted down.

Codex rules go first, and on top of that the black mace says it needs to be immediately taken, and feel no pain says it is not a save. So initial unsaved wound satisfied the black mace requirement of an unsaved wound, then must immediately test, then if failed any other rule to discount the wound caused can come in effect.

Immediately yes, but at the event of an unsaved wound happening. Until an unsaved wound happens, the Black mace effect cannot trigger. And an unsaved wound does not happen until the FnP roll is also made. This is unless the exact wording of FnP specifically states that you take a FnP when a model suffers an unsaved wound. Can someone paste the exact wording of FnP? That would be great.

Also there is no such thing as "Codex rules go first". Codex rules supersede the Core rules in a case of direct meaning conflict. This is not the case of meaning conflict and it is not a case of sequence. The model either suffers an unsaved wound before the FnP can be attempted or it doesn't until after the FnP is tested for. So the Black mace either proccs or doesn't procc. If someone is kind enough to post the exact ruling for FnP it would help greatly.

In short, the question here is : Can there exist an "unsaved wound" before the FnP roll? If yes, then the black mace works regardless of the result of the FnP roll. If not, then it has to wait.

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered.
- Feel No Pain

Feel free to flip a table over how poorly written this Rule is... or join me in my head banging spot, the walls are padded for a reason!

Personally, I have never accepted the fundamental argument that the Rules must be applied 'in a liner format,' should a Rule state it has the power to 'undo a previous action' then it would be more then able to go back and change events from that point in the timeline. I won't state this is what Feel No Pain does, because it is poorly written we can not be sure what it actually wants us to do, but 'treat it as having been saved' is past tense. The reason complicated games avoid such timeline manipulating Rules is due to the amount of 'book keeping' that would be required to ensure you reverted everything back to the correct place in the time-line. It is far easier to avoid the situation entirely by cleaver Rule writing, such as requiring any Rule that could cause a branching timeline to be resolved before all others... pity Game Workshop is not cleaver.

Or maybe I am over-looking something and someone can quote a line from the book that out-right states a Rule can not be retroactively applied?

No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Immediately yes, but at the event of an unsaved wound happening. Until an unsaved wound happens, the Black mace effect cannot trigger. And an unsaved wound does not happen until the FnP roll is also made. This is unless the exact wording of FnP specifically states that you take a FnP when a model suffers an unsaved wound. Can someone paste the exact wording of FnP? That would be great.

Also there is no such thing as "Codex rules go first". Codex rules supersede the Core rules in a case of direct meaning conflict. This is not the case of meaning conflict and it is not a case of sequence. The model either suffers an unsaved wound before the FnP can be attempted or it doesn't until after the FnP is tested for. So the Black mace either proccs or doesn't procc. If someone is kind enough to post the exact ruling for FnP it would help greatly.

In short, the question here is : Can there exist an "unsaved wound" before the FnP roll? If yes, then the black mace works regardless of the result of the FnP roll. If not, then it has to wait.

All the exact rules are quoted in the first post with page reference.

megatrons2nd wrote:"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.

Where does it say that?

megatrons2nd wrote:Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.

Actually, that IS how the rules are written. It happens all the time, and there is even a general principle that addresses it. Most of the rules of 40K are abstract and use a lot of synonyms to get their point across, which actually leads to much of these rule confusions. But there is another point that no one has addressed yet, and I will ask it next.

topaxygouroun i wrote:No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.

What is the definition of "unsaved wound"? It is actually used quite often, but I cannot find it in the rulebook. The first incident that I can find is Instant Death. It is referenced many times, but never actually provided an actual definition.

Without a rulebook definition, we have to look at it from the standard English, which means "Not Saved Wound". Any Wound being Allocated is currently Not Saved, otherwise, why would it be Allocated? So, from this stand point, the Black Mace would be applied before any Armour Save, Invulnerable Save, or Cover Save would be made, not just Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols. After all, if we can prevent an Advanced Rule from Saving a Wound, why not the Basic? What about rerollable Saves? It failed once, does the Black Mace get to disallow the reroll?

Personally, I find this a repellent concept, and I would apply a definition of "Unsaved Wound" as "having failed any allowed attempt to Save it". In this case, yes, FNP and RP would get a chance to Save the Wound, but at least allow it to be consistent across the board instead of allowing Instant Death to destroy Characters before they can roll a Save.

Charistoph wrote:

megatrons2nd wrote:"Treat as Saved" does not equal "Saved" It is an effect of special rule that is similar.

Where does it say that?

megatrons2nd wrote:Trying to give one special rule precedence over another that uses the same "trigger" is not how the rules are written. There is a rule for using two rules that activate on the same event. This rule has already been posted in this thread, at least twice. FnP/RP are NOT Saves, thy are SPECIAL RULES, and are treated accordingly, the end effect doesn't matter until you get to that point. The game is written LINEARLY, so once an event happens, it has happened and no amount of wishing will change that, the paradox is in your mind.

Actually, that IS how the rules are written. It happens all the time, and there is even a general principle that addresses it. Most of the rules of 40K are abstract and use a lot of synonyms to get their point across, which actually leads to much of these rule confusions. But there is another point that no one has addressed yet, and I will ask it next.

topaxygouroun i wrote:No this actually makes everything clear. Since the "unsaved wound" is suffered before the FnP roll according to the rules, then we have a Black mace effect proc before the FnP roll, and therefore regardless of the roll of the FnP, the Black mace effect happens.

What is the definition of "unsaved wound"? It is actually used quite often, but I cannot find it in the rulebook. The first incident that I can find is Instant Death. It is referenced many times, but never actually provided an actual definition.

Without a rulebook definition, we have to look at it from the standard English, which means "Not Saved Wound". Any Wound being Allocated is currently Not Saved, otherwise, why would it be Allocated? So, from this stand point, the Black Mace would be applied before any Armour Save, Invulnerable Save, or Cover Save would be made, not just Feel No Pain or Reanimation Protocols. After all, if we can prevent an Advanced Rule from Saving a Wound, why not the Basic? What about rerollable Saves? It failed once, does the Black Mace get to disallow the reroll?

Personally, I find this a repellent concept, and I would apply a definition of "Unsaved Wound" as "having failed any allowed attempt to Save it". In this case, yes, FNP and RP would get a chance to Save the Wound, but at least allow it to be consistent across the board instead of allowing Instant Death to destroy Characters before they can roll a Save.

Wounds and saves are both defined quite clearly in the rule book.

FNP saying it is not a save, but an ability trigger after a failed save makes it clear as to how its effects are applied.

Last the trigger words for both abilities are the same " unsaved wound" however the black mace has the clause of immediately after in addition to the wording which would directly dictate that it needs to be rolled first before any other ability triggered off the same event can occur.

I've been very open with discussing how these abilities trigger and their effects and I have put points both for and against. After looking at all the rules I take the stance for the reasons I listed before.

If you can put forward a compelling argument other than "it counts as a save" which the rule itself specifically states it is not, then I would be happy to accept it for what it is.

This has been both nuisanced and hammered to death now.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This has been both nuisanced and hammered to death now.

I'm pretty sure the horse is quite dead.

But moving forward how would you play it?

 Konrax wrote:
Wounds and saves are both defined quite clearly in the rule book.

Your point? Just because two things are defined doesn't mean a third is. What is the definition of an Unsaved Wound?

 Konrax wrote:
FNP saying it is not a save, but an ability trigger after a failed save makes it clear as to how its effects are applied.

Never said it was a save, why do people keep harping on that? It is a rule that allows a Wound to be Saved just as if a Save was successful. That seems to be a part that is missed, glossed or trampled over.

 Konrax wrote:
Last the trigger words for both abilities are the same "unsaved wound" however the black mace has the clause of immediately after in addition to the wording which would directly dictate that it needs to be rolled first before any other ability triggered off the same event can occur.

To which I point out that a Rule that CAN cause the Wound to be Saved can cause that trigger to disappear just as easily as Ordnance affects Shooting.

 Konrax wrote:
If you can put forward a compelling argument other than "it counts as a save" which the rule itself specifically states it is not, then I would be happy to accept it for what it is.

Maybe you are correct, since it would be pointless arguing with someone who does not even listen to other arguments.

If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?

 jokerkd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Its an intrinsic part of FNP.

if you dont roll FNP first then FNP does nothing. because if you allow all effects of an unsaved wound even on a successful FNP roll, you have to reduce the wound characteristic and immediately remove the 1 wound model as a casualty. Which is clearly not the case.

So in other words, there is no rule giving priority to FnP.

Actually, FNP does that for us. since you do not know if you have an unsaved wound or not until FNP is rolled.

Yes, you do. If you didn't have an unsaved wound, you wouldn't be rolling FNP

I see two ways of resolving this issue.

1. As the two rules are (imo) quite clearly triggered at the same time, the brb ruling that player turn decides which to resolve first takes effect.

2. IF you consider the two rules to be in conflict with each other, which i believe the "you don't know if you have an unsaved wound" argument would cause, then the brb ruling that codex special rules override brb advanced rules takes effect. meaning that Cursed takes precedence.

HIWPI no. 1 is the most objectively fair way to play it

Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...

Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?

 Konrax wrote:
If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?

Answer the question defining "Unsaved Wound" first.

What qualifies a Wound to be Unsaved?

Per English rules, Unsaved simply means "not Saved". There is no sense of time regarding this nor any reason as to why the " not" is in play. Uneaten food is simply not eaten. It could be because people have chosen nor to eat, it is not time to eat, or that they were unable to eat it.

Under this discussion is the presumption that "Unsaved Wound" translates to "a Wound that was allocated and had no Save available or the Save has failed.". It is to this I am questioning why you think this and where this is defined?

If a Wound cannot have a Save rolled for it, but has access to a Rule that can still Save it, is it truly Unsaved?

Charistoph wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
If both rules have the same trigger, and both rules can nullify each other out, then the one rule that specifically says "immediately after" should take precedence, would you agree?

Answer the question defining "Unsaved Wound" first.

What qualifies a Wound to be Unsaved?

Per English rules, Unsaved simply means "not Saved". There is no sense of time regarding this nor any reason as to why the " not" is in play. Uneaten food is simply not eaten. It could be because people have chosen nor to eat, it is not time to eat, or that they were unable to eat it.

Under this discussion is the presumption that "Unsaved Wound" translates to "a Wound that was allocated and had no Save available or the Save has failed.". It is to this I am questioning why you think this and where this is defined?

If a Wound cannot have a Save rolled for it, but has access to a Rule that can still Save it, is it truly Unsaved?

I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.

They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.

It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.

This isn't an exercise in the english language here.

The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.

If FNP also said immediately after as well, then the player whose turn it is decides the order in which they are taken.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...

Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?

Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?

Konrax wrote:I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.

Than you are missing the points of the question as it is being applied in this situation, since you seem to be misappropriating them.
1) The Wound generated by a Black Mace does not actually have the native capacity to nullify an attempt to Save the Wound unless it fulfills another qualification, such as AP or being Instant Death for the model.
2) Reanimation Protocol, and a sufficiently Tough model with Feel No Pain, can Save that Wound and then nullify the Toughness Test.
3) The Curse could be read as only nullifying the noun saves for the Toughness Test, but not the verb saves, and FNP and RP only operate as a verb save. Remember, the Wound itself is NOT Remove From Play, just the Toughness Test is.

Konrax wrote:They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.

Again, what counts as an Unsaved Wound? If FNP/RP cannot have a chance to Save a Wound it normally would be able to Save, than is it a truly an Unsaved Wound?

Konrax wrote:It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.

This isn't an exercise in the english language here.

The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.

All rule discussions are exercises in semantics, and so, exercising the English language.

Saves as a Noun are defined, yes. Saved as a Verb, not so much. In addition, you seem to completely ignore as to what is "not Saved". As soon as a Wound is allocated to a model, it has yet to be Saved, and so Not Saved. Never mind that nothing has had a chance to Save it, yet. If it can apply before something that can Save a Wound, then why not before anything can Save the Wound? So, going by that interpretation, the Curse hits as soon as the Wound is Allocated.

In order to not utilize this interpretation, you must present adequate evidence that an "Unsaved Wound" means that the model has been allocated a Wound it has no Save against, or that its Save has failed. Or failing that, concede that if a rule can Save the Wound, it must needs be applied before truly declaring a Wound as "Unsaved".

Your chance to prove it.

megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...

Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?

Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?

And yet, if the Wound is Saved, it is no longer Unsaved, so leaving the Toughness Test of the Curse out the window without an Unsaved Wound to Test from. Or should I bring up Ordnance again?

Much like Ordnance Weapons being fired first to guarantee you aren't attempting to cheat your opponent, so, too, should any attempt to Save a Wound fail before applying any other "Unsaved Wound" qualification.

Or, should I just start shooting Ordnance Weapons last so the rest of the guns are not limited by it?

"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."

Assuming, for the moment, that you take the toughness test before taking FNP... what happens when you pass the toughness test and then pass FNP? Do you then have to take ANOTHER toughness test at the end of the phase since the wound was treated as 'saved' but you still 'suffered' it? If the answer is yes, and you fail that toughness test, then I assume you get another FNP roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What does it mean to 'suffer an unsaved wound' anyway? Even if you pass FNP and treat it as saved... you still suffered an unsaved wound otherwise FNP wouldn't proc. It just gets too weird if you read too deeply into this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose a better example is...

Guy with Black Mace is in a challenge. He inflicts 3 wounds and allocates the first wound to the model in the challenge. The model fails it's save and then fails it's toughness test and dies.

Then the remaining wounds get allocated to other models in the combat... the first being a model with FNP. He passes the toughness test AND passes his FNP 'saves'.

This means that model will have to take ANOTHER toughness test despite having 'suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace' because it was paradoxed into being saved by FNP.

And this situation is why I think things like FNP should be taken before any other 'suffers an unsaved wound' trigger happens.

Charistoph wrote:

Konrax wrote:I agree, but if another rule that says it must be immediately tested for and can nullify the rule then it must be taken in priority.

Than you are missing the points of the question as it is being applied in this situation, since you seem to be misappropriating them.
1) The Wound generated by a Black Mace does not actually have the native capacity to nullify an attempt to Save the Wound unless it fulfills another qualification, such as AP or being Instant Death for the model.
2) Reanimation Protocol, and a sufficiently Tough model with Feel No Pain, can Save that Wound and then nullify the Toughness Test.
3) The Curse could be read as only nullifying the noun saves for the Toughness Test, but not the verb saves, and FNP and RP only operate as a verb save. Remember, the Wound itself is NOT Remove From Play, just the Toughness Test is.

Konrax wrote:They both have the exact same wording as to what triggers each rule, one however says it must be immediately taken after. Failing the test and being removed from play disallows the FNP rule from ever triggering.

Again, what counts as an Unsaved Wound? If FNP/RP cannot have a chance to Save a Wound it normally would be able to Save, than is it a truly an Unsaved Wound?

Konrax wrote:It is rather simple if you compare the two rules next to each other and it is clear.

This isn't an exercise in the english language here.

The definition of an unsaved wound isn't in the book because saves are clearly defined as either an armour, invulnerable, or cover save which is chosen by the defending player. Saves are only made when there has been a wound caused, which is also clearly stated in the rule book. If any of those saves are failed, then both the black mace and FNP are triggered. The difference being the black mace specifically says immediately after, so by the way a save is defined, you must test immediately after.

All rule discussions are exercises in semantics, and so, exercising the English language.

Saves as a Noun are defined, yes. Saved as a Verb, not so much. In addition, you seem to completely ignore as to what is "not Saved". As soon as a Wound is allocated to a model, it has yet to be Saved, and so Not Saved. Never mind that nothing has had a chance to Save it, yet. If it can apply before something that can Save a Wound, then why not before anything can Save the Wound? So, going by that interpretation, the Curse hits as soon as the Wound is Allocated.

In order to not utilize this interpretation, you must present adequate evidence that an "Unsaved Wound" means that the model has been allocated a Wound it has no Save against, or that its Save has failed. Or failing that, concede that if a rule can Save the Wound, it must needs be applied before truly declaring a Wound as "Unsaved".

Your chance to prove it.

megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...

Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?

Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?

And yet, if the Wound is Saved, it is no longer Unsaved, so leaving the Toughness Test of the Curse out the window without an Unsaved Wound to Test from. Or should I bring up Ordnance again?

Much like Ordnance Weapons being fired first to guarantee you aren't attempting to cheat your opponent, so, too, should any attempt to Save a Wound fail before applying any other "Unsaved Wound" qualification.

Or, should I just start shooting Ordnance Weapons last so the rest of the guns are not limited by it?

Saves are clearly defined in the rule book and what counts as a save against wounds suffered.

FNP and RP both say they are not saves.

Both the above rules and Curse are triggered by the same event.

FNP and RP both make the case as to the wound counting as being saved if it was passed, while the rule itself does not count as a save. (Which would mean that the requirement of an unsaved wound has been satisfied and triggers both abilities.)

Curse has the clause that it must be immediately taken after a failed save. The FNP roll just happens after a failed save.

It is impossible to count FNP as a save, and therefore take it simultaneously because you are only ever allowed one save as defined by saves in the rule book.

Thereby FNP can not retroactively be used to nullify an ability before it that is successful and would nullify the effects of FNP as in being removed from play. (In which case there are no wounds to be saved)

However a passed toughness test would still allow for the initial wound caused to be discounted through the FNP and RP rule.

As far as the ordinance shooting is concerned I would never do that as I only play friendly games, but the ability on the most powerful weapon in the Chaos codex having its possibility for success cut in half via a similar manifestation of rules interpretation is equally unfair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:

"Cursed... If a model suffers an unsaved wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a toughness test. If the test is failed, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of the phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved Wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models within 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace this phase, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed."

Assuming, for the moment, that you take the toughness test before taking FNP... what happens when you pass the toughness test and then pass FNP? Do you then have to take ANOTHER toughness test at the end of the phase since the wound was treated as 'saved' but you still 'suffered' it? If the answer is yes, and you fail that toughness test, then I assume you get another FNP roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What does it mean to 'suffer an unsaved wound' anyway? Even if you pass FNP and treat it as saved... you still suffered an unsaved wound otherwise FNP wouldn't proc. It just gets too weird if you read too deeply into this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose a better example is...

Guy with Black Mace is in a challenge. He inflicts 3 wounds and allocates the first wound to the model in the challenge. The model fails it's save and then fails it's toughness test and dies.

Then the remaining wounds get allocated to other models in the combat... the first being a model with FNP. He passes the toughness test AND passes his FNP 'saves'.

This means that model will have to take ANOTHER toughness test despite having 'suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace' because it was paradoxed into being saved by FNP.

And this situation is why I think things like FNP should be taken before any other 'suffers an unsaved wound' trigger happens.

Target suffers wound, fails armour/invuln save. Target takes toughness test.

If failed remove from play, if passed roll FNP, if passed model does not lose a wound, if failed model loses a wound.

If there are any unsaved wounds at the end of combat (after all FNP have been taken) then all enemies within 3 take a toughness test who were no already wounded by the mace.

If they fail that the model suffers a wound (not removed from play! Which is equal to a wound from perils) with out any kind of save allowed.

Roll FNP on all additional wounds caused by the triggered ability since FNP isn't a save and can be used to save wounds that allow no saves of any kind.

Zimko,
One of my favourite rants about Game Workshop has been their use of the same piece of terminology for multiple things!

One such example is 'suffers a Wound,' which has been used in lines like "the armour fails to protect its wearer and it suffers a Wound" and "Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound." Those are just two examples where a model suffers a Wound before the Saving Throw process occurs but also after the Save Throw process occurs, but more exist within the Rulebook. Simply do a control-f search through a digital Rulebook or Codex for 'suffers a Wound' you can easily find other examples where Game Workshop goes back and forth on when the Model actually 'Suffers a Wound.'

Don't get me started on Wound and Wounds, I have made that rant twice this week alone....

 Konrax wrote:

As far as the ordinance shooting is concerned I would never do that as I only play friendly games, but the ability on the most powerful weapon in the Chaos codex having its possibility for success cut in half via a similar manifestation of rules interpretation is equally unfair.

So basicly just do whatever we think is fair. mmk.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that FNP Treats the wound as having been saved...

Why are you applying effects that trigger on an unsaved wound if you are treating the wound as having been saved?

Yes "Treats" Present tense word....This means from here on out it is saved, not go back in time and make it a saved wound. For the go back in time the rule would need to say "Treated as saved" or something similar, the present tense word at the beginning of the sentence sets the timing. It would sound awful weird saying "Treats the wound as save" now don't you think?

It actually does go back in time and make it a saved wound. As per the FNP rules.

The wording of FNP makes it clear that the save was never failed. you have to treat the wound as having been saved.

"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." (Feel No Pain rules).

So if you "treat it as having been saved." you can not trigger anything off of that wound as the wound is now saved just as if you had successfully made your Cover/Armor/Invuln save against this wound.

 Konrax wrote:
Saves are clearly defined in the rule book and what counts as a save against wounds suffered.

FNP and RP both say they are not saves.

And this demonstrates that you are not paying attention.

This is not a question about "Saves" as a noun (object, person, place, thing, or idea), but about the VERB (action, state, or occurrence).

If a Save is passed, the Wound is Saved. If FNP or RP pass, the Wound is Saved (or at least, treated as such).

Are you understanding this concept, yet?

 Konrax wrote:
Both the above rules and Curse are triggered by the same event.

FNP and RP both make the case as to the wound counting as being saved if it was passed, while the rule itself does not count as a save. (Which would mean that the requirement of an unsaved wound has been satisfied and triggers both abilities.)

How can something be both Saved and Unsaved at the same time? It either is, or is not. If it is Saved, then there can be no Test. If it is not, there will be a Test.

 Konrax wrote:
Curse has the clause that it must be immediately taken after a failed save. The FNP roll just happens after a failed save.

No, it does not. It states for an Unsaved Wound. You have yet to produce the concept that Unsaved Wound only means a Failed Save.

 Konrax wrote:
It is impossible to count FNP as a save, and therefore take it simultaneously because you are only ever allowed one save as defined by saves in the rule book.

Your are arguing against a case unpresented, and so I wonder if you are actually paying attention, or just cannot grasp the paradigms I am presenting. FNP/RP are not Saves, but they do Save Wounds. You are treating them as if they cannot.

 Konrax wrote:
Thereby FNP can not retroactively be used to nullify an ability before it that is successful and would nullify the effects of FNP as in being removed from play. (In which case there are no wounds to be saved)

And still ignoring the actual argument. The Black Mace does not state anywhere that it ignores FNP. So, FNP would still be allowed, either way. If it passed, the Wound the Toughness Test is no longer Unsaved, but Saved. Either this is a paradox, or you are doing it wrong.

 Konrax wrote:
However a passed toughness test would still allow for the initial wound caused to be discounted through the FNP and RP rule.

And possibly trigger another Toughness Test if it fails due to being Unsaved? No thank you for that logic.

The problem here is you are combining a Verb and a Noun as being the same thing, without posting the rules that state as such.

Still no valid reason to take FNP before the toughness test.

Caristoph, the definition of unsaved wound is irrelevant given that the definition can be assumed to be the same in both rules.

I also think the "immediately" is not really relevant as the fnp is obviously done immediately after the unsaved wound is suffered

 jokerkd wrote:
Caristoph, the definition of unsaved wound is irrelevant given that the definition can be assumed to be the same in both rules.

Obviously I disagree. But does that mean I can roll my RP before my Cover Saves, then?

See how it becomes relevant?

I already said I'd let the Necrons roll their RP .

Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days...

Konrax, I still RAW 100% age with your argument. And "Technically correct is the best kind of correct." -Bureaucrat Grade 1.

Charistoph wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Caristoph, the definition of unsaved wound is irrelevant given that the definition can be assumed to be the same in both rules.

Obviously I disagree. But does that mean I can roll my RP before my Cover Saves, then?

See how it becomes relevant?

No because RP requires a save to be failed first before the wound that caused it can be checked through RP.

Although statistically it would make no difference if you rolled RP first and then cover saves off failed RPs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistof the volume of personal attacks you are using to support your argument shows how little substance you have with them.

Various rule book quotes later and your only valid argument is that FNP causes a failed wound to be considered as saved. The only grounds that has is that it speaks in the past tense, which you could assume the save would be counted retroactively.

However with that being said just because it can travel back in time to change the events of the past, sadly the time machine used to save the wound was destroyed by the demonic energies of the black mace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FratHammer wrote:
Christoph, you made a real cluster of all the things already covered and you want Konrax to respond... Did you read all the posts leading up to this, because I feel like you didn't. If you did, did you not notice all the rules quotes he used? I'm really confused why you cherry picked his quotes then refuted them with no evidence and claimed HE needed to site rules... He's been doing so for the last couple days...

Konrax, I still RAW 100% age with your argument. And "Technically correct is the best kind of correct." -Bureaucrat Grade 1.

Thanks for making those points, it is important that we try to get the rules right in both RAI and RAW.

For example my necrons friend rolls the result of his CTans shooting attack first and then gets to pick the target because... Well it only makes sense that a star god would have enough intelligence to use an attack that could at least damage the target it picked.

Yeah... Wish Orcs did. We just point our smasha guns and zap guns at everything. I hate it. Hence why one is never fielded by anyone... Ever.