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.

Which means FNP is even more dysfunctional.

Joy?

So I think deathreaper is a troll fyi. Breaking news I know but even though I agree with his take on the fnp's I don't agree with his reasoning.
We don't need common sense or logic to play 40k, RAW things work fine 99% of the time.

I think the biggest point that hasn't been addressed is that, RAW, FNP drops the wound before you roll for FNP and thus the model would be removed before the ability could do its magic.
That's not RAI obviously or how anyone plays it but I don't think it's a useful debate to say it's anything but that.

To those that think ichor works alongside a saved FNP simply HAVE to concede that FNP's function not based on the RAW but by a gameplay contract among players. It's been worded like that for literal years and has already been discussed on this forum a ton. My point is that if a player claimed ichor triggers alongside the already broken FNP "sequencing" they are taking advantage of said contract.

On TOP of that it's pretty evident with Makari's wording (which is, I think, the most recent FNP type rule) they will be fixing the previous books.

NOBODY can argue that if a GUO had a Makari type FNP they would trigger ichor.

I did not realize what this is on had 18 wounds. with avg rolls(and all done in the fight phase) if both affected at the same time hes doing 12 mortal wounds before he dies. Personally never seen a GUO reach melee combat but that is a bit much. But maybe they wanted him to be a scary demon that no sane character would want to charge....

blaktoof wrote:
The before if a models reduced to 0 or less is your opinion, the actual text of the ignoring wounds doesn't have any of that language or indicate it should come before or after that event. Both events are triggered by a model losing a wound.

Purposely opting for the worst possible reading of the RAW is on you and you only.

Take a model with 1W w/ FNP taking 6 damage. When do you stop rolling for FNP? The moment it fails the FNP and the damage is resolved as normal (which would result in W=0 and subsequently removed from play).

What if it was done after allocating all 6 damage and removing the model from play first? Then you are rolling for FNP once for all 6 damage, not to mention it violates the clause that tells you to roll each time it loses a wound.

So "normal" reading of the English text would indicate that FNP happens after "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers", and before "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play." It's not a matter of opinion. It's basic reading comprehension.

If we follow your logic, then no 1W model can ever proc FNP, and it fails to proc for multi wound model if damage received in a single shooting/fight equals or is greater than the remaining wounds.

If we follow your logic that models have to actually lose the wound as in go from 1-0 this is the rules consequence not mine.

There is no way to read that a model being reduced to 0 wounds is not removed from at as part of that reduction, if you are implying there is some instance of game time between those two events it is surely not written anywhere, there cero is no permission within the rules for ignoring wounds to not remove models that would have 0 wounds left after losing wounds to save and then rolling for ignoring wounds somehow giving them wounds back, sorry that is just not written.

Either models lose all the wounds from "lose wounds" before FnP and are somehow gaining wounds back by passing them, or models are at risk of losing wounds and we are ignoring them if FnP is passed and only lose the ones failed.

Given the rules literally say "ignore wounds" my RAI is that the the wounds are never taken off the model until it fails the ignore wounds roll- and those failures are the actual wounds lost.

I would be more than happy to let someone get some extra damage from their unit traits and relics from wounds the models didn't actually lose if I can deny them FnP if they get taken to 0 wounds however

The first has lots of consequences one of which is models reduced to 0 wounds on their opponents turn have to be removed from play from those wounds being lost. If that opponents opts to sequence that first, the model would be removed as a casualty before FnP rolls.

The text gives you how damage is resolved once the save is failed - 'lose 1 wound per 1 damage'.

The FNP rule gives you additional provision on how to resolve the damage: damage causes wound loss, in case of any wound loss, then at each wound loss roll to see whether or not to actually subtract 1 wound for each 1 damage.

FNP text does not give you any provisions for proccing when a "model is at risk of losing wounds". It state "each time a model with this ability loses a wound." Hence, in order to invoke FNP the model HAS TO HAVE lost a wound.

 skchsan wrote:
The text gives you how damage is resolved once the save is failed - 'lose 1 wound per 1 damage'.

The FNP rule gives you additional provision on how to resolve the damage: damage causes wound loss, in case of any wound loss, then at each wound loss roll to see whether or not to subtract 1 wound for each 1 damage.

FNP text does not give you any provisions for proccing when a "model is at risk of losing wounds". It state "each time a model with this ability loses a wound." Hence, in order to invoke FNP the model HAS TO HAVE lost a wound.

FnP also doesn't say anything about giving models back wounds, it says ignore wounds.

A model going from 1 to 0 wounds has lost a wound. Rolling FnP happens when you lose a wound, but then allows you to ignore the wound lost. That doesn't read the same as gives you the wound back. So if the model with 1 wound goes to 0 wounds, where in ignore wounds does it say it gets the wound back? If the wound loss is ignored, did the model actually lose the wound ever?

RAW "Ignore wounds" doesn't actually ignore wounds. It is written that you have to lose a wound, which most people read as a model going from 1 to 0 wounds, but it then says you ignore the wound. That is not the same as getting a wound back for each FnP roll you pass.

If ignoring the wound means there is some paradox in that the model never lost the wound, i.e. it was ignore then the model never lost the wound. That text is not actually part of the rules.

A RAW following of Ignore wounds does nothing, you lose the wound, but it doesnt RAW give you wounds back.

Your reading of Ignore wounds is RAI, as is mine. I don't think your RAI is invalid, I just think if you play that way you have the consequence that if a model would be reduced to 0 wounds it is removed as a casualty, and there is no rule in ignore wounds dealing with that event which happens at the same time- so there is no permission to ignore that. Sequencing of that results in any model with FnP type rules that is reduced to 0 wounds during the opposing players turn can be denied making those rolls. I don't think that's how that should occur, but it is a rules as written sequencing consequence of those interactions which occur at the same event.

It doesn't say it ignores the wound. It simply states "that wound is not lost".

You're saying that the following is wrong:
[Wound] - 1 (from being damaged) + 1 (wound 'retrieved' via FNP) because the rules don't give you permission to "add back" the wound. That's not what the argument is. I do agree this is wrong.

FNP interaction as I parse the rules is:
[Wound] - {1 (from being damaged) x [if(FNP=PASS,0,1)]}

The main issue I have with your argument is that it asserts the model is not considered to have lost a wound for the purpose of all other rules interaction once the wound has been 'not lost' via FNP. There is nothing in the RAW that supports this assertion. RAW, lost wound can be un-lost via FNP. That's it. Any further 'understanding' (i.e. 'well, obviously if something was undone, that must've mean it didn't happen.') muddles the validity of any RAW based argument.

 Aijec wrote:
So I think deathreaper is a troll fyi.

I am not, and please do not be rude.

The order of ruling is ordinarily:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

We have abilities which are evoked "When a model loses a wound" and we have abilities which are evoked "before the model is removed from play"

So with FnP, we have this:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

Then adding in extra rules which go off at the same time, via the rules for sequencing, we get:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain and removed from play

With 1.1a and 1.1b going in whichever order the active player chooses due to sequencing, as they have the same triggers

It then gets more complex, but still in an easily understood order supported by the rules, by being broken down to accommodate things such as "explodes" or "only in death", where an event takes place between being slain and removed as a casualty:

1: Models lose 1 wound for each damage inflicted
1.1a: Models roll FnP for each wound lost and if they roll a 5+ then the wound is not lost.
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost and on a 4+ inflict mortal wounds.
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds are slain...
2.1a: Roll a D6 and on a 6, all models within 6" suffer D3 mortal wounds
2.1b: Make a Shooting or Close Combat attack
2.2 ...and removed from play

It's really not a complex thing to understand - you have 2 abilities which must be resolved between "losing a wound" and "if wounds = 0, remove from play". The active player chooses the order. And one of those abilities can remove the trigger for the other - so player 1 will choose a then b, and player 2 will choose b then a.
In the same way as if you had 2 abilities, one of which stipulated "you can immediately shoot" and the other said "you can do this, but may not shoot until your next turn", and they both went off at the same time, then you would shoot first, then deny yourself further shooting. Doing it the other way around would be foolish.

Again there is no explicit wording to pause or put some time interval for a model being reduced to 0 wounds being removed- that is something you as players are reading as intended.

Your argument is starting to sound more and more like BCB's famous "well they don't say I have to use a dice numbered 1 thru 6".

Purposefully obtuse reading of the rule will get you nowhere. Otherwise the rulebook for 40k would be longer than bible.

Most logical application of the RAW != RAI.

Okay some question.

There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.

You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?

This isn't an obtuse reading of the rule. This is simply saying that if something happens when a model loses a wound it is occurring at the same time as something that happens when a model loses a wound. You somehow think that the event that happens when a model loses enough wounds to go to 0 wounds has some special timing that makes it a different point in the time of the game, as if the first four wounds a model with 5 wounds lose are somehow different than the last one that takes it to zero. We both know that last one is different because when that last wound happens the model is removed from the table- yet somehow you think that event from a wound loss happens at some other time then other events that happen when a model loses a wound without there being any written text to support that anywhere.

How is that a different stance than the FnP roll happens first before other events from losing a wound? Both have arbitrarily decided the RAI are that this particular event happens before or after other events that happen when a model loses a wound without any rules support.

blaktoof wrote:
Okay some question.

There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.

You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?

Sequencing.

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that
two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the
start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this
happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the
order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start
or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides
in what order the rules are resolved.

You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.

 skchsan wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Okay some question.

There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.

You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?

Sequencing.

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that
two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the
start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this
happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the
order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start
or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides
in what order the rules are resolved.

You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.

Exactly, so if FnP happens after a models wounds go from 1 to 0, then the active player can remove the model from the table before the FnP rolls.

FNP triggers upon 'loss of wound'. Removal from board triggers upon 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. They have different triggers so you may not sequence the two.

'Loss of wound' does not occur at the same instance of 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. The latter is subsequent step check after the former has been established.

 skchsan wrote:
FNP triggers upon 'loss of wound'. Removal from board triggers upon 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. They have different triggers so you may not sequence the two.

'Loss of wound' does not occur at the same instance of 'wound is equal to or less than 0'. The latter is subsequent step after the former has been established.

Actually being told to remove a model if it reaches 0 wounds is not a different step like it was in 8th edition. It is all in step 5. Inflict damage. The relevant part reads "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers. If a model's wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play."

wounds being reduced to 0 is loss of a wound.

Just curious how long do models stay on the board for when they lose a wound taking them to 0 wounds? Is the line about them being removed tied to some other event than the loss of that wound?

Edit- Thanks for point that out DoctorTom

blaktoof wrote:

Spoiler:

 skchsan wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Okay some question.

There are multiple rules that say something happens when a model loses a wound.

You personally have decided that SOME of these rules happen before the FnP roll and some after. Where did you read the rules that allow you to put some before and some after?

Sequencing.

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that
two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – e.g. ‘at the
start of the battle round’ or ‘at the end of the Fight phase’. When this
happens during the battle, the player whose turn it is chooses the
order. If these things occur before or after the battle, or at the start
or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides
in what order the rules are resolved.

You get to choose in which order the rules are resolved.

Exactly, so if FnP happens after a models wounds go from 1 to 0, then the active player can remove the model from the table before the FnP rolls.

No, because the model loses a wounds, and then models which have been reduced to 0 wounds are removed. FNP is resolved in the middle of this - thus it goes "Model loses wound, FNP is resolved, models reduced to 0 wounds are removed".

The last thing you do is to remove models with 0 wounds, as after this, there is no model with which to do things. So yes, there is a point in time where a model has both been reduced to 0 wounds and yet is still on the table.

Let's look at another "when a model is reduced to 0 wounds" thing: Transports:

1: Model loses wounds
1.1: Model attempts any FNP it might have
2: Model is "Destroyed" (I missed this step before!)
2.1: Model rolls to see if it explodes
2.2: Units disembark
2.3: Disembarked units roll to see if models die
3: Model is removed from play

So your normal steps, without special rules, are:

1: Model loses wounds
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed
3: Models Destroyed are removed from play

So there's even an intermediate step between FnP and removing the model, in which the model becomes "destroyed", triggering effects which happen if it is destroyed, such as Crash & Burn, and explodes.

So now FNP slots in thus:

1: Model loses wounds
1.1: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed
3: Models destroyed are removed from play

So if you have another rule, EG ichor, you can do it thus:

1: Model loses wounds
1.1a: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost, on a 4+ cause mortal wounds
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed
3: Models destroyed are removed from play

or you can do it thus:

1: Model loses wounds
1.1b: Roll a dice for each wound lost, on a 4+ cause mortal wounds
1.1a: Roll FNP for each wound, 5+ it is does not take the wound
2: Models reduced to 0 wounds or less are destroyed
3: Models destroyed are removed from play

the sequencing rules are quite simple, really.

Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step. All of those sequencing rules you have listed may be what you think the rules are intended to do but there is no actual wording that allows you to separate out removing them as casualties when they lose a wound going to 0 wounds as some different event than others from losing a wound.

As written Everytime a model loses a wound if it's wounds would go to 0 it is removed from play for losing that wound at that moment. There is no wording to say it is removed after all other events from losing that wound or at some other time in the combat sequence.

blaktoof wrote:
Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step.

Yes, and GW doesn't tell me I can't use a dice numbered all 6's.

Again, most logical application of the RAW != RAI.

How can you possibly determine whether wound has gone to 0 if you didn't resolve whether or not the damage is actually resolved as normal?

 skchsan wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step.

Yes, and GW doesn't tell me I can't use a dice numbered all 6's.

Again, most logical application of the RAW != RAI.

How can you possibly determine whether wound has gone to 0 if you didn't resolve whether or not the damage is actually resolved as normal?

The same way you are determining a model loses wounds, which could include losing wounds going to 0, wounds to trigger Ichor Blood or any similar rule that rule that happens when a model loses a wound.

blaktoof wrote:
Models being removed from 0 wounds is the same step as inflict damage, there is no actual rule that tells us it's the last step. All of those sequencing rules you have listed may be what you think the rules are intended to do but there is no actual wording that allows you to separate out removing them as casualties when they lose a wound going to 0 wounds as some different event than others from losing a wound.

As written Everytime a model loses a wound if it's wounds would go to 0 it is removed from play for losing that wound at that moment. There is no wording to say it is removed after all other events from losing that wound or at some other time in the combat sequence.

yes, but technically there's nothing saying to stop at any point in the game for special rules. The rules aren't:

1: Pick a target
2: check for rules which are triggered by picking a target
3: Roll to hit
4: Check for rules which are triggered when rolling to hit
etc....

They make the assumption that the trigger point for the rule (In this case, "When a model with this rule loses a wound") is enough for us to know when to inject the rule.

So going into the "inflict damage" section of the rules:

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or
less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several
wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted
by that attack is lost and has no effect.

So we know to insert FnP "when the model loses a wound". Reading this text, we can see that the models first lose wounds for each point of damage suffered. Then there's a full stop, which further illustrates this as a separate step. Then, if they are reduced to 0 wounds or less, they are destroyed and removed from play. So, by injecting FnP's rules into the rules, where we know todo so:

Each time a model with this ability loses a wound, roll a dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound.

added in gives us:

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. for each wound roll a dice; on a 5+,
the model does not lose that wound. If a model’s wounds are
reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model
loses several wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess
damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.

and adding ichor, in the order the GUO player would want:

Roll a dice each time your Warlord loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after all of its own attacks have been resolved.

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers.Roll a dice each time your Warlord
loses a wound in the Fight phase. On a 4+ the unit that inflicted that
wound is splashed by acidic ichor and suffers a mortal wound after
all of its own attacks have been resolved. for each wound roll a
dice; on a 5+, the model does not lose that wound. If a model’s
wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from
play. If a model loses several wounds from an attack and is destroyed,
any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect.

You don't roll FNP when a model is reduced to 0 wounds, or when a model suffers a wound and all other effects of having suffered a wound, including being removed from play, are resolved. You do so as soon as you lose a wound - stop everything, I just lost a wound and have to do this right now. Same with Ichor - thus sequencing comes into play. After everything which happens "when you lose a wound" has been resolved, continue through the rule to "models with 0 wounds are destroyed and removed".

When does FNP trigger? After "inflict Damage", or after "A model loses a wound"?

Ignoring wounds happens when a model loses a wound.

Removing a model as casualties happens when a model loses a wound that would take it to 0 wounds.

Nope. Removing a model as casualty happens when Wound is 0 or less. Wound reaching 0 or less happens when you lose wounds.

No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".

 some bloke wrote:
No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".

And then he's going to hit you with "WelL iT DoeSnT s4Y th4t AnywaRe in thE rUleBooK." rebuttal.

 skchsan wrote:
Nope. Removing a model as casualty happens when Wound is 0 or less. Wound reaching 0 or less happens when you lose wounds.

And you make ignore wounds rolls when losing wounds as well.

 skchsan wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
No, removing a model is done when a model is destroyed.
A model is destroyed when it is reduced to 0 wounds.
A model is reduced to 0 wounds when it suffers a wound (it's last one).
A model rolls FNP when it loses a wound; not when it's destroyed, or when it's removed. These things take place afterwards - FNP has either been resolved or been skipped when you get to "the model is destroyed".

And then he's going to hit you with "WelL iT DoeSnT s4Y th4t AnywaRe in thE rUleBooK." rebuttal.

ah, but then I have this ready to go:

thE rUleBooK wrote:
The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage (D) characteristic of
the weapon making the attack. A model loses one wound for each
point of damage it suffers. If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0 or
less, it is destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several
wounds from an attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted
by that attack is lost and has no effect.

In order (chant it with me, lads!):

1: The model loses one wound for each point of damage suffered
2: If a model's wounds are reduced to 0 or less, it is destroyed and removed from play

I'm like 3 steps ahead here

You do realize the period separating those two statements does not make one happen at another time, it still happens during that step of inflict damage when the model loses a wound. It is possible for multiple events to happen at the same time and the writers of the game may use the English language in a manner to separate out the statements of things happening at the same time.

A model being removed as a casualty when it loses wounds and goes to 0 wounds is what happens during the inflict damage step, you and some other posters are creating some substeps during that step and arbitrarily assigning some events that happen when a model loses a wound to take precedence over others for some advantage, it is not actually how the rules are written.