Entropic Strike and FnP

[Morollan]

As far as I'm concerned, unless FAQ'd otherwise, Entropic Strike does apply to single wound models because that's what the rules tell us. It may involve some extra record keeping but it seems clear that GW is heading in that direction (Pain Tokens, Reanimation Protocol counters etc).

 

That is what one interpretation of the rules tells us. Stating your view of s discussion as though it were ironclad fact is rather poor courtesy.

 

You can say that, because you failed a save, Entropic "triggers" and thus erases the models' armor, or you can say that because you ignore the wound with FNP, it never happened and Entropic has no effect. The rules as they stand do not offer any resolution to this dilemma- it is entirely up to the players and/or TO to resolve it until such time as a FAQ is issued.

 

The rules do offer a resolution. In fact, if you just read the rules carefully there isn't even anything to resolve! People have been making a big deal over the timing of Entropic Strike in relation to FNP but even that is addressed in the rules as I previously pointed out. Entropic Strike says the target immediately loses its armour. This therefore occurs before FNP rolls. Even if it didn't, the argument would still be irrelevant as nothing in the rules states that any other effects of the unsaved wound are ignored if the FNP roll is made.

[Jorre]

Most of the guys on the pro entropic strike side of the argument seem to be very focused on the read as written interpretation of the rules. To be honest if you are only going to take read as written interpretation into account there are just as many pro and anti loosing your armour arguments. You are never going to resolve it so if that's your way if thinking you need to roll off! No point arguing about it people have already chose their stance and you won't be able to say anything that hasn't already been said to change their mind.

 

Now if you actually look at it with a read as intended interpretation, I genuinely don't believe gw would want you to have to keep track of basic troops who have lost their armour save! In large games this would be rediculas. I can not see gw ruling in favour of loosing armour even though fnp was passed.

 

Think of the consequences if a standard trooper did loose his armour. Is he then armed differently forthe purposes of future wound allocation?

 

He rule is clearly there to make big multi wound characters or monsterous creatures think twice about taking on guys with entropic strike.

 

I actually really like the rule it's something new and different to anything already around. But trying to take advantage of a unclear rule is a little old to me, we go through this same crap every new codex!

 

Sorry end rant

[BlackKnight1239]

Most of the guys on the pro entropic strike side of the argument seem to be very focused on the read as written interpretation of the rules. To be honest if you are only going to take read as written interpretation into account there are just as many pro and anti loosing your armour arguments. You are never going to resolve it so if that's your way if thinking you need to roll off! No point arguing about it people have already chose their stance and you won't be able to say anything that hasn't already been said to change their mind.

 

Accept I have yet to see an actual compelling argument for Etropic strike not happening with Feel No Pain, and several supporting it. Frankly, if a person is so will to ignore the rules written plain as day, then it's tandemount to cheating. The point is, there are arguments for Etropic Strike, and "well I read it the other way" against it. If someone has taken a stance against RAW, then I will consider them trying to cheat to win and remove myself from the game. RAI is subjective. RAI is useless.

 

Now if you actually look at it with a read as intended interpretation, I genuinely don't believe gw would want you to have to keep track of basic troops who have lost their armour save! In large games this would be rediculas. I can not see gw ruling in favour of loosing armour even though fnp was passed.

 

And I can. You're acting like multiwound units are rare or something. Paladins, Nobs, Tyranid Warriors, other Scrabs swarms, Wraiths, and that's just off the top of my head. GW clearly entended for this to happen. Deal with it.

 

Think of the consequences if a standard trooper did loose his armour. Is he then armed differently forthe purposes of future wound allocation?

 

Except if you've taken the time to read Entropic Strike. It says the model loses it's armour save, not it's armour. Thus, it's equipped the same.

 

He rule is clearly there to make big multi wound characters or monsterous creatures think twice about taking on guys with entropic strike.

 

The rule is clearly there to make any model think twice about taking on guys with entropic strike. See? I can make baseless, subjective statements too!

 

I actually really like the rule it's something new and different to anything already around. But trying to take advantage of a unclear rule is a little old to me, we go through this same crap every new codex!

 

Sorry end rant

 

We go through this every time because 40k is the only game in exsistance to consider "RAI" as a valid form of argument. You don't see think kind of discussion in Magic the Gathering or Warmachine circles because people can actually read the rules and come to conclusions without guess what the developers wanted them to read, because they know unless you can back up your ruling, it's useless.

[Jorre]

I'm not going to bother countering any of your arguments, they are valid point and I can see where you are coming from I just don't agree with you. Hence the requirement for a FAQ.

 

The only point I would like to bring up is... If a models wargear doesn't change just his armour save, then for wound allocation purposes you should still be grouping all like models together for their save. Well if some of those models don't have saves how do you know what dice to throw, and where to allocate wounds. Your own interpretation is thief wargear does not change?

[BlackKnight1239]

See? It's just "No, you're wrong because I think you are wrong". You can't actually prove me wrong with the rules. That's the problem here.

 

And in regard to the allocation, you always have taken saves individually. If a group of 5 marines has taken 6 wounds, one of those marines has two extra wounds. If he has no armour save, he still dies. However, he is not counted as another model in terms of grouping. Reading the rules is better than guess what you want the developers to write.

[Jorre]

For clarity of the kind of confusion your interpretation will create I'm going to go through a hypothetical battle to illustrate how silly it is.

 

We have 5 bolter armed marines all identical.

The squad takes 2 entropic wounds but everyone survives thanks to FnP.

Now we have 5 identical marines with 3 armour saves 2 without.

The squad later takes 2 more wounds all the marines are armed identically so you roll your saves together!

You fail both those saves and both fnp saves(unlucky)

You now get to allocate those wounds to a model from the identical Bolter marines(who arnt really identical anymore)

I would just pull off the models that don't have armour anymore even though I just took a amour save!

Why? Because it's my choice which models I remove and according to the rules they are still armed the same!

 

It all seems a little over the top butthis problem could come up quite often

[BlackKnight1239]

I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Jorre]

He problem is it's overly complicated and clearly not how it's intended to work. Besides what's the point in removing a models save if they still get it.

[BlackKnight1239]

Not really. Each of the 5 marines take a wound. You make 3 armour saves, and the other two take feel no pain as normal. It's simple enough.

[Zeller]

Marine takes hit. Armor save is reduced to -. Marine takes another save, automatically fails, and rolls for FNP. Done.

 

5 marines. 2 suffer entropic strike and have armor save reduced to -. Wargear and stats aside they're both wearing PA and for all intents and purposes they are identical. Player can roll 3 saves on any of those 5 marines as he sees fit. It would be important to note which marines are affected by the ES though.

[Leonaides]

wargear, stats and in-game rules surely? But this may be same issue as fired/spent combi-weapons in a sternguard squad...

[JamesI]

See? It's just "No, you're wrong because I think you are wrong". You can't actually prove me wrong with the rules. That's the problem here.

 

And in regard to the allocation, you always have taken saves individually. If a group of 5 marines has taken 6 wounds, one of those marines has two extra wounds. If he has no armour save, he still dies. However, he is not counted as another model in terms of grouping. Reading the rules is better than guess what you want the developers to write.

this is not how wound allocation works.

 

If the models are identical, you roll them together.

So, if you have 3 guys with saves and 2 without, I would say they have to form separate groups as they are no longer identical.

[Morollan]

The exact term used is "all of the models in the unit that are identical in gaming terms" so I think you're correct James. The models are no longer identical as they have different saves and would therefore fall into different groups.

[Venerable Jazzman]

Allow me to wade in with my sparkly thoughts on the matter which is causing so much angst...

 

Taking the 5 Marines with FNP being shot at example we've been using -

 

5 shots hit them

3 guys get wounded

all 3 roll for FNP

1 fails his FNP and dies

2 pass their FNP, don't die, and have their armour reduced to (-) for the rest of the game.

 

The unit now has 2 Marines with 3+ armour and 2 Marines with (-) armour, so next time you'd need to allocate wounds as they're different.

 

 

How does armour (-) work with FNP? Is it automatically failed armour save, so you'd get FNP save automatically too?

[BOBMAKENZIE]

How does armour (-) work with FNP? Is it automatically failed armour save, so you'd get FNP save automatically too?

 

no FNP specifies weapons which would never allow an armour save. Otherwise things like Plague Bearers would never get FNP

[Venerable Jazzman]

What if it's just a regular weapon that allows an armour save, say like a bolter?

If you've got armour (-) and FNP, how does that work?

[JamesI]

What if it's just a regular weapon that allows an armour save, say like a bolter?

If you've got armour (-) and FNP, how does that work?

You skip past the armor save and just take your FNP. There are models with no armor save and FNP in the game. As long as the wound is not a power weapon, strength double toughness, AP 1-2 or something that never allowed an armor save (such as dangerous terrain or perils of the warp) you can take FNP

[Morollan]

What if it's just a regular weapon that allows an armour save, say like a bolter?

If you've got armour (-) and FNP, how does that work?

 

The weapon would have to disallow an armour save against any model, not just the model it's being fired at, in order to deny FNP.

[JamesI]

What if it's just a regular weapon that allows an armour save, say like a bolter?

If you've got armour (-) and FNP, how does that work?

 

The weapon would have to disallow an armour save against any model, not just the model it's being fired at, in order to deny FNP.

Yep. If it worked the other way, demons could never take FNP.

[Archimonde_Red]

I love how every good debate topic soon gets meshed with childish banter of "I'm right, your stupid" back and forth. Rant over... now to my reply.

 

I can honestly see both sides of this argument and think a FAQ is definately needed.

 

The core problem of what you guys are discussing is that this game does not utilize a chain of events such as games like Magic, so there is really not a good way of telling whether one effect or another "happens" first. The chain, or lack there of is what I see causing the biggest headache.

 

As for the Rules as Written or Rules as Intended arguement, I think you have to take into account both of these when determining how the rule works out. If you look at one side of the coin only, in my oppinion you are opening yourself up to a game balance problem. If GW intended for you to read the rules as writtten only, why the need for a FAQ..... The reason you see FAQ is that the designer's, when designing new rules, have a sense of purpose in mind for this new rule but cant always predict the different ways this new rule will affect the game and this causes the wording to sometimes cause the rules to interfer with their intentions. That is why the release FAQ's to address these issues and keep the game balanced in as much a way as they can. While I realize that we as players can not tell you what the designers intentions are, to shut someone down argueing that they feel that the intended use of this new rule is unclear or making a counter arguement against a rule is very biased in my opionion.

 

That's my two cents worth. Personally hope we see a FAQ soon to see which way the cookie crumbles.

 

1. FNP and Entropic Strike work out together = Logistic headache of me keeping track of all my stats.... will do it, but not be happy and it will slow the game down.

 

2. FNP counters Entropic Strike = Logistical Win and still plan to see the necrons giving us plenty of other stuff to Worry about as a BA player. Their codex is pretty sweet IMO.

[Morticon]

I love how every good debate topic soon gets meshed with childish banter of "I'm right, your stupid" back and forth. Rant over... now to my reply.

 

 

Not on the BA watch :P that nonsense happens and it gets stepped on....fast.

 

Like here->

 

a scarabs walks by and om nom nom's your armour? OM MY GOD MY ARMOUR!!! ITS DISINTEGRATING!!! SOMEONE CALL THE TECHMARINES!!!!

 

whaaaaaat? :huh:

 

just to piss of people who use these god awfull things id favour that FnP states it IGNORES the wound so you will still have your armour save... this ability is already rediculas enough :unsure:

 

 

That would fit well with what entropy is, if not a little exaggerated.

 

As for your statement 'just to piss of people who use these god awfull things'... it's a legal unit and rule, but to just be a dick because you don't like it... just silly.

 

 

Weasel, while you may not agree with Dem, calling him a dick in this forum is flaming. And you'll get yourself a warning for that on any normal day. Please watch how you express yourself in the future when you're disagreeing.

[BlackKnight1239]

Archimonde_Bad: Then can you provide some rules basis for Feel No Pain ignoring Entropic Strike? Because it seems obvious that an unsaved would remains an unsaved wound even after being save (see the rules for winning combats). Likewise, Entropic Strike's use of immediately points to it being applied before anything else (at least that doesn't say immediately). Heck, the lack of a time system means they must happen at the same time, logically, as there is no system to decided what happens when, correct? Once again, all I'm looking for is a logical counter-point that doesn't involved subjectively guessing what you think the developer meant.

 

Yes, it could be clunky and stupid logistcially. Multi-wound units have to deal with that anyway, so I doubt GW cares in that regard. Just please present an argument before stating what a rule means.

 

As to the wound allocation debate, I'll have to go back and re-read again. I was always under the assuption that it only looked at War-gear, not statline.

[JamesI]

This thread has gotten extremely circular, and is unlikely to resolve to everyone's satisfaction until a FAQ hits.

 

As this is not really a BA specific issue anyway, take further discussion of this to the Official Rules forum, I believe its already discussed in one of the Necron threads there anyway.

 

As such: