Necron Entropic Stike vs FNP

[Maelstorm]

My apologies if this has been discussed - I didin't find it on the forum.

If a model with FNP is hit by a Necron unit with entropic strike and suffers a wound, misses his armor save, but makes his FNP save - does he still have armor?

[Nachodragon]

No, both abilities trigger on an unsaved wound. The FNP just allows the model to ignore the wound loss.

[Tynskel]

however, you haven't failed the wound if you haven't lost the wound. You have failed the armor save, instead.

[Maelstorm]

That's how I've played it up until last week - at a new LGS my opponent was sure there was no way to strip armor from any of his 15+ FNP spam troops and 5 FNP Terminators (Blood Angels). I hit his FNP TH/SS terminators with 50 scarab attacks - causing a LOT of wounds, he missed 3 armor saves but made all 3 FNP rolls - and was convinced that they all still had their armor - would not budge on the subject.

Very frustrating that the FAQ didn't spell it out better for FNP Space Monkey players. FNP Blood Angel tears taste the best...

[Tynskel]

well, I understand your frustration, but I believe the rules state failed wound, not failed armor save (I'll have to read it when I get home). Failed wound is when you lost a wound, and FNP actually prevents that.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.... On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting."

Entropic Strike: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armour save for the remainder of the battle."

Feel No Pain only happens when the model suffers an "unsaved wound". Entropic Strike takes place immediately after an unsaved wound occurs. The process of events seems to be: Suffer Wound -> Fail Armour/Invulnerable Save -> Lose Armour Save -> Roll for Feel No Pain.

Try explaining it to him with this example: There is a Dark Eldar Archon with a Shadow Field. He has a Pain Token, so has Feel No Pain. He gets shot with a Bolter and fails his Shadow Field save. Shadow Field: "provides a 2+ invulnerable save, but if the save is ever failed, the field is destroyed altogether." If the Archon passes his Feel No Pain roll, his Shadow Field would still be destroyed.

well, I understand your frustration, but I believe the rules state failed wound, not failed armor save (I'll have to read it when I get home). Failed wound is when you lost a wound, and FNP actually prevents that.It states "Unsaved Wound", and those occur when the Armour/Invulnerable Save is failed.

[Necron2.0]

I agree with the good Reverend. In addition, nothing in FNP says squat about the actual state of the wound. The wound remains unsaved, but the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. The model remains wounded in excess of what it normally would be able to bear.

[Necron2.0]

He missed 3 armor saves but made all 3 FNP rolls - and was convinced that they all still had their armor - would not budge on the subject.

I should hope you quit the game at this point. I've known too many players who try and game the rules to gain special privileges, and they're quite frankly not worth wasting time on. There are always more worthy opponents in the ranks.

[Tynskel]

oh don't worry, those quotations seem pretty robust. I'll check em out later tonight.

[Tynskel]

I should hope you quit the game at this point. I've known too many players who try and game the rules to gain special privileges, and they're quite frankly not worth wasting time on. There are always more worthy opponents in the ranks.



in this respect, I think many people would have messed up that.
People are used to 'failed = wound'. You make FNP, and thus no longer lost a wound, hence no failure.
What I suggest next time is to actually read the rules. They are quite clear.

[Tynskel]

I agree with the good Reverend. In addition, nothing in FNP says squat about the actual state of the wound. The wound remains unsaved, but the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting. The model remains wounded in excess of what it normally would be able to bear.



You are opening up a can of worms--- so does this apply to leadership checks at the end of the phase?

[Necron2.0]

You are opening up a can of worms--- so does this apply to leadership checks at the end of the phase?

. . . . . . . :confused:

Good question. In general, I'd say no, only because in theory you can say the leadership check is based on who is still standing. Blain (AKA Jesse) may be bleeding, but he's still there saying, "I ain't got time to bleed," and that's A-OK as far as squad morale is concerned.

Bottom line, though, is I'd argue vehemently that just because Blain refuses to acknowledge his wounds doesn't mean his shirt magically knits itself back together.

[Nachodragon]

This would not affect Morale checks as you have to lose 25% to casualties. The model with FNP could have a huge hole in his chest but is still walking around and is not a casualty. It doesn't affect assault results either as it says
"Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do...."

I quickly read the rules for FNP as I wanted to rub it in some faces if you had to count those wounds for anything... but no. :(

[addamsfamily36]

hmmmmm

i have a question. how does this work for multiple wound models?

take for instance lemartes. he has a rule that when he takes a wound, he gets stronger (goes nuts). so if i take my feel no pain save with him and pass it, i still lose my Armour due to entropic strike, but i also "ignore the injury". does this count as losing a wound and does he go nuts? or does it count as me passing my save and not suffering an unsaved wound?

Because if he doesn't go nuts, because he didn't take a wound, then surely he would maintain his armour, but if he takes the wound but simply ignores it, then would he go nuts?

does that make sense?

[Maelstorm]

I should hope you quit the game at this point. I've known too many players who try and game the rules to gain special privileges, and they're quite frankly not worth wasting time on. There are always more worthy opponents in the ranks.



No worries, I was there to have fun.

Despite FNP shenanigans, I had fun grinding an all-jump, all-assault BA force down to nothing. Stormtoaster died to scarabs on turn 1. The only thing had left at the end of the game were a few Assault Terminators and 3 Assault Marines. I still had almost half of my Necron force.

Just glad to know I have been playing the rule correctly in previous games.

Thanks to all who chimned-in.

[Nachodragon]

I don't believe that Lemartes would go crazy if he passes his FNP. The entropic strike works because it says immediately. So, as soon as you fail the armor save then you have no more armor. You then roll for FNP and either ignore the wound or take the wound as normal. It would be better if the wording for FNP was cleaned up, but one can only hope 6th will be read over before it goes to the printers.

FNP would be more balanced IMO if it was a one use only thing, but that would be kind of hard to track from a whole army perspective. But let's face it, there is only so many gaping holes to the chest before it doesn't matter if you can't feel it, there is nothing left.

[Caldera02]

The other bullets go through the holes.....convenient!

[Wildcard]

An analogy for the "losing the armour"-case:


Entropy
Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Now, we all have seen Aliens-movie, (or similar), where the alien acid is spilled over the colonial marines armor.
Now, no matter what, the armor keeps melting from the acid, and if the marine in question (Hicks, if i remember right ;) ) wouldn't have taken the armor away, the acid would have eaten through hes chest aswell. Now, it was burning like hell, but the marine managed to get the melting armour away and thus save his life. (Although he was grinning and yelling, it is apparent that he felt no pain)

So, he lost his armor, but still could carry on..

Iam not saying that on the first splash of acid, promethium etc, a Space Marine will start ripping of his own power armor, but i believe the point stands: It is possible to lose your armor, and yet be alive and in such a good condition that you can continue to fight..

[Tynskel]

This would not affect Morale checks as you have to lose 25% to casualties. The model with FNP could have a huge hole in his chest but is still walking around and is not a casualty. It doesn't affect assault results either as it says
"Note that wounds that have been negated by saving throws or other special rules that have similar effects do not count, nor do...."

I quickly read the rules for FNP as I wanted to rub it in some faces if you had to count those wounds for anything... but no. :(

We are talking about assault phase, - different ld mechanic

[Wildcard]

We are talking about assault phase, - different ld mechanic

Yeah, but the guy has a point.. What happens when:

- Group A attacks Group B and kills one model with one wound. Now Group B attacks back and forces Group A to take 4 FNP throw - that all are successfull...


Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.... On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting."

...As stated before, if a situation where FNP is called upon is considered 'unsaved wound' no matter what, then Group B would have won the CC by 3 wounds and thus would force the Group A to make a ld test with -3 modiefier..

Wether or not this is the case (how FNP is interpreted) i cannot say..

[deviant_cadaver]

It is also frustrating when they will not even hear you out. I can see the confusion about FNP but as the Rev pointed out it is pretty clear. Good new for necrons vs blood angel death stars too.

[Angelofblades]

I think there is a very important part of FnP that has been completely ignored or quite simply, quickly passed over

As the good reverend quoted FnP


Feel No Pain: "If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.... On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is ignored and the model continues fighting."

(Emphasis mine)

Since there are some of us that would like to throw out definitions



Ignore
To reject as ungrounded; To disregard.

FnP disregards the unsaved wound, it is in efffect, rejected. Entropic strike doesn't negate armor saves if you pass FnP.

I'd would also like to point out that Entropic Strike specifically refers to unsaved Wounds and not unsaved wounds.

If you check on page 24 of the rulebook, under "Remove Casualties," it makes a distinction between Wounds and wounds. Where wounds are counts as the moment when an opposing model successfully makes the roll to cause a wound, and an unsaved wound is where the victim model, fails to pass it's save. A Wound, however, refers to the model's Wound or (W) characteristics profile, several weapons/ wargear continue this reference as well (see Terreract Labyrinth). Thus, an unsaved Wound, is when the (W) characteristic of the victim model, is actualy affected.

Since FnP prevents that from happening, this is another count against Entropic Strike from actually working against FnP.

[Tynskel]

very interesting.

[Paul]

I'm in the FNP saves against Entropic Strike. Otherwise, everything that triggers off of an unsaved wound (such as morale checks or hexrifles) would also trigger despite FNP. Which opens up a ridiculous can of worms.

Such as 10 plagumarines getting swept because 9 of them failed their armor saves but made their FNP rolls and then losing combat by 9.

[Necron2.0]

Some fine wordsmithing going on here, however, as has been quoted, it says the injury is ignored. It does not say the wound is restored (it doesn't say spit about the wound, one way or another). And as the rule for Entropic Strike states, it happens immediately, prior to FnP. Ergo, the armor is gone.

[Angelofblades]

Some fine wordsmithing going on here, however, as has been quoted, it says the injury is ignored. It does not say the wound is restored (it doesn't say spit about the wound, one way or another). And as the rule for Entropic Strike states, it happens immediately, prior to FnP. Ergo, the armor is gone.



Soo please do explain what injury does the FnP rule refer to exactly? Because, should we follow exactly a you have described, then FnP never works at all, in any situation.

Also, you've still yet to get past the difference in wording between wound and Wound. To properly correct you, entropic strike actually says unsaved Wound.

Also just for clarity, I'm going to go through it once more.

I think, where you are getting lost, is during the processing of unsaved wounds.

Here's how it goes:

Roll to Hit -> Roll to Wound -> Roll Armor Save -> Roll FnP -> Entropic Strike

And here's why



Entropic Strike

Any model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses its armor save for the remainder of the battle.

Notice that the word "Wounds," is capitalized? Why would the word be capitalized? It must be important, if the word is capitalized. So we follow the trail of where the rulebook makes a distinction between Wounds and wounds.

Page 20 of the Rulebook


Taking Saving Throws

If all the models in a unit are the same, and have a
single Wound each, such as a squad of Eldar Rangers
or Necron Warriors, then this is a very simple process.
You roll all the saves for the unit in one go (as
described below), and a model of your choice is
removed as a casualty for each failure.

Well, we definitely see here that the reference of Wounds, points towards the Wounds value. Let's see where else this is continued

Oh look, page 24 of the rulebook


Remove Casulaties

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an
unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds
against which no save can be attempted, such as those
from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a
single Wound on their profile, in which case for each
unsaved wound one model is immediately removed
from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models
in the unit have the same profile, special rules,
weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit
can choose which of his models is removed.

So thus, we have a clear and definite distinction between what wounds references to and what Wounds points towards. A failed armor save = unsaved wound. Not unsaved Wound, as Entropic Strike clearly requires. Ergo the requirement of Entropic Strike has not occurred.

Let's move on to Feel No Pain, shall we


Feel No Pain

If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. On a 1, 2
or 3, take the wound as normal (removing the model if
it loses its final Wound). On a 4, 5 or 6, the injury is
ignored and the model continues fighting. This

So FnP references to unsaved wound, meaning it's referencing the point at which the model has failed it's armor save, and interjects at that specific moment, prior to it suffering an unsaved Wound


Thank you on the comment of wordsmithing, but I did no such thing. I simply presented what the rule book tells us.

It's called "reading comprehension." Learn it. Love it.

[Nachodragon]

Your usage of Wound for Entropic strike makes no sense. Well, really, GW should have used something like hit and wound, but that is neither here nor there. The 'unsaved Wound' would indicate the models Wound attribute on their profile. This has no meaning in the game, as everything else does wounds and talks about unsaved wounds, no capital. The way you read the rule Entropic Strike would not happen ever, not FNP (FNP says unsaved wound, not Wound).

Read page 24 for removing casualties. The only time it says Wound is when talking about a model with a single Wound on their profile. Every other time it talks about wound it is without a capital.

So, wound, if miss save, IMMEDIATELY lose armor, roll FNP. Either ignore injury (which means he still has a Wound) or take a wound a lose a Wound.

Also, just as note so someone doesn't need to bring it up, the Harp of Dissonance is an Entropic strike weapon and the shooting rules would apply, also, removing casualties should be in its own section, but what are you gonna do.

[Angelofblades]

I disagree Nacho, it makes perfect sense, its the actual order of operations

You roll to wound -> you take the save, if you fail it, at this point you have suffered an unsaved wound. That's what Remove Casualties says.

The unsaved Wound, refers to the model actually taking a detrimental effect to it's Wound characteristics profile. You are affecting the Wounds characteristic.

I didn't think I'd need to explain it this far, but to add

Page 26 of the Rulebook

Multiple Wound Models

When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep
track of how many wounds such models have suffered
on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or
marker next to them.

Again, clearly notice the order of operations

unsaved wound then you move onto lose one Wound from profile ergo unsaved Wound. And that's where FnP interjects.

[Necron2.0]

You've obviously entrenched yourself in your opinion, AoB, which is fine. To each there own. My advice, though, would be to make sure you let any Necron opponent you may play know of your interpretation prior to a game, so they don't waste time setting up.

[Paul]

Necron2.0, how do you treat FNP for assault morale checks?

Would you permit a squad that has taken no casualties at all and inflicted, say, 5, to be run down in combat because FNP doesn't 'save' the unsaved wound?

[Tynskel]

Necron2.0, how do you treat FNP for assault morale checks?

Would you permit a squad that has taken no casualties at all and inflicted, say, 5, to be run down in combat because FNP doesn't 'save' the unsaved wound?

Yeah, this is the can of worms I was talking about a few pages back.

[Angelofblades]

Look Necron2.0, it's obvious by your admission of defeat that your interpretation has absolutely no leg to stand on. You can't even counter any of my points, instead you revert to pointing out that I must be "entrenched," in my own interpretation when I've clearly shown that it's not an interpretation at all, but what the rulebook clearly says. AKA RAW. None the less, it clearly sounds like a cop out from you.

You can't even give me or any of the other posters the courtesy to answer any of our questions against you in previous posts. Instead you simply continue to stand by your misguided interpretation without even attempting to provide intelligent counter arguments.

It's one thing to have an intelligent rules debate, with an intelligent person, it's quite another thing to have to deal with a troll.

I just hope you at least afford your own opponents the correct play of the rules as a luxury that I afford to mine own as a courtesy, so they don't waste their time with you.

[Cereal n' Milk]

In the case of morale checks, wouldn't FNP ignore the wounds because the checks happen at the end of the phase?

Hit/Wound --> Saves --> Entropic Strike Effects --> Feel no Pain --> Morale Check, if i am correct?

The wound would have been ignored by the point morale checks come into play, but not for entropic strike.

[Angelofblades]

No, because if you did it that way, the unsaved wound still occurred, which would then trigger morale checks. It would actually end up like this:

Hit/Wound --> Saves --> Entropic Strike Effects --> Morale Check --> Feel no Pain

Which is obviously wrong.

The question really is, which is first? Entropic Strike OR Feel No Pain. All the evidence points to FnP before Entropic Strike. It's all in the wording of the rules.

Hit/Wound --> Saves (failed)--> unsaved wound --> Feel No Pain (failed)--> unsaved Wound --> Entropic Strike.

The wording for removing casualties converts a failed saved to an unsaved wound. Feel No Pain takes place right after an unsaved wound, as detailed in it's own description. Entropic Strike happens when it's an unsaved Wound.

[Necron2.0]

Look Necron2.0, it's obvious by your admission of defeat ....

BWAH-HAAAH!! No, clearly what I said is no sane person should ever consider playing against you.

Your entire argument hinges on whether or not a word is capitalized. This for a rules set that is inconsistent, that has tons of errata, that does not have a single book that did not require tons of errata, for which even the errata is incomplete, and which routinely uses a variety of words to describe common game elements with no explicit definition for any of them. The rules set has been written piecemeal over a decade, by differing authors, with different linguistic skills, and (based on the errata) with scant editing or crosschecking. And yet you would have us believe that the case of a word from differing books matters. Honestly, I don't think there's a single person here who takes that notion seriously. The only way this argument could be more trivial is if you were to suggest the placement of commas (or lack thereof) had some deeper meaning for the rules (and weren't simply typos).

Hell, even the first rule of the book says, effectively, go with what makes sense and don't get hung up on the syntax of the rules. It's even given the name "The Most Important Rule." Personally, I have no interest in playing against someone who cannot abide by that rule. My time is valuable, and I'm not lacking in things to do or people to play against, so I'm not going to waste my time in that way.

[Necron2.0]

Necron2.0, how do you treat FNP for assault morale checks?

Would you permit a squad that has taken no casualties at all and inflicted, say, 5, to be run down in combat because FNP doesn't 'save' the unsaved wound?

I answered this earlier. There's syntax and then there's semantics. It makes sense that FNP would affect morale. It makes no sense at all that someone's ability to ignore pain would magically affect the equipment that failed him (which forced him to tough out the pain in the first place).

[Spectral Dragon]

Regardless of FNP, entropic strike activates the moment you fail a save, of any kind.

Basically, you failed a save and took a wound. This is when the ability then activates. FNP allows you to ingore that wound, but you do not, also, ingore the entropic strike. Entropic strike targets armor, nor special abilities so it wouldn't make sense if FNP magically allowed you to ignore this special rule.

I think the wording in the codex is there for models that magically have a better invulnerable save than their armor save.

But, this has been beaten into the ground already in this thread.

Either way, I am sure a FAQ is on the way. GW has been a lot better with their FAQ lately.

[Nachodragon]

No, because if you did it that way, the unsaved wound still occurred, which would then trigger morale check


No, no it wouldn't. Morale checks only happen with casualties. And assault has rules that cover winners and losers.


The question really is, which is first? Entropic Strike OR Feel No Pain. All the evidence points to FnP before Entropic Strike. It's all in the wording of the rules.

The entropic strike would happen first. I point to the word immediately in the rule.

I would ask you to find any other rule that talks about an unsaved Wound, with a capital.

[Angelofblades]

The entropic strike would happen first. I point to the word immediately in the rule.

I would ask you to find any other rule that talks about an unsaved Wound, with a capital.

No, no. It happens when a model actually looses a wound. I don't have to find any other rule that talks about unsaved Wounds, I've proven myself over 4 posts. You're missing the point. The point is, the rule book itself has made a clear distinction between the uses of wound and Wound. Is there any coincidence that Entropic Strike uses the term Wound in the middle of the sentence? There isn't.

To prove that Entropic Strike happens prior to Feel No Pain, you have to prove that there is no difference in the usage of Wound vs wound. That an unsaved wound = unsaved Wound.

Good luck with that.

[Nachodragon]

I'm sorry, didn't you point out earlier that someone had to back up what they were saying. Cause, you clearly did not. We actually have.

No where else do they talk about an unsaved Wound. That is the point. There is no such thing. There is such a thing as unsaved wound, and a model that has lost a Wound.

And, to prove that they have failed the capital at least one other time. Pg 24 under remove casualties.

Pg 24
Forevery model that fails its save, the unit suffers an
unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds
against which no save can be attempted, such as those
from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a
single Wound on their profile, in which case for each
unsaved wound one model is immediately removed
from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models
in the unit have the same profile. special rules,
weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit
can choose which of his models is removed.

Multiple wound models

pg 26
When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep
track of how many wounds such models have suffered
on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or
marker next to them.

So, yes, you have to find an example where they talk about unsaved Wounds, because there is none; therefore, the only conclusion is Entropic strike happens with an unsaved wound, otherwise it would say when a model has lost a Wound.



You can't even give me or any of the other posters the courtesy to answer any of our questions against you in previous posts. Instead you simply continue to stand by your misguided interpretation without even attempting to provide intelligent counter arguments.

It's one thing to have an intelligent rules debate, with an intelligent person, it's quite another thing to have to deal with a troll.

Please, provide examples to prove your point.

[Spectral Dragon]

No, no. It happens when a model actually looses a wound. I don't have to find any other rule that talks about unsaved Wounds, I've proven myself over 4 posts. You're missing the point. The point is, the rule book itself has made a clear distinction between the uses of wound and Wound. Is there any coincidence that Entropic Strike uses the term Wound in the middle of the sentence? There isn't.

To prove that Entropic Strike happens prior to Feel No Pain, you have to prove that there is no difference in the usage of Wound vs wound. That an unsaved wound = unsaved Wound.

Good luck with that.
All you have proven is that you can't listen and that you really want a work around to this rule. You haven't found it in FNP, sorry.

I will quote Feel no Pain:
Small Rule Book, page 75
"Some warriors are so blood frenzied or tough that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a bettle hardened space marine. If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice. "

And there you go second, sentence, an exact word for word quote. The unsaved wound has occurred before FNP has taken effect. According to Entropic Strike, you must immediately lose your armor save.

So, both FNP, and Entropic strike activate upon an unsaved wound. Thus your argument is invalid.

[hisdudeness]

I’m with Angel of Blades on this one. There is a massive difference between Wound and wound.

Wound is a key word referencing the Wound characteristic. It even has its own index entry. Thus an unsaved Wound (as AoB has stated) is the action of reducing a models current Wounds to determine if it becomes a casualty.

A wound is a hit that has been converted to a wound and then has to bypass the armor of the model hit. A wound does not become a Wound until it the end of the process. Even FnP refers to this process on p75. FnP kicks in on an “unsaved wound” (a hit converted to a wound) and ES kicks in on an “unsaved Wound” (a reduction in current Wound).

I firmly believe that if GW wanted to have the ES effect to happen regardless of out come they would have said the effect happened on a successful hit not on an unsaved Wound.

[Nachodragon]

Where is an example of an unsaved Wound? There are plenty of examples of unsaved wounds. That is not what we are asking. Where else does it EVER talk about unsaved Wounds? The only place is in ES since it has no meaning, no context, no definition, it has to mean unsaved wound, not Wound.

That is what we are asking for now, find an example please.

Also, I just want to point out, there is no 'can of worms' for morale checks and assault results as they both have rules that specifically deal with the results of FNP. Morale, end of phase and only casualties, not Wounds or wounds. Assault, it states to ignore those wounds that have been ignored themselves; so, FNP saved wounds don't count as they are ignored.

[addamsfamily36]

I have another question.

Eldar......Fortune.....

Now, fortune enables you to re-roll your failed save.

So if i fail it once i must immediately lose my Armour? and then i get no re-roll because, well now i have no Armour.

Is that how necron players would play it?

cause as a necron, blood angels and eldar player, i can tell you i would never enforce such a thing.

[Rahakanji]

So if i fail it once i must immediately lose my Armour? and then i get no re-roll because, well now i have no Armour.


No, you haven't had a unsaved wound yet, the reroll is part of the initial save.

[hisdudeness]

No, you haven't had a unsaved wound yet, the reroll is part of the initial save.

No it is not. It is the same mechanic as FnP.

[addamsfamily36]

what "hisdudeness" said

[SeattleDV8]

No it is not. It is the same mechanic as FnP.

Nope, not even close. BRB FAQ:
Q: How do dice rolls that can trigger an effect from a
special rule (such as rolling a 1 To Hit when shooting a
weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule) interact with
re-rolls? (p2)
A: You only check to see if the effect has been
triggered after the re-rolls have been made.

[Spectral Dragon]

Where is an example of an unsaved Wound? There are plenty of examples of unsaved wounds. That is not what we are asking. Where else does it EVER talk about unsaved Wounds? The only place is in ES since it has no meaning, no context, no definition, it has to mean unsaved wound, not Wound.

That is what we are asking for now, find an example please.

Also, I just want to point out, there is no 'can of worms' for morale checks and assault results as they both have rules that specifically deal with the results of FNP. Morale, end of phase and only casualties, not Wounds or wounds. Assault, it states to ignore those wounds that have been ignored themselves; so, FNP saved wounds don't count as they are ignored.

Look at my post right above yours, it explains it rather clearly I think. Let me repeat it in a more clear manner.

Entropic Strike:
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle."

Feel no Pain:
Small Rule Book, page 75
"Some warriors are so blood frenzied or tough that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a bettle hardened space marine. If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.

Both abilities activate from an unsaved wound. Entropic strike says it activates immediately, so entropic strike comes first, then FNP.

Also, FNP is not a re-roll. If it was a reroll you would get the same armor save. A twin linked gun allows you to re-roll. A special rule saying you must re-roll successfull armor saves is a reroll. You are not rolling for anything a second time with FNP, you are using a special rule.

[addamsfamily36]

Ok lets ignore the re-rolling argument because as you've correctly stated, FNP is not a re-roll.

Now, although entropic strike says immediately, it does not say it occurs before other rules. FNP states when you suffer an unsaved wound role a dice.

Because FNP enables you to ignore the injury, then it prevents enthropic strike on this basis:

The trigger for enthropic strike is taking a wound, not failing your save. FNP enables you to ignore the injury, and thus preventing the wound on your profile. The counter argument that you still take the wound but ignore its effects doesn't hold up:

- for instance Lemartes would go nuts because hes taken a wound. he might ignore it but hes still taken a wound and thus his ability activates.

I fail to see how you can fail a save and take a wound but also not take that wound off your profile because you ignore it (save it through being a boss) ? surely that prevents you from taking a wound and thus prevent enthropic strike from activating as it activates from wounds taken. not saves failed.

[Nachodragon]

Ok, you guys are comparing disimilar things. Lemartes says unsaved wound, not unsaved Wound.

Anything that says immediately happens right away, that is what immediately means. There can be no discussion there. So, if FNP said immediately, you could choose order of operations, since it does not entropic strike happens first and then FNP.

I say again, where does it say unsaved Wound anywhere else? It makes no sense. Wound is a profile attribute. It only means how many wounds a model can take. There is no such thing as unsaved Wounds, there is such a thing as unsaved wounds.

Lemartes says unsaved wound, not unsaved Wound. So, in theory, Lemartes would go crazy. I said earlier Lemartes wouldn't freak but rereading it i believe he would go crazy and it makes him a much crazier model to take.

Just show me where it says unsaved Wound in any other rule. It doesn't, they all say unsaved wound. So, please stop just saying words and throw up some comment evidence. That's all I am asking.

[addamsfamily36]

But surely your own post voids your own argument.


pg 26
When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep
track of how many wounds such models have suffered
on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or
marker next to them.

The capital W refers to wounds on profile. If that is the case, then Enthropic strike is activated from when you lose profile wounds. FNP ignores these wounds from occurring by ignoring the injury.

Yes immediately means right away, but the effect activates once you have suffered an unsaved wound. If FNP enables you to ignore that injury and there by "saving" the Wound count on your models statline/profile, then enthropic strike cannot be activated as no Wound has been unsaved. As FNP gives you the chance at preventing/ignoring a wound, it has to be taken before enthropic strike as it directly effects the activation of enthropic strike. if you then failed your FNP (on a multiple wound model) , enthropic strike would then activate immediately because you have suffered a Wound that was unsaved from any source available to you.

[Spectral Dragon]

Ok lets ignore the re-rolling argument because as you've correctly stated, FNP is not a re-roll.

Now, although entropic strike says immediately, it does not say it occurs before other rules. FNP states when you suffer an unsaved wound role a dice.

Because FNP enables you to ignore the injury, then it prevents enthropic strike on this basis:

The trigger for enthropic strike is taking a wound, not failing your save. FNP enables you to ignore the injury, and thus preventing the wound on your profile. The counter argument that you still take the wound but ignore its effects doesn't hold up:

- for instance Lemartes would go nuts because hes taken a wound. he might ignore it but hes still taken a wound and thus his ability activates.

I fail to see how you can fail a save and take a wound but also not take that wound off your profile because you ignore it (save it through being a boss) ? surely that prevents you from taking a wound and thus prevent enthropic strike from activating as it activates from wounds taken. not saves failed.

........no. you guys still don't get it.

An unsaved wound is either a failed armor save, or the inability to take an armor save.

Page 22 of the small rule book, "Remove Casualties,"
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds from which no saves can be attempted."

Now, that should make it clear what an unsaved wound is. This is important because both rules say "Upon taking an unsaved wound."

So, Lamartes takes his armor save, fails, and both FNP and Entropic Strike activate. The order this occurs in doesn't matter, because FNP does not "Take away" the fact that an unsaved wound has occured. All it does is allow the model to ignore the fact that an unsaved wound has occured. Gameplay wise this means no wounds are taken, but the fact of the matter is the weapon hit, it wounded, and the save was failed, and according to the rules entropic strike activates.

So, no more armor save for the rest of the game, according to the rules of the game. If FNP can be activated, then you roll for that, and regardless of the outcome, you still don't get an armor save. You DO get to keep your FNP save if the rules allow you to use it.

So, basically, according to your own argument:

"I fail to see how you can fail a save and take a wound but......" Nope, sorry, no buts. He took an unsaved wound. Period, end of story. Entropic strike activates. It does say, immediately, after all.

[addamsfamily36]

........no. you guys still don't get it.

An unsaved wound is either a failed armor save, or the inability to take an armor save.

Page 22 of the small rule book, "Remove Casualties,"
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds from which no saves can be attempted."

Now, that should make it clear what an unsaved wound is. This is important because both rules say "Upon taking an unsaved wound."

So, Lamartes takes his armor save, fails, and both FNP and Entropic Strike activate. The order this occurs in doesn't matter, because FNP does not "Take away" the fact that an unsaved wound has occured. All it does is allow the model to ignore the fact that an unsaved wound has occured. Gameplay wise this means no wounds are taken, but the fact of the matter is the weapon hit, it wounded, and the save was failed, and according to the rules entropic strike activates.

So, no more armor save for the rest of the game, according to the rules of the game. If FNP can be activated, then you roll for that, and regardless of the outcome, you still don't get an armor save. You DO get to keep your FNP save if the rules allow you to use it.

So, basically, according to your own argument:

"I fail to see how you can fail a save and take a wound but......" Nope, sorry, no buts. He took an unsaved wound. Period, end of story. Entropic strike activates. It does say, immediately, after all.

But Enthropic strike specifically refers to Wounds with a capital does it not? or was that a red herring thron into the mix?

If so


When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved
wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the
model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a
casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be
killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep
track of how many wounds such models have suffered
on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or
marker next to them.

You have to lose a Wound from your profile first, before enthropic strike even activates. It does not activate from an unsaved wound, which can be reversed/ignored/prevented by subsequent special rules, such as FNP, re-rolls etc. If you then fail that as well, your model will take an unsaved profile Wound and enthropic strike activates immediately, and you lose your armour.

[Spectral Dragon]

But Enthropic strike specifically refers to Wounds with a capital does it not? or was that a red herring thron into the mix?

If so



You have to lose a Wound from your profile first, before enthropic strike even activates. It does not activate from an unsaved wound, which can be reversed/ignored/prevented by subsequent special rules, such as FNP, re-rolls etc. If you then fail that as well, your model will take an unsaved profile Wound and enthropic strike activates immediately, and you lose your armour.
Wow, that like saying your Alive, not alive. It's a gramatical semantic, and has no bearing whatsoever on this argument.

An unsaved wound is an unsaved Wound is an Unsaved wound is an Unsaved Wound. I don't care how you butter it up, the fact of the matter is he took a Wound, and according to the rules the ability activates. Your arguments at this point are not based on reason. You are trying to find a loophole where there is none. Even my sister who doesn't play the game can see what your doing, and why your argument just doesn't work.

Now, being a writer myself, I could go into why wound and Wound doesn't matter here if you wish.

EDIT: I will make one final point.

When you fail your armor save, or are prevented from taking a save, you lose a wound, right then and there. It's very similair to reanimation protocols, except for when the wound is regained. You are getting back a wound, by ignoring it. You are not keeping the wound from being lost.

Third point: your adding words which aren't there to the rules. That automatically makes your argument invalid, in my mind. an unsaved wound is still an Unsaved wound. Matter of fact, it is still an unsaved profile Wound, as you call it, as FNP does not activate to prevent the wound right away. You took a wound, your just grinning and bearing it. Gameplay wise they can only show this by "giving the wound back."

[addamsfamily36]

Wow, that like saying your Alive, not alive. It's a gramatical semantic, and has no bearing whatsoever on this argument.

An unsaved wound is an unsaved Wound is an Unsaved wound is an Unsaved Wound. I don't care how you butter it up, the fact of the matter is he took a Wound, and according to the rules the ability activates. Your arguments at this point are not based on reason. You are trying to find a loophole where there is none. Even my sister who doesn't play the game can see what your doing, and why your argument just doesn't work.

Now, being a writer myself, I could go into why wound and Wound doesn't matter here if you wish.


Firstly, i did not bring that argument about wound or Wound to the table. Someone for the Enthropic strike did. i was merely showing how that argument for the rule works in favour of FNP.

failing a save and taking a wound are two very different situations. when you fail a save you take a wound, unless something can prevent it. a re-roll can prevent it. Fnp means you can ignore it. etc etc there are probably a few other rules that enable you to maintain hold of your Wound. the fact of the matter is, the wound has not been lost but "saved" by one or more special rules. as enthropic strike REQUIRES you to take an unsaved wound BEFORE it activates, FNP has a case against it, as it is a rule that has to happen before you can establish whether or not the wound is taken and unsaved or whether the wound is ignored.

IM NOT TRYING TO FIND ANY LOOPHOLE.

i previously stated i am both a blood angels, necron and eldar player. so having one work over the other has NO benefit to me what so ever.

Good for your sister. what has that got to do with anything? Also what does you being a writer have to do with anything? so you can write. good for you. i can also hold a pen.

what words have i added? i have only re quoted other people. if they are wrong then they were posted from people on your side of the argument.

[Nachodragon]

I agree with spectraldragon, but i would encourage anyone to find another example of unsaved Wound. Entropic strike cannot be the only one...can it. Cause, again, i say this is not a real thing. No where else do they talk about unsaved Wounds. They talk about losing a Wound or something like that... No where does it say unsaved Wound.

[Spectral Dragon]

I agree with spectraldragon, but i would encourage anyone to find another example of unsaved Wound. Entropic strike cannot be the only one...can it. Cause, again, i say this is not a real thing. No where else do they talk about unsaved Wounds. They talk about losing a Wound or something like that... No where does it say unsaved Wound.

I must just not be clear in my explanation, and I am sorry for blowing up on you, adamsfamily, it's been a terribly rough day.

Again, I want to point out, the rules clearly state that FNP activates on an unsaved wound (referenced above). This automatically means entropic strike comes into play, regardless of capitalization (I would like to point out that GW is rarely grammatically correct throughout any of it's works.)

"Immediately" means "Immediately," so yes it goes before other special rules activate. That means if an armor has something special about it, that something special is also lost.

The real difference between Wound and wound, by the way, is that a Wound denotes it belonging to the subject of the sentence, (basically, making it an object of attention.) whereas wound is just a term for the word. If it had any other significance we would see it in the main rulebook. GW does this to denote that it is an object wound so yes, I understand your argument but I am trying to explain that for the purposes of my own argument it's not valid.

Example: "Lemartes lost a Wound. A wound to the gut is very severe indeed. Take a feel no pain save to see if he recovers his Wound." In all sentences we are talking about the same wound to Lamartes. The capitalization punctuates it as a game-play object. Note that GW is not universal in it's grammar as there are several writers, which also means you can't judge a rule based on a capitol letter.

Technically speaking, the capitalization of Wound throughout the necron codex is a grammatical error.

Most writers ignore those kind of nuances so not everyone will be so technical.

Let me put this another way.

Page 22 of the small rule book, "Remove Casualties,"
"For every model that fails it's save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also includes wounds from which no saves can be attempted."

Ok, this needs to be looked at first. Basically this is saying that if you fail your armor save, you have an unsaved wound. Further evidence of this is in the FNP rule.

Feel no Pain:
Small Rule Book, page 75
"Some warriors are so blood frenzied or tough that they can ignore injuries that would incapacitate even a bettle hardened space marine. If a model with this ability suffers an unsaved wound, roll a dice.

The bolded part confirms that you take an unsaved wound to activate feel no pain in the first place. The very fact that you take an unsaved wound makes entropic strike activate:

Entropic Strike:
"Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle."

[hisdudeness]

I'm going to mostly drop the W vs w issue, it is getting us nowhere. The only thing to add is the Wound is a specific key word used in the game and the same for "unsaved wound". I'm still looking for other examples, but with classes starting back up and 20 some odd rule books it might be awhile.

I still believe that if GW wanted the effect to happen reqardless of outcome they would have said "when a model is hit", which would leave no room for arguement. Immediately is included so we know when it happens in HtH, as in effects happen in that Inti block and not at the end of the phase.

Additionally, the timing of immediately could be argued as there is no reference as to when "immediately" happens. Does it interrupt everything else that is happening or does it happen before other effects or is it just a word used by GW that has no bearing in the mechanics. Is there a precidence that shows us the effect of timing?

So while thouse against are looking for "unsaved Wounds" in the rules, I challenge the for side to find precidence in the rules on the timing of "mmediately". So don't go pulling out the dictionary.

[Tynskel]

I tried to look up mmediatly. I think you are making that up.
:)

I am surprised this is still going on. An unsaved wound is when your wound profile is modified. You don't lose a wound if fnp is passed.

Besides, no one has answered this: what does fnp do to morale in assault? Because if fnp does not ignore unsaved wounds, and it is the number of wounds that counts for combat resolution, then you are saying that if you only have single wound models and you lose no single wound models in close combat and syou can still lose the assault.

I can bunk.

[Nachodragon]

@Tynskel, it does nothing in assault. I have already stated there are rules to determine the results. Any wound that is ignored is ignored for purposed of determining assault results. Pg 39, Determining assault results. So, there is no can of worms that have been opened. Also, unsaved wound is when the model has failed an armor save. You then remove a Wound from their profile if nothing else can prevent the wound.

@hisdudeness, Immediately is not something that needs to be looked up because that is a very simple word to understand. It means it happens right when the trigger occurs. Look at Entropic strike for vehicles and it says immediately. This happens before anything else happens.

The model takes an unsaved wound and immediately loses their armor. FNP then happens to see if model ignores the wound or not.

[Cereal n' Milk]

With Wound vs. wound, why would the rules for entropic strike read "When a model takes an unsaved Wound..." and be referring to a Wound on the profile? Wouldn't it be simpler to say "When a model takes a Wound..."

Also, an unsaved Wound isn't grammatically possible as Wound is a characteristic. An unsaved wound, however, results in the loss of a Wound. Calling it "Unsaved Wound" would be like calling a failed Leadership test "Failed Leadership" or calling a miss in the shooting phase "Failed Ballistic Skill." It's not possible to fail a characteristic.

It simply doesn't make any grammatical sense to be referring to "Wound" and it is most likely just an error.

[hisdudeness]

@hisdudeness, Immediately is not something that needs to be looked up because that is a very simple word to understand. It means it happens right when the trigger occurs. Look at Entropic strike for vehicles and it says immediately. This happens before anything else happens.

The model takes an unsaved wound and immediately loses their armor. FNP then happens to see if model ignores the wound or not.

Yes we do need a timeing reference for Immediately. I can just as easily claim immediately means "immediately a the end of the Inti block" or "Immediately at the end of the process to see if a model loses a Wound" and be just as valid as "Immediately after a hit becomes a wound". There is no precident for the timing of immediately.

I'm not saying my view is correct or the that yours is incorrect. But you are hinging your entire argument on one word that is not defined the the rules.

[Nachodragon]

You can claim whatever you want, but it doesn't make it right.

"Any model that suffers an unsaved wound from a weapon or model with with this special rule immediately loses its armor save..."

There really is no wiggle room here. In order: wound -> armor save -> failed armor save -> immediately lose armor save -> FNP -> rest of game.

The other thing I just thought of while writing this reply, is each armor save should be rolled separately. If you fail the 1st, then you have no armor. Though, that may get complicated, but according to the vehicle side of ES, if you have 4 scarabs that remove 4 points of armor from a Rhino and you also have 5 warriors attacking, they would Penetrate on a 3+.

Also, not every word can be defined in the rules. Some words just mean what they always mean. Otherwise, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." [I guess we will gauge the ages of people reading this thread :) ]

[addamsfamily36]

You can claim whatever you want, but it doesn't make it right.

"Any model that suffers an unsaved wound from a weapon or model with with this special rule immediately loses its armor save..."

There really is no wiggle room here. In order: wound -> armor save -> failed armor save -> immediately lose armor save -> FNP -> rest of game.

The other thing I just thought of while writing this reply, is each armor save should be rolled separately. If you fail the 1st, then you have no armor. Though, that may get complicated, but according to the vehicle side of ES, if you have 4 scarabs that remove 4 points of armor from a Rhino and you also have 5 warriors attacking, they would Penetrate on a 3+.

Also, not every word can be defined in the rules. Some words just mean what they always mean. Otherwise, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." [I guess we will gauge the ages of people reading this thread ]

HA im sorry, but pot calling kettle black. You have one view, we have another. Both by Games terms could be right or wrong. You can claim whatever you want, but it doesn't make it right either.

And agreed with Hisdudeness. Immediately can have a timing. it is in reference to an unsaved wound. All special rules that can prevent that unsaved would/should be applied prior to that unsaved would being taken or not, Then you Immediately apply enthropic strike. It does not say immediately before all other game mechanics or special rules. (there are numerous rules that do specifically state when rules override other rules) this is not one of them.

[Necron2.0]

And yet again the community is hamstrung by the fact that GW cannot write rules that are worth a damn. Maybe this will all be cleared up when 6th edition comes out.

I doubt it. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt it, but maybe.

[addamsfamily36]

Im going to bring up eldar again actually.

Sorry guys :)

right, this the the BRB FAQ


Q: How do dice rolls that can trigger an effect from a
special rule (such as rolling a 1 To Hit when shooting a
weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule) interact with
re-rolls? (p2)
A: You only check to see if the effect has been
triggered after the re-rolls have been made.

this is in reference to re-rolls, and states any effect activated occurs after the re-roll. But in essence there is a part where you fail your save initially before the re-roll.

Now this was specifically put as an FAQ because it was not covered in the rules for a re-roll.

Enthropic strike does not state that it happens before other special rules, it states if an unsaved wound is taken you immediately lose your armour as a result. As FNP can prevent the wound from being unsaved, then entropic strike would have no chance to activate. Entropic strike working Immediately would also effect re-rolls if it was not for the FAQ. As neither FNP or Enthropic strike has been FAQ'd in regard to each other, the logical step is to look to the nearest example which in my opinion is the re-roll. In a re-roll you get a chance to prevent the wound by re-rolling your failed save. FNP doesn't enable you to prevent the save from failing, but it does prevent you taking the wound, which is the activation of enthropic strike.

[Nachodragon]

FNP is not a re-roll so it has no baring on this discussion. FNP is a separate rule and roll from armor saves. If you could re-roll an armor save, with Chronometron for example, and you did save it, then you would not lose armor.

And for the pot calling, I am merely stating that I am not adding extra words or claims about the rule. You could say immediately at the end of the phase, turn, game, day, year, whatever... that is adding extra to the rule that is not there.

Immediately, is immediately. There can be no discussion. Do I think the rules need clarification, frak yes! Are we going to get it... maybe. What can we do with the rules? Go as close to raw as we can otherwise why play with the rules in the first place. Let's just play go fish, I think the rules are pretty simple there.

[addamsfamily36]

FNP is not a re-roll so it has no baring on this discussion. FNP is a separate rule and roll from armor saves. If you could re-roll an armor save, with Chronometron for example, and you did save it, then you would not lose armor.

And for the pot calling, I am merely stating that I am not adding extra words or claims about the rule. You could say immediately at the end of the phase, turn, game, day, year, whatever... that is adding extra to the rule that is not there.

Immediately, is immediately. There can be no discussion. Do I think the rules need clarification, frak yes! Are we going to get it... maybe. What can we do with the rules? Go as close to raw as we can otherwise why play with the rules in the first place. Let's just play go fish, I think the rules are pretty simple there.

I'm not saying that FNP is a re-roll. What im saying is that the re-roll FAQ specifically clarified that you get your re-roll before other "activated abilities such as enthropic strike" take place. IF the FAQ (which was released ages before entropic strike entered the game) was never written, then enthropic strike would also override a re-roll. thankfully it doesn't because of that FAQ. FNP has no FAQ in regard to enthropic strike and whether or not you get to make your FNP before or after. As Enthropic strike does not say it overrides other special rules and that it only activates once you take a wound, then both sides of the argument have a 50/50 case.

In response to immediately being immediately, have you ever been to an event/show where they have said "immediately following this show" or "Immediately exit the store once you have finished" etc etc?
There are many cases in which immediately can occur after an event. In this case it is possible to argue for and against that the event is the sequence of events. All chances to save the wound should/would/must be taken then once that is resolved immediately apply enthropic trike. (If you are in favour of FNP)

Personally i will ask my opponent prior to the match. if we disagree i'll use the roll off for it rule. ill play it whichever way that goes. what frustrates me ( and this is not aimed at you nachodragon) is that there are some who will not play a game if there is a disagreement and claim that their opponent is rule bending.

[Nachodragon]

Again, FNP is completely different than a re-roll. A re-roll is like you did not even roll yet. When you decide to re-roll then the second roll counts. If you decide not to re-roll then, obviously, the first roll counts. If you go to something else you do not get to re-roll anymore as the time has passed. Re-rolls are like pausing the game to decide if you actually liked the roll.

FNP is a different d6 roll and is triggered by the unsaved wound. ES is also triggered by the unsaved wound. ES happens right away, hence, immediately. FNP rolls allows you to ignore the wound but the unsaved wound still happens.

To your point on immediately, I have been to events that said immediately after the show or something like that. But, you are proving my point by adding words that are not there. There are not other words following immediately; therefore, it happens immediately, not at a random time later.

What it all comes down to is how you play with your own group. I personally have not had the circumstance come up but once and they didn't fail their armor save and then slaughtered all my little scarabs.

I am all for playing for fun but at the same time trying to follow the rules set forth. Prior to the Necron FAQ I had to abide by some, let's say, 'interesting' interpretations of some rules that proved later to follow RAW and my interpretations. We agreed before FAQ what made sense (to the group, not me) but I understood and we had fun.[ Mindshackle was one rule, and everyone (but me) said a single model would not attack himself and would just not attack.]

My biggest issue with most rules interpretations is when they go on a tangent to the actual RAW reading and become a completely new rule. That is not really what is happening here, just felt like adding that 2 cents.

[addamsfamily36]

Again, FNP is completely different than a re-roll. A re-roll is like you did not even roll yet. When you decide to re-roll then the second roll counts. If you decide not to re-roll then, obviously, the first roll counts. If you go to something else you do not get to re-roll anymore as the time has passed. Re-rolls are like pausing the game to decide if you actually liked the roll.

FNP is a different d6 roll and is triggered by the unsaved wound. ES is also triggered by the unsaved wound. ES happens right away, hence, immediately. FNP rolls allows you to ignore the wound but the unsaved wound still happens.

To your point on immediately, I have been to events that said immediately after the show or something like that. But, you are proving my point by adding words that are not there. There are not other words following immediately; therefore, it happens immediately, not at a random time later.

What it all comes down to is how you play with your own group. I personally have not had the circumstance come up but once and they didn't fail their armor save and then slaughtered all my little scarabs.

I am all for playing for fun but at the same time trying to follow the rules set forth. Prior to the Necron FAQ I had to abide by some, let's say, 'interesting' interpretations of some rules that proved later to follow RAW and my interpretations. We agreed before FAQ what made sense (to the group, not me) but I understood and we had fun.[ Mindshackle was one rule, and everyone (but me) said a single model would not attack himself and would just not attack.]

My biggest issue with most rules interpretations is when they go on a tangent to the actual RAW reading and become a completely new rule. That is not really what is happening here, just felt like adding that 2 cents.


re-rolls might be like pausing the game, but nowhere does it say that's what happens. you just have the option, usually from a special rule or ability to re-roll a failed save.

FNP triggering is really the crunch part, If Gamesworkshop intends enthropic strike to activate once you have taken an unsaved wound fully, I.e your wounds go from 3 down to 2, then FNP gets a chance prior to enthropic strike activating. If however it is as soon as you fail your armour save, then FNP gets no chance. As the rule says Unsaved Wound, i am more in favor of FNP getting a chance before enthropic strike takes effect. But as you say , each to their own.

In those examples of immediately there are extra words, but its possible to view it in a similar way without adding any extra words or rules.

Entropic strike activates when an Unsaved wound occurs

Unsaved wound = "end of the event"

To the sequence wound act as follow:

Wounded - Take save - fail save - Take feel no pain - prevent Wound being Unsaved - (event ends) no enthropic strike

Or

Wounded - Take save - fail save - Take feel no pain - Fail FNP and therefore take an Unsaved wound - (event ends) enthropic strike immediately activates.

But thats going on the interpretation explained above in red.

I haven't seen it come up thinking about it, but its most likely because no one has thought about it at my local store. Everyone has been playing it that you get your FNP. Yeah i do find my scarabs get hit pretty hard and usually early on, and when facing them i tend to send something in that can do instant death damage to them. :)

I was ensure how to play the minsdhackle one until the FAQ. luckily it takes me ages to get armies together so the FAQ was out after only 2 or 3 proper games with my full army.

[Maelstorm]

Understood.

FNP is not triggered until the model suffers an unsaved wound. GW rules are written and edited by both morons and Morons.

At my LGS we are now playing it as written, Entropic Strike happens "immediately". If the FNP roll is made the model is still alive, but his armor has been eaten away.

"It's just a flesh wound" (Add your own Monty Python accent)

Next: In search of the holy hand grenade...

[Nachodragon]

When you fail an armor save the wound becomes an unsaved wound. Both Entropic Strike and Feel No Pain trigger off an unsaved wound. I refer back to Cereal n' Milk's post earlier about Wound vs. wound.

When you fail your armor save it is the end of the event.
Also, FNP gets to work in conjunction with ES. If you succeed in your FNP roll then your model will have an armor save of - but will still be alive and can potentially do something else.

This situation with FNP is trying to have your cake and eating it too.

It is a new mechanic (that I know of) and could probably have been play tested better (if ever) and should have some more FAQ about how it interacts with other rules, but I think, frankly, it is pretty clear how it works exactly.

[Spectral Dragon]

AdamsFamily, we just explained to you the following:

1) Immediately means immediately means immediately. Whats the timing? the timing is immediately after taking an unsaved wound. There can be no argument there.

2) The rulebook clearly states what an unsaved wound is. Why you are still arguing this point is beyond me. I listed what the rulebook stated was an unsaved wound in an earlier post.

3) Both FNP and ES activate upon an unsaved wound. FNP activates immediately upon an unsaved wound so that is the timing you use.

4) As stated earlier, there is no difference between unsaved wound and unsaved Wound, besides grammar (In the case of the second the grammar is actually wrong, despite what GW was trying to do with it which is turn it into an item of interest.)

5) You have not brought up a sincere argument here. We have provided evidence (in some cases downright proof, which you still argue against,) which you have promptly ignored.

6) Now, a direct quote from you: If Gamesworkshop intends enthropic strike to activate once you have taken an unsaved wound fully, I.e your wounds go from 3 down to 2, then FNP gets a chance prior to enthropic strike activating." No, absolutely not. Again, immediately after an unsaved wound means immediately after an unsaved wound. Read the section of the rulebook on unsaved wounds I quoted in an above post.

I'm sorry, but you are not making a very convincing argument here.

[thecactusman17]

Guys, I need to point out that while order of operations is important, GW has never stated that an unsaved wound is anything other than when a model drops a wound, down either to zero (removing as a casualty) or to a lesser number.

To clarify this in a manner that would allow the gear to work as intended, they created a special exception, written into the wargear, for the Shadowfield Dark Eldar invulnerable save. That wording is not about wounds. It explicitly mentions that you must fail the save in question, regardless of whether or not you take a wound.

Combat Resolution is another area of the game where this same logic could create awkward reactions, as that also is based on "unsaved wounds."

[addamsfamily36]

I haven't ignored i have given a second view. I have also stated that both sides of the argument have a fair case. Therefore will play it accordingly (and if any issue comes up i will play the roll off rule).

I will be the first to say fair enough if this gets FAQ'd in enthropic strikes favour.

I am not going to repeat myself as its not getting anyone anywhere. I would like to point out though:


As stated earlier, there is no difference between unsaved wound and unsaved Wound, besides grammar

Grammar as far as i am aware plays a fairly crucial part in reading and therefore how the rules can be interpreted.

The fact that Wound is capitalised more than once mid sentence and in Enthropic strike specifically gives weight to The FNP argument.

Thats me out anyways. The last 4 pages are just the same arguments over and over.

I'm happy to play the rule either way but will roll off for it if there is any arguments in my games.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, this is pretty clear. An unsaved wound is when your profile has been modified and there's no way to stop it--- most cases means the individual model is now out of commission, but in some cases, it means less wounds left.

Entropic Strike is still a really cool ability.

[Necron2.0]

Guys, I need to point out that while order of operations is important, GW has never stated that an unsaved wound is anything other than when a model drops a wound, down either to zero (removing as a casualty) or to a lesser number.

For FNP, GW never stated anything in the meat of the rule (the part under contention) that even comes close to involving wounds. The literal world used is "injury." Tell me exactly what "injury" means in game terms, using nothing but exact contextually correct phrases from the core book. If we're going to get hung up on RAW, then we need to use it correctly.


To clarify this in a manner that would allow the gear to work as intended, they created a special exception, written into the wargear, for the Shadowfield Dark Eldar invulnerable save. That wording is not about wounds. It explicitly mentions that you must fail the save in question, regardless of whether or not you take a wound.

Apples and Oranges. The DE codex was written by Phil Kelly. The Necron codex was written by Matt Ward. Given the volume of errata for all books in this game, it is clear there is little editing, and probably not much in the way of play testing. So attempting to come up with consensus through comparisons of disparate rules sets is futile.

The only thing that is getting clearer here is that the rules are badly written.

[Necron2.0]

Besides, there is one universal principle that is always quoted whenever rules hierarchy comes up. I'm surprised actually it hasn't come up here yet.

The axiom is, whenever there is conflict, the Codex trumps the core rulebook. FNP is core. ES is Codex.
TRUMP!!

[hisdudeness]

First, codex does not trump rulebook. It's specific trumps general. These are both specific rules for the situation.

Second, the 'for' view still hinges on a single word- immediately. There is no set timing in the rules for immediately. I believe we can all agree the both rules are triggered at the same step. But with no timing of when immediately happens we cannot say for certain that ES has a 'faster' timing then FnP. This leads us to an impasse.

[thecactusman17]

Codex overrides rulebook. It is in the rulebook.

[Rapture]

Codex overrides rulebook. It is in the rulebook.

That works wonders for a direct conflict, but I don't see how it is particularly helpful in this case.

[Necron2.0]

Direct or not, it's a conflict. If it weren't, we'd have nothing to talk about here.

[Nachodragon]

So, to point out how awesome* the writing of these rules are let's look at some other from the Necron Codex.

First, Deathmarks and Nemesor.
Both have an ability to come into play via deep strike when an opponent brings in a unit from reserve. The only real difference is Nemesor gives it to the army and Deathmarks have it inate. The rules are written differently. They even sound different until you read it seven or eight times. They do the same thing.

Second, Doomscythe and Stormlord's Staff of the Destroyer.
They are similar in what they do. They do have different strengths and lengths but the idea behind it is the same. Draw a line and anything the line touches will be hit. First off, Doomscythe uses underneath and Staff uses under, not much difference but it is a different word... also never defined in any book. (Because it does not need to be). Doomscythe says every unit, staff says any unit. Same meaning, different words. Takes and suffers hits. What does that mean? Those are not defined either.

These are some of the types of arguments that are being brought up. Entropic Strike happens to be one of the simplest of devices/rules that they have created. Could they have written it clearer, certainly. But, they could also have written FNP clearer too, and with less fluffy words in the actual rules portion of the description. What is an injury? Stubbing my toe could be considered an injury but would I lose a Wound? Probably not. Does FNP say they have passed their armor save? No. Does it say they no longer have an unsaved wound? No.


*By awesome I mean written by monkeys

[dreadnaughtguy]

I get your Wound vs wound destinction. i think that they were not as carefull in their use in the Necron codex.

For example. Empathic Obliterator ... If the score is a 4 or more, that model suffers a Wound (armor saves are taken as normal).

Using the wording desctinction you present this is never possible since a Wound is the damage done after armor and other saves have been taken on a wound.

I agree with RAW. I just don't know how possible it is to use it because of the issues that crop up with GW interchanging terms it invents and defines.

Vindicare turbo penetrator round

A turbo-penetrator shot inflicts 2 wounds on any non-vehicle model wounded, rather than 1.

That is two examples of the lack of differance between wound and Wound. I was carefull and used the correct capitolization as those are the center of your argument.

[Brother Cruorem]

I think there is a very important part of FnP that has been completely ignored or quite simply, quickly passed over

As the good reverend quoted FnP


(Emphasis mine)

Since there are some of us that would like to throw out definitions



FnP disregards the unsaved wound, it is in efffect, rejected. Entropic strike doesn't negate armor saves if you pass FnP.

I'd would also like to point out that Entropic Strike specifically refers to unsaved Wounds and not unsaved wounds.

If you check on page 24 of the rulebook, under "Remove Casualties," it makes a distinction between Wounds and wounds. Where wounds are counts as the moment when an opposing model successfully makes the roll to cause a wound, and an unsaved wound is where the victim model, fails to pass it's save. A Wound, however, refers to the model's Wound or (W) characteristics profile, several weapons/ wargear continue this reference as well (see Terreract Labyrinth). Thus, an unsaved Wound, is when the (W) characteristic of the victim model, is actualy affected.

Since FnP prevents that from happening, this is another count against Entropic Strike from actually working against FnP.

This makes the most sense to me.

[Senger285]

armor save is gone because you failed the armor save. You would just have feel no pain then.

[Maelstorm]

Unless you're looking through Blood Angel (rose) colored glasses it's pretty clear -

Armour is gone, Marine is still standing.




Necrons: 14,500
Blood Angels: 12,000+
High Elves: 5,500+
Cryx: 369 Models, 576 points

[Rapture]

Direct or not, it's a conflict. If it weren't, we'd have nothing to talk about here.


The conflict doesn't seem to be between the rules and the codex, but between various interpretation of the various rules that people are using to make their arguments.

As an aside, I don't know how often you visit the rules forum here, but the fact that people are arguing about it is not dispositive of a conflict.

[Demonus]

count me and my group in with the pro ES crew here. if you make your FnP roll, you are alive, with an armor value of -

not that it matters for those that disagree, as I will never play you ;)

[dreadnaughtguy]

It was shaping up to be a typical RAW vs RAI fight, however I found a couple of RAW problems with the pro-RAW argument. I guess its a typical GW flub. I love this game and I am a huge fan of the fluf, but they have got to do a better job on rules crafting. I don't understand how a company can put out rule books for 60+ us and not get a solid rules set.

[Spectral Dragon]

It was shaping up to be a typical RAW vs RAI fight, however I found a couple of RAW problems with the pro-RAW argument. I guess its a typical GW flub. I love this game and I am a huge fan of the fluf, but they have got to do a better job on rules crafting. I don't understand how a company can put out rule books for 60+ us and not get a solid rules set.

Or, at the very least, a much more active FAQ ruling.

[dreadnaughtguy]

well as long as we are dreaming lets go for both. I want good rules and frequent FAQ's.... And a pony.