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.

so necron players get xxxxed again. Thanks GW.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

so necron players get xxxxed again. Thanks GW.

Praetorians couldnt even trigger the stratagem because they arent a sautekh unit.

Yes I know that now I was conflating one strategem with another. There is a praetorian strategy.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How do you have an unsaved wound if you are ignoring it and it has no effect?

Because a failed save roll is an unsaved wound. It doesnt matter what happens afterwards. If the damage is ignored afterwards, and has no effect, doesnt change the fact that an unsaved wound has happened.

The WOUND is ignored, not just the damage... it is as if the save was never failed because you have to ignore the wound...

But that's clearly not correct. If a weapon does 3 damage, you roll 3 FNP and pass 1 FNP, it doesn't mean that suddenly "it is as if the save was never failed" - you still suffer 2 damage. Otherwise if what you are suggesting were the case you would suffer 0 damage.

You have to roll a successful FNP for all to ignore the wound. if so you cant trigger anything that gets triggered from an unsaved wound Because you have to ignore it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How do you have an unsaved wound if you are ignoring it and it has no effect?

Because a failed save roll is an unsaved wound. It doesnt matter what happens afterwards. If the damage is ignored afterwards, and has no effect, doesnt change the fact that an unsaved wound has happened.

The WOUND is ignored, not just the damage... it is as if the save was never failed because you have to ignore the wound...

But that's clearly not correct. If a weapon does 3 damage, you roll 3 FNP and pass 1 FNP, it doesn't mean that suddenly "it is as if the save was never failed" - you still suffer 2 damage. Otherwise if what you are suggesting were the case you would suffer 0 damage.

You have to roll a successful FNP for all to ignore the wound. if so you cant trigger anything that gets triggered from an unsaved wound Because you have to ignore it.

Where's the rule that says that? I suspect you are either misunderstanding or inventing rules. FNP type rolls don't change weather or not the wound was saved, just how much damage a model takes from an unsaved wound.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How do you have an unsaved wound if you are ignoring it and it has no effect?

Because a failed save roll is an unsaved wound. It doesnt matter what happens afterwards. If the damage is ignored afterwards, and has no effect, doesnt change the fact that an unsaved wound has happened.

The WOUND is ignored, not just the damage... it is as if the save was never failed because you have to ignore the wound...

But that's clearly not correct. If a weapon does 3 damage, you roll 3 FNP and pass 1 FNP, it doesn't mean that suddenly "it is as if the save was never failed" - you still suffer 2 damage. Otherwise if what you are suggesting were the case you would suffer 0 damage.

You have to roll a successful FNP for all to ignore the wound. if so you cant trigger anything that gets triggered from an unsaved wound Because you have to ignore it.

Where's the rule that says that? I suspect you are either misunderstanding or inventing rules. FNP type rolls don't change weather or not the wound was saved, just how much damage a model takes from an unsaved wound.

Failing a save does not equal suffering an unsaved wound.
This is why they changed the stratagem in questions wording to require damage to happen and make this more clear.
A FNP causes the model to “ignore the wound with no effect”.
If a model gets shot, fails it’s save and passes the FNP all that has happened is it has been hit and failed a save.
It has not suffered a wound at all, saved or unsaved.

Basic English, if you are ignoring the wound how can you acknowledge the unsaved wound?

Gendif wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How do you have an unsaved wound if you are ignoring it and it has no effect?

Because a failed save roll is an unsaved wound. It doesnt matter what happens afterwards. If the damage is ignored afterwards, and has no effect, doesnt change the fact that an unsaved wound has happened.

The WOUND is ignored, not just the damage... it is as if the save was never failed because you have to ignore the wound...

But that's clearly not correct. If a weapon does 3 damage, you roll 3 FNP and pass 1 FNP, it doesn't mean that suddenly "it is as if the save was never failed" - you still suffer 2 damage. Otherwise if what you are suggesting were the case you would suffer 0 damage.

You have to roll a successful FNP for all to ignore the wound. if so you cant trigger anything that gets triggered from an unsaved wound Because you have to ignore it.

Where's the rule that says that? I suspect you are either misunderstanding or inventing rules. FNP type rolls don't change weather or not the wound was saved, just how much damage a model takes from an unsaved wound.

Failing a save does not equal suffering an unsaved wound.
This is why they changed the stratagem in questions wording to require damage to happen and make this more clear.
A FNP causes the model to “ignore the wound with no effect”.
If a model gets shot, fails it’s save and passes the FNP all that has happened is it has been hit and failed a save.
It has not suffered a wound at all, saved or unsaved.

The stratagem has been made clearer and removes potential ambiguity, but there are still other abilities that trigger when "a model suffers an unsaved wound" etc.

Battle Primer, page 7 under 4. Saving Throw wrote:The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save characteristic of the model the wound was allocated to, then the damage is prevented and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

Battle Primer, page 7 under 5. Inflict Damage wrote: The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used in the attack. A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers. If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.

Section 4. Saving Throw is when the wound is determined if it has been saved or not. Section 5. Inflict Damage when a number of wounds, up to the damage profile of the weapon, is applied to the model. This is where the FNP applies. Note the two uses of wounds in the rules. The first is the "wound" from the to wound roll applied to the save roll. The second is the "wound" from the damage after a failed save. Depending on your FNP rule (and not all are written the same), this is what is being negated, not the first one. As of such the "wound" from section 4 is still suffered, even if the "wound" in section 5 is negated.

I will even point out that (AFAIK) GW never had FNP triggering on an "unsaved wound" rather preferring "each time a model with this ability loses a wound" to make it clear they aren't talking about negating the "unsaved wound", but rather the "wound" from each point of damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Spoiler:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

How do you have an unsaved wound if you are ignoring it and it has no effect?

Because a failed save roll is an unsaved wound. It doesnt matter what happens afterwards. If the damage is ignored afterwards, and has no effect, doesnt change the fact that an unsaved wound has happened.

The WOUND is ignored, not just the damage... it is as if the save was never failed because you have to ignore the wound...

But that's clearly not correct. If a weapon does 3 damage, you roll 3 FNP and pass 1 FNP, it doesn't mean that suddenly "it is as if the save was never failed" - you still suffer 2 damage. Otherwise if what you are suggesting were the case you would suffer 0 damage.

You have to roll a successful FNP for all to ignore the wound. if so you cant trigger anything that gets triggered from an unsaved wound Because you have to ignore it.

Where's the rule that says that? I suspect you are either misunderstanding or inventing rules. FNP type rolls don't change weather or not the wound was saved, just how much damage a model takes from an unsaved wound.

Basic English, if you are ignoring the wound how can you acknowledge the unsaved wound?

What FNP rule are you using? The one's I could find don't say to ignore the wound.

Codex: Chaos Daemons wrote:
Disgustingly Resilient
Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.

Codex: Space Wolves wrote:
Wulfen: Death Frenzy
Roll a D6 each time a model in this unit loses a wound; on a roll of 5+ that wound is not lost.

Codex: Dark Eldar wrote:
Inured to Suffering: Roll a D6 each time a model with this bonus loses a wound. On a 6+ the model does not lose that wound.

I'm sure there are others, but you get the idea. Also, see my response to Gendif for the two uses of wound in the rules.

As I mentioned previously my stance was based on the Blood Angels FNP which was the reference I had to hand .

Naturally it has different wording than the examples you found.

“ ...roll a D6 each time this unit loses a wound. On a 6 the wound is ignored and has no effect.”

So I would argue that the BA FNP negates the wound to the point of not counting as an unsaved wound whereas the Daemon, Wolf and Drukhari ones cited would still count as unsaved wounds even if negated by FNP.

This is why they should have stuck with keywords and common definitions instead of rewriting them for each codex.

Having a read of the BA FNP, I disagree with your conclusion.

It is still talking about the wound generated in section 5 -"A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers."

Ignoring the wound there doesn't mean that you ignore all the way back. So you will still have suffered an unsaved wound and thus suffer damage in section 4. Nothing in the BA FNP rule that you presented changes that.

Basically like this: Someone stabs you with a knife. If you have any kind of armour on, the knife does not wound. (AKA: Successful armour save). If you only have a shirt on, the knife wounds you. (AKA: Unsaved armour save). How you react is different for some: Do you collapse on the floor (no feel no pain) or do you skip along to the hospital like nothing has happened (successful FNP)? No matter if you trot along to the hospital or lay on the floor, you will still have a stab wound.

Feel no pain is not a save, it's an ability. That much is very clear.
In order for a unit to even be able to make a FNP-roll, they have to have failed a save roll and suffered a wound. Then if that wounded model succumbs to its' injuries, or can't care less about that bullet in their thigh doesn't matter; the model is still injured.

JakeSiren wrote:
Having a read of the BA FNP, I disagree with your conclusion.

It is still talking about the wound generated in section 5 -"A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers."

Ignoring the wound there doesn't mean that you ignore all the way back. So you will still have suffered an unsaved wound and thus suffer damage in section 4. Nothing in the BA FNP rule that you presented changes that.

So even though "the wound is ignored and has no effect.” you are still not ignoring the wound?

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

 DeathReaper wrote:

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

It doesnt matter if the wound is ignored or not, an unsaved wound has happened before. Its like you can shoot and wound models that are out of sight and out of ranger, because you dont go back once you checked range and los. Its the same concept.

Look, obviously 4ok 8e is written by people who hate necron players so in every case where there's a rule uncertainty that could help necron players just assume the answer will be it doesn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Having a read of the BA FNP, I disagree with your conclusion.

It is still talking about the wound generated in section 5 -"A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers."

Ignoring the wound there doesn't mean that you ignore all the way back. So you will still have suffered an unsaved wound and thus suffer damage in section 4. Nothing in the BA FNP rule that you presented changes that.

So even though "the wound is ignored and has no effect.” you are still not ignoring the wound?

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

Read my reply to Gendif to answer your question. As I said, there are two usages of the word wound in the rules which refer to different things.

To demonstrate, let's talk about what you are asking about, if you ignore the wound in section 5, do you ignore the wound in section 4?

First off, let's say you take a wound (section 4), you fail your armour save (AKA: an unsaved wound), and suffer damage.
In section 5 you inflict that damage. For each point of damage inflicted the model loses a wound (section 5). For argument's sake let's say you take 3 damage.
Section 5 is also when the BA 6+ FNP triggers (before this point the model has not taken a wound and doesn't meet the requirements for the roll)
You are asking, if you roll a BA 6+ FNP on any of the wounds (section 5) if you ignore the wound (section 4). The answer is no, if this were the case then when you roll a single 6+ and ignore the wound (section 4) you would then also ignore all of the damage caused to the model as that is a direct result of the wound (section 4). This is clearly not the case. As of such you will have still suffered an unsaved wound (section 4) regardless if your model takes any wounds (section 5), and as a result can trigger any effects that occur on "an unsaved wound".

I agree with the sentiment that an unsaved wound does not necessarily have to cause damage to remain an unsaved wound.

The fact that the FAQ changes the wording of the rule originally in question to avoid the term "unsaved wound" stands testament to the fact that "unsaved wound" and "the unit took damage" are two slightly different things. It's the same as if a unit is hit, but not wounded, it will still trigger abilities which work when the unit is hit, even though the hit didn't do anything.

As it is, it seems to me that:

if the model is hit, then this is a hit, regardless of what happens later.
if the model fails a save, this is an unsaved wound, regardless of what happens later.
The model suffers a wound, due to the unsaved wound.
if the model passes FnP, the wound caused by the unsaved wound is ignored, and so the model is not damaged.

so the model was hit, suffered an unsaved wound, took a wound (and must have to have triggered the FnP), rolled FnP and took no damage.

you literally cannot roll a FnP without having first suffered an unsaved wound, and so if you have to roll one, regardless of the result, you have (for the purpose of triggering the old wording of this rule) "suffered an unsaved wound".

 some bloke wrote:

The fact that the FAQ changes the wording of the rule originally in question to avoid the term "unsaved wound" stands testament to the fact that "unsaved wound" and "the unit took damage" are two slightly different things.

In other contexts I might agree with you, but I don't think that logic can be applied to GW rules.

It might easily be that they always intend them to mean the same thing, but they realised one wording is more clear. And just because they haven't changed it in other places doesn't mean anything.

The wording and errata are just too inconsistent to draw inferences like this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Having a read of the BA FNP, I disagree with your conclusion.

It is still talking about the wound generated in section 5 -"A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers."

Ignoring the wound there doesn't mean that you ignore all the way back. So you will still have suffered an unsaved wound and thus suffer damage in section 4. Nothing in the BA FNP rule that you presented changes that.

So even though "the wound is ignored and has no effect.” you are still not ignoring the wound?

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

No, DR, the argument is you trigger off the failed Save. The fact the wound did not happen after that fact is not relevant to the "unsaved" part.

Just to throw my two cents in here.

FNP is rolled to ignore taken wounds from the Damage roll. Wounds is a characteristic that is reduced like a currency not something you pass or fail.

A failed wound is when you fail a wound roll.

FNP is roll'd at the damage point not the wound point. Otherwise if you deal four damage with a lascannon against a nurgle DP, they would roll save - fail, then roll one FNP for all four damage. But no they roll four dice of FNP, one for each damage.

The wound is failed, but the damage is ignored not the wound.

So IMHO you would still get the buff as Rules as written the wound is failed. FNP ignores Damage not wounds and stops the wounds characteristic from being reduced.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

It doesnt matter if the wound is ignored or not, an unsaved wound has happened before. Its like you can shoot and wound models that are out of sight and out of ranger, because you dont go back once you checked range and los. Its the same concept.

Seems like you are not ignoring the wound...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

It doesnt matter if the wound is ignored or not, an unsaved wound has happened before. Its like you can shoot and wound models that are out of sight and out of ranger, because you dont go back once you checked range and los. Its the same concept.

Seems like you are not ignoring the wound...

Seems like you are ignoring the two uses of the word wound.

This appears to be the only type of argument that you have managed to muster. Everyone else who has commented appears to acknowledge the two distinct uses of wound in the core rules. If you think you are correct and have the rules to back it up, then rebut with substance, otherwise you are just making noise. It is also telling that you avoided replying to many of the other comments.

Also, one more example.
Let's assume you are correct. If you ignore the unsaved wound then you also ignore the flow on effects of it, which include triggering the FNP roll. If you ignore the FNP roll then it can't have affected the unsaved wound as you are now ignoring the rule telling you to ignore the unsaved wound. Ergo, you can't ignore the unsaved wound as to do so would cause a paradox. If you instead ignore the wound (section 5), and not the unsaved wound (section 4), you don't run into this issue.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

It doesnt matter if the wound is ignored or not, an unsaved wound has happened before. Its like you can shoot and wound models that are out of sight and out of ranger, because you dont go back once you checked range and los. Its the same concept.

Seems like you are not ignoring the wound...

Seems like you are ignoring the two uses of the word wound.

Not at all...

This appears to be the only type of argument that you have managed to muster. Everyone else who has commented appears to acknowledge the two distinct uses of wound in the core rules. If you think you are correct and have the rules to back it up, then rebut with substance, otherwise you are just making noise. It is also telling that you avoided replying to many of the other comments.

I have rebut with substance, I have not avoided replying to many of the other comments... ignoring a wound means what it means...

Also, one more example.
Let's assume you are correct. If you ignore the unsaved wound then you also ignore the flow on effects of it, which include triggering the FNP roll. If you ignore the FNP roll then it can't have affected the unsaved wound as you are now ignoring the rule telling you to ignore the unsaved wound. Ergo, you can't ignore the unsaved wound as to do so would cause a paradox. If you instead ignore the wound (section 5), and not the unsaved wound (section 4), you don't run into this issue.

Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D). Wounds (W) are a characteristic that represent how much damage a model can sustain before it is removed from play described in the Datasheet description section.

Wounds in the Wound Roll, Allocate Wounds, and Saving Throw subsequence steps of the Resolve Attacks sequence are a fundamentally a different concept from the Wounds (W) characteristic. Wounds are not described as lost in any of those subsequence steps; they are either unsuccessful/successful, unallocated/allocated, and/or save/unsaved. Wounds are determined to be successful or unsuccessful in the Wound Roll step. They are then allocated in the Allocate Wounds subsequence. They become saved or unsaved in the Saving Throw step of the subsequence.

Dealing damage is in the 5th step of the Resolve Attacks subsequence, Inflict Damage, where Wounds (W) are lost. This is the wording that lines up with most FNP rules (typically ignore damage or wounds lost; which are effectively the same thing), where Wounds (W) are lost according to the Damage (D) value.

FNP-type rules does not interact with the previous substeps because no Wounds (W) are lost. FNP-type rules all refer to ignoring damage dealt or wounds lost, which doesn't occur in the Wound Roll, Allocate, or Save steps. There is no reason or need for an unsaved wound in those earlier substeps to become retroactively considered ignored or saved because an ability ignored damage or the loss of Wounds (W) later in the Inflict Damage subsequence.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

If you trigger anything off a wound that is ignored, you are not ignoring the wound...

It doesnt matter if the wound is ignored or not, an unsaved wound has happened before. Its like you can shoot and wound models that are out of sight and out of ranger, because you dont go back once you checked range and los. Its the same concept.

Seems like you are not ignoring the wound...

Seems like you are ignoring the two uses of the word wound.

Not at all...

This appears to be the only type of argument that you have managed to muster. Everyone else who has commented appears to acknowledge the two distinct uses of wound in the core rules. If you think you are correct and have the rules to back it up, then rebut with substance, otherwise you are just making noise. It is also telling that you avoided replying to many of the other comments.

I have rebut with substance, I have not avoided replying to many of the other comments... ignoring a wound means what it means...

Also, one more example.
Let's assume you are correct. If you ignore the unsaved wound then you also ignore the flow on effects of it, which include triggering the FNP roll. If you ignore the FNP roll then it can't have affected the unsaved wound as you are now ignoring the rule telling you to ignore the unsaved wound. Ergo, you can't ignore the unsaved wound as to do so would cause a paradox. If you instead ignore the wound (section 5), and not the unsaved wound (section 4), you don't run into this issue.

Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

If you acknowledge that there are multiple uses of the word wound, then what makes you think that the wound being ignored is anything other than the use of wound in section 5? The FNP rule makes it clear that the wound in section 5 is being targeted ("when a model loses a wound"), and to ignore that wound. It does not give permissions to ignore the wound in section 4. Therefore the unsaved wound stands. No need for inventing time travel, just follow the RaW.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D).

False.

40k BRB(Shooting phase rules, Resolve attacks step, Allocate Wound section wrote:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit...

What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

 DeathReaper wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D).

False.

40k BRB(Shooting phase rules, Resolve attacks step, Allocate Wound section wrote:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit...

What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

Nice misrepresentative quote. Or are you suggesting that models are dealt wounds before they are even allowed their saving throw? Hmmm...

40k BRB(Shooting phase rules, Resolve attacks step) wrote:4. Saving Throw
If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage.

5. Inflict Damage
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used in the attack

Yeah, certainly looks like the weapon is dealing damage.

Regardless, this line of conversation is off topic and has nothing to do with how the FNP type rules work. At this point I think everyone else has a solid take on this. If you are relying on tricks like this to try to prove your point, then you don't have anything of real substance to argue that the unsaved wound is negated when you pass a FNP roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Time travel is a bitch, but the rules for FNP allow it... AKA from that point on you have to IGNORE THE WOUND...
Don't think about it too hard, just follow the RaW.

Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D).

False.

40k BRB(Shooting phase rules, Resolve attacks step, Allocate Wound section wrote:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit...

What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

Lets break this down, step by step highlighting the sections in question:

After a successful Hit, and Wound roll, the player controlling the targeted Unit applies that Wound to a model in that Unit, then check to see if the model actually takes the Wound, you get to pick the best Save possible against that Wound for that model, applying Invulnerable, Cover Save bonus etc.

If that Save test passes, the Wound is saved and no Damage(D) will be done.

If that Save test fails, you now have an Unsaved Wound.

That Wound now checks for how much damage it actually does, and then things like Disgustingly Resilient kick in to see if that damage is ignored and does not cause a Wound (W) to happen.

Big Rule book Page 174
Wounds (W): Wounds show how much Damage (D) a model can sustain before it succumbs to its injuries.

Big Rule book Page 175
Damage (D): The amount of damage inflicted by a successful hit.

With the FAQ change to the Sautekh Stratagem: Methodical Destruction, it now checks to see if a Wound (W) happened. Not if a Wound happened.

I would just like to quickly point out that this topic is moot because GW in a rare showing of competence have errata'd the stratagems (Overlapping Fields of Fire, Methodical Destruction, Focused Fire, etc) to now require the wound to actually be lost rather than cause an unsaved wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D).

False.

You're right, they deal hits, my bad, I forgot that exact wording:

"Hit Roll: Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice. If the roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill characteristic, then it scores a hit with the weapon it is using"

Weapons deal hits, hits deal wounds, wounds are then allocated and saved against, which then deal Damage (D) which reduce Wounds (W).

Good catch on my poor use of the common game vernacular we use, since we typically talk about weapons dealing damage in a non-rules discussion technical sense. Now, if you could articulate on how that difference in semantics about the Hit Roll substep wording interacts with the argument I laid out about the later "Wound/Allocate/Save substeps vs FNP-type rules wording" and "wound vs Wound (W) in relation to FNP-type saves" points I made, that would be great, thanks.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k BRB(Shooting phase rules, Resolve attacks step, Allocate Wound section wrote:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit...

What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

Sorry, bear with me; it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what point you're trying to make in such a non-substantial response.

The answer to your question is that a wound gets allocated in the Allocate Wound phase; I said as much in my original post. I'm not sure what your point is here, exactly, as I explained to that while this is true, the way FNP-type saves and Wound/Allocate/Save steps are worded cause them not to interact with each other. And that wounds and Wounds (W) are fundamentally different concepts, of which you seem to have already agreed with earlier in this thread.

I'll post a shorter synopsis here of what I laid out, maybe that will be more clear.

Wounds are never described as lost in the Roll/Allocate/Save steps. Most* (I know I said "all" previously, but there were some that did refer to unsaved wounds, ie Spirit Stones, but those were changed the Developer FAQ) FNP-type rules either state "loses a wound" or refers to damage in some way to damage. FNP-rule wording only protect against wounds that are lost or damage that is dealt/taken, not wounds that are successful, allocated, or unsaved. FNP has no interaction with those substeps unless you can identify specifically where a wound is described as "lost" in the "Wound/Allocate/Save" substeps.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Deathreaper wrote:
What is it that gets allocated? The damage or the wound?

Sorry, bear with me; it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what point you're trying to make in such a non-substantial response.

The answer to your question is that a wound gets allocated in the Allocate Wound phase; I said as much in my original post. I'm not sure what your point is here, exactly, as I explained to that while this is true, the way FNP-type saves and Wound/Allocate/Save steps are worded cause them not to interact with each other. And that wounds and Wounds (W) are fundamentally different concepts, of which you seem to have already agreed with earlier in this thread.

Non-substantial? It was literally just a question

The point was refuting your comment when you stated "Weapons do not deal wounds, they deal Damage (D)." Which of course is is incorrect.