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.

FratHammer wrote:
Your model takes the toughness test no matter what according to the DE FAQ imo, and it happens before the FNP according to its wording and the BRB advanced vs basic rules. I don't see where the other side even feels like they have an argument.

So would you agree in 6th edition that when GW ruled (via FAQ) that Nids could not manually fire weapon emplacements/emplaced weapons, that it should apply to every army?

I'll need the exact wording.

From the 6th edition Tyranid FAQ:

Q: Are Tyranid units inside buildings (i.e. the Bastion) subject to instinctive behaviour tests? Furthermore are they able to manual fire emplaced weapons or weapon emplacements?
A: No to both questions.

This sounds like it applies specifically to Tyrannid units. Especially when referencing instinctive behaviors.

So your question is, does a specific factions FAQ change rules universally? The answer is, it depends on the rule.

So this rule is regarding all of the tyrannid faction. It answers a question about a special rule only found in their codex, then asks if their faction is allowed to fire weapon emplacements.

The example with the DE FAQ is a question of how a universal special rule interacts with an item.

They are very different. And straw man arguments are silly.

Correction. The Dark Eldar FAQ is a question of how a USR interacts with a specific item in a specific codex.

It's still a straw man argument. Which is a logical fallacy making your argument invalid...

It is an item, specific to a codex or not, that interacts with a universal special rule. That is vastly different from your above FAQ. No USR is in your example, only codex specific rules are gone over.

How one piece of gear interacts with a USR is important, and help us understand intent behind a USR that is poorly written. As we could expect all wargear to interact the same with the same USR.

In short, questions regarding the interaction of USRs are not the same as Codex specific questions.

FratHammer wrote:
It's still a straw man argument. Which is a logical fallacy making your argument invalid...

It is an item, specific to a codex or not, that interacts with a universal special rule. That is vastly different from your above FAQ. No USR is in your example, only codex specific rules are gone over.

How one piece of gear interacts with a USR is important, and help us understand intent behind a USR that is poorly written. As we could expect all wargear to interact the same with the same USR.

In short, questions regarding the interaction of USRs are not the same as Codex specific questions.

So, how wargear interacts is important. Since the GW said that the Power Field (invulnerable save bubble) only applies to embarked models, should that not hold true to all AoE wargear?

Place the FAQ here so I can read it.

Again, it's an interaction with a USR that is important. Especially a poorly written one that says it's not a saving throw, bit is a save... But sure lets continue down this rabbit hole.

How about you place all relevant FAQs here for me to read now and I'll point out all your collective straw man arguments.

 Konrax wrote:
My apologies that was my word error.

FNP when an unsaved wound...

Curse if an unsaved wound...

What comes first, if or when?

FNP comes first because it can create a saved wound. and if we have a saved wound we can not trigger unsaved wound effects from it.

Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?

FratHammer wrote:
Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?

what defines it as a basic rule?

But it has to come first because if it doesn't you do not know if the wound was saved or not.

FratHammer wrote:Where is that stated in the rules? It is not a saving throw, it has the same trigger minus the word immediately, and is a basic rules vs an advanced rule...i understand you want it to be taken first, but what are you reading that makes you think that is RAW?

FNP calls itself a save while not being a Saving Throw. It also says that if it is successful, the Wound is Saved. Curse only states that other saves are not allowed, but as everyone on both sides of this discussion have pointed out, it is not a save to be ignored when no saves are allowed.

And, FNP is an Advanced Rule, not a Basic Rule, but I understand what you are addressing, and will address it next.

DeathReaper wrote:what defines it as a basic rule?

But it has to come first because if it doesn't you do not know if the wound was saved or not.

The rule is called Basic vs Advanced and states that Advanced Rules take primacy over Basic rules, and Codex Advanced Rules have primacy over Rulebook Advanced Rules.

Curse is not a Rulebook rule, but comes from a Codex, so it is a Codex Advanced Rule, which means it beats any Rulebook rule if there is a conflict.

However, there is no actual conflict between Curse and Feel No Pain any more than Curse conflicts with the Invulnerable Save, since Feel No Pain is set up to Save the Wounds, no matter when it happens.

Someone here keeps ignoring the fact that FNP triggers on an unsaved wound.

Saying that FNP comes first because we must first now if the wound was saved or not is a nonsense. If you roll FNP then that wound was unsaved.
If as you claim the wound was saved by FNP before becoming an unsaved wound, then FNP wouldn't trigger in the first place generating a paradox.

Exactly, and it's been said like 50 times they just keep ignoring it. Also I never got those FAQs to point out all those straw man arguments... Still waiting.

Again, FNP is not a saving throw, after saving throws are made you have an unsaved wound. Curse has the same trigger, an unsaved wound. If you do not have an unsaved wound you cannot use FNP, nor can Curse activate. But if you have an unsaved wound both curse and FNP can trigger.

Curse, as a rule with the same trigger but with that added word of IMMEDIATELY, obviously happens IMMEDIATELY, if the model survives the toughness test you're more than welcome to make a FNP test. If the model fails, it is removed. Of out was removed from play, it cannot use any of its rules, to include FNP.

Spoletta wrote:
Someone here keeps ignoring the fact that FNP triggers on an unsaved wound.

Saying that FNP comes first because we must first now if the wound was saved or not is a nonsense. If you roll FNP then that wound was unsaved.
If as you claim the wound was saved by FNP before becoming an unsaved wound, then FNP wouldn't trigger in the first place generating a paradox.

And yet, that IS how it is written. You treat the Wound as being Saved. Both FNP and RP literally say that, and it keeps being dismissed.

FratHammer wrote:
Again, FNP is not a saving throw, after saving throws are made you have an unsaved wound.

But FNP can still cause the Wound to be Saved, and you can technically have an Unsaved Wound before Saving Throws (if you really want to get literal).

FratHammer wrote:
Curse has the same trigger, an unsaved wound. If you do not have an unsaved wound you cannot use FNP, nor can Curse activate. But if you have an unsaved wound both curse and FNP can trigger.

And yet, FNP deals with the fact that it Saves the Wound, and removes the Unsaved portion, even to itself, every single time.

Because, let's face it. If you fail the Save, you remove the Wound as immediately as you would roll the Save when you allocate it. And if the player's turn who chooses the order of cause, FNP would only be useful during the owning player's turn if it couldn't convert an Unsaved Wound to a Saved Wound. Since we know that FNP will work even when it isn't in the owning player's turn, FNP MUST be able to reconvert the results of an Unsaved Wound.

FratHammer wrote:
Curse, as a rule with the same trigger but with that added word of IMMEDIATELY, obviously happens IMMEDIATELY, if the model survives the toughness test you're more than welcome to make a FNP test. If the model fails, it is removed. Of out was removed from play, it cannot use any of its rules, to include FNP.

You can still roll FNP. FNP is not nullified by RFP (at least until it fails), and FNP can nullify the affect of the Unsaved Wound triggers.

This is going nowhere, we could as well be looking at different BRBs.

Yeah I'm done. He just keeps preaching the same HIWPI nonsense in a RAW argument. No sense waiting my time taking to a brick wall.

If you find a rule to super your theory I may check back, but your interpretations don't follow what the book says, so there is nothing more I can do than show up to your store and literally read it to you.

Simplest way I can phrase this one last time:
When does an unsaved wound happen?
What causes FNP to happen?
What takes place first, immediately, or not immediately?
Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?

If you ever can answer all of those correctly, you'll come to the correct conclusion. If you continue to answer them with your gut, or feelings, you'll continue to have the wrong answer.

FNP doesn't say it can't be taken against being removed from play.

However FNP does say it can only be used on dismissing unsaved wounds.

And we know that a model that has been removed no longer can use its rules.

FratHammer wrote:Yeah I'm done. He just keeps preaching the same HIWPI nonsense in a RAW argument. No sense waiting my time taking to a brick wall.

Really? I've referenced more rules than you have..

FratHammer wrote:If you find a rule to super your theory I may check back, but your interpretations don't follow what the book says, so there is nothing more I can do than show up to your store and literally read it to you.

Translate to "quote it since I'm too busy to look it up", since I just addressed this.

FratHammer wrote:Simplest way I can phrase this one last time:
When does an unsaved wound happen?

It is first referenced for Instant Death, but otherwise, is never specifically defined. So, lacking a definition, it is when the To-Wound Roll is successful. You haven't countered this as yet. But as with many things, this isn't always important.

FratHammer wrote:What causes FNP to happen?

An Unsaved Wound. Why are you bothering to bring this up when no one has actually argued against it?

FratHammer wrote:What takes place first, immediately, or not immediately?

Have you noticed that no one has actually argued about the timing for quite some time except for you?

FratHammer wrote:Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?

Yes. Can you demonstrate otherwise? I can demonstrate that they can, and in fact DID in the my last post. I will post the quotes for this after your next question.

FratHammer wrote:If you ever can answer all of those correctly, you'll come to the correct conclusion. If you continue to answer them with your gut, or feelings, you'll continue to have the wrong answer.

Howabout this quotefest:

BRB wrote:SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

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

BRB wrote:Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp).
...
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.

So, to reestablish the point from the previous one:
If you fail the Save, you remove the Wound as immediately as you would roll the Save when you allocate it. And if the player's turn who chooses the order of cause, FNP would only be useful during the owning player's turn if it couldn't convert an Unsaved Wound to a Saved Wound. Since we know that FNP will work even when it isn't in the owning player's turn, FNP MUST be able to reconvert the results of an Unsaved Wound.

Konrax wrote:And we know that a model that has been removed no longer can use its rules.

Quote for that please?

BRB wrote:REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.

Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.

Okay, so it's not there, and we know that FNP can counter that, otherwise FNP on a single Wound model would be pointless. But that's all I can find.

the model does not suffer an unsaved wound until after fnp saves have been made.

if a model suffered an unsaved wound prior to fnp, then it would be reduced from 1 to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty, resulting in fnp never being allowed to be rolled for models at 1 wound.

as such until fnp or rp is rolled for black mace cannot trigger a toughness test.

blaktoof wrote:
the model does not suffer an unsaved wound until after fnp saves have been made.

That is 100% against RAW.

Why would you assume taking a wound off has priority over FNP?

Advanced > Basic

Same reason cursed would take priority over FNP

Codex advanced > BRB advanced

There is obviously a conflict as both are triggered by the same thing and both have the potential to cancel the other out

Charistoph, your previous post did not probe you can use a rule I'd removed from the game, nor did it give an example. If so, as I previously stated, they can redeepstrike, they can fire from where the owning player placed them (if they have line of sight) maybe I don't know, if the stompa ain't to far off the table after being removed, I have some fearless models... No, you cannot. Exceptions might be certain warlord traits.

I've quoted page numbers and rules man, so have several other people. Your inferences aren't terrible sometimes, like this argument that you feel you immediately remove the unit as a causality if it fails it's save. Which you showed in your quote. The problem is there is plenty of time for the trigger to happen you're just not accepting it.


BRB wrote:
Take Saves & Remove Casualties
The model gets to make a saving throw, if it has one. If it fails, reduce that model’s Wounds by 1. (and right here we have an unsaved wound. We curse then FnP then carry the @#$% on) If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty. (because w know the FNP may discount this wound)

And so we're clear it is explicit. Immediately is immediately. Not pause and wait for the next sentence after a period. Or FnP wouldn't work. Obviously the period is there so the rule works. Without that period, we would have issues. With it, there are none.

Frat, are you a little drunk right now? This next paragraph is making little sense without some severe translating from literal words to contextual intent.

FratHammer wrote:
Charistoph, your previous post did not probe you can use a rule I'd removed from the game, nor did it give an example. If so, as I previously stated, they can redeepstrike, they can fire from where the owning player placed them (if they have line of sight) maybe I don't know, if the stompa ain't to far off the table after being removed, I have some fearless models... No, you cannot. Exceptions might be certain warlord traits.

Why would I care what rule you removed from the game? If that was the case, then I would have argued about you removing rules...

As for my pre-previous post, I felt the pre-previous post did not need the Quotes since they had all been covered numerous times and so we were familiar with them without look up. A strange concept, I know.

I was simply demonstrating the fact that Feel No Pain can and does Save Wounds that Remove From Play and then cause that Remove From Play to be ignored. True, I did not use the Curse in the example, but then it doesn't really matter since 0 Wounds Removes From Play just as easily as the Curse.

FratHammer wrote:
I've quoted page numbers and rules man, so have several other people. Your inferences aren't terrible sometimes, like this argument that you feel you immediately remove the unit as a causality if it fails it's save. Which you showed in your quote. The problem is there is plenty of time for the trigger to happen you're just not accepting it.

Note, that I only said that the "immediately" was only as "immediate" as rolling a Save against an Allocated Wound which someone kept insisting was a fact, which it isn't, there just isn't a whole lot listed between Allocating a Wound and Rolling a Save unless you believe in the literal definition of Unsaved Wound (which neither of us believe).

FratHammer wrote:
(and right here we have an unsaved wound. We curse then FnP then carry the @#$% on)

Prove it. True, the phrase "unsaved Wounds" is never referenced until after making a Saving Roll, but it is never actually used in context when dealing actually SAVING the Wound. It is only ever used as a trigger for a Special Rule. In fact, "unsaved Wounds" is never used in your quoted section aside from your added parentheticals.

FratHammer wrote:
And so we're clear it is explicit. Immediately is immediately. Not pause and wait for the next sentence after a period. Or FnP wouldn't work. Obviously the period is there so the rule works. Without that period, we would have issues. With it, there are none.

So, it is explicit that FNP can cause a Wound that would cause a model to be removed from play to no longer cause the model to Remove From Play, and to effectively turn back the time.

So, from a practical standpoint, having the receiving player make their FNP/RP roll before the Toughness Test of Curse is as practical as having them roll any Invulnerable or Armour (if possible) Saves before the Curse, as either one will cause a Wound to be classed as Saved, and not Unsaved.

I apologize, I was making dinner for some girls my daughter has having a sleepover. Didn't proof read swipe.



FratHammer wrote:
Can a unit/model, removed from the game use its rules?

Christoph wrote: Yes. Can you demonstrate otherwise? I can demonstrate that they can, and in fact DID in the my last post. I will post the quotes for this after your next question.

No. A removed model cannot use its abilities one it's removed. If so, then as I said, I can shoot you with removed models, give fearless with a removed stompa. It's not possible. Once a model is removed, it doesn't come back unless its St Celestine, or a few others that are specifically mentioned.

Why do you think a removed model gets to use its special rules, or that discounting the wound, which you can't do because you've been removed, meant you didn't suffer an unsaved wound? Especially after reading the only close example of this interaction with the DE FAQ.

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive by this point.

As always, discuss with your opponent if in doubt.

Moving on.