FNP rules question

[DapperDave]

It comes down RAI.

 

Do you really think it was the intention to make so many models / units with FNP not benefit from it? Chaos daemons are one case... the new dark eldar are, too (many 6+ or 5+ saves, but most of the army can get FNP)... I know sometimes GW pulls some head-scratchers, but I think this is beyond even them.

 

 

Odd side-thought that I had while writing this:

 

Would plague bearers get a FNP save against daemon hunter weapons that deny invuln saves?

 

Also, Brother Captain James:

 

"What's next, someone claiming that if a model fails an armor save he can't benefit from FNP because at that point no armor save can ever be taken against that wound ..."

 

-this is a valid point, if not framed a little snarkily. If you follow through with your logic, a model is denied it's armor save when it fails it's armor check thus no FNP... which would mean FNP would never work.

 

The sad thing is, I can tell from the previous pages of this discussion, that you will simply not accept any of our reasoning (even though no one else has chimed in to agree with you). With that said, this is exactly the sort of thing that will make people dread playing with you. If you can't admit you're wrong about something, then who's going to want to deal with that over a 2+ hour game more than once?

 

Being confident is fine, but being so much so to the point of blindness is not a good practice.

[Grimtooth]

It comes down RAI.

 

Do you really think it was the intention to make so many models / units with FNP not benefit from it? Chaos daemons are one case... the new dark eldar are, too (many 6+ or 5+ saves, but most of the army can get FNP)... I know sometimes GW pulls some head-scratchers, but I think this is beyond even them.

 

 

Odd side-thought that I had while writing this:

 

Would plague bearers get a FNP save against daemon hunter weapons that deny invuln saves?

 

Also, Brother Captain James:

 

"What's next, someone claiming that if a model fails an armor save he can't benefit from FNP because at that point no armor save can ever be taken against that wound ..."

 

-this is a valid point, if not framed a little snarkily. If you follow through with your logic, a model is denied it's armor save when it fails it's armor check thus no FNP... which would mean FNP would never work.

 

The sad thing is, I can tell from the previous pages of this discussion, that you will simply not accept any of our reasoning (even though no one else has chimed in to agree with you). With that said, this is exactly the sort of thing that will make people dread playing with you. If you can't admit you're wrong about something, then who's going to want to deal with that over a 2+ hour game more than once?

 

Being confident is fine, but being so much so to the point of blindness is not a good practice.

 

And then the admission that he would even ask or propose for a roll off on the FnP. As I mentioned, that is akin to my outrageous example, because the only one that is bringing it up as a point of contention is you BCJ. And even then, your opinion breaks the game on so many levels beyond just the original ork armor save example you submitted.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

"What's next, someone claiming that if a model fails an armor save he can't benefit from FNP because at that point no armor save can ever be taken against that wound ..."

 

Failing an armor save is completely different than the save being ignored in the first place.

 

"And then the admission that he would even ask or propose for a roll off on the FnP."

In regards to this I would only propose this if my opponent agreed to it (meaning we both concede the other's point and can't reach an agreeable solution, as that's how it's handled with most things in this game). Most of my opponents happen to be friends so yet again it's not about finding rules to exploit, in fact I'm not even the one who brought this up, a friend who plays orks caught it when reading the FNP entry and we all thought it was a valid point. I just thought I'd toss it out here for varying opinions.

[breng77]

I understand what "ever" means, but yet again, it comes down RAI. If anything I would've thought it'd be accepted by now that NOTHING's absolute in this game.

 

Except that RAI is that you do get the FNP save, because that is what is intended and written. And Yes there are things that are absolute in this game. My Space marines Balistic Skill is 4 if I want to hit someone with a ranged weapon I roll a 3+ to hit. Infantry move 6" (unless specifically stated otherwise). DO you really think GW writes rules that they intend a player never to be able to use?

 

You also say you came on to see varying opinions, and when the whole board says, not that is not how the rule works (with evidence), you still say, yes that is how it works. That is not looking for opinions that is looking for validation of your (incorrect) interpretation of a rule.

[BrotherCaptainJames]

I never once naysayed anyone's opinion on here, I admit I tried to argue my point, but I've never made the "I'm right you're wrong" statement lol. I don't think GW intends for a lot things to end up the way they do in all actuality haha, but it still happens. As for being told how the rule works backed by evidence I think I supported my own argument well enough. Regardless I'm done, my group will play as it plays and you guys will do the same. Thanks for your input.

[Skalver]

Well the question would be, why ask about a rule if you were going to ignore all the feedback you recieve anyway?

[Spazmonkey]

I never once naysayed anyone's opinion on here, I admit I tried to argue my point, but I've never made the "I'm right you're wrong" statement lol. I don't think GW intends for a lot things to end up the way they do in all actuality haha, but it still happens. As for being told how the rule works backed by evidence I think I supported my own argument well enough. Regardless I'm done, my group will play as it plays and you guys will do the same. Thanks for your input.

 

Yeah no offense mate but you comments came across very strongly that you beileve everyone else is wrong.

And while you did not make the im right your wrong statement, the theme of your comments implied it loud and clear.

 

I like a good debate and love having my own opinions changed by good argument, but your comments came across as very inflexable and unwilling to conseed the point at any stage.

[breng77]

Well the question would be, why ask about a rule if you were going to ignore all the feedback you recieve anyway?

 

in his defense he didn't ask just chose this thread, which was another poster's question, to state how he felt the rule worked. Which was refuted by pretty much everyone who posted, and cited the rule as written. It is his groups choice to play with House rules if they wish. There should just not be an expectation of others to do the same.