Concussive and FNP

[DarkAngeal]

Am I correct in thinking that if a model takes a wound from a concussive weapon, and fails armour/invulnerable but makes a FNP that the model would still be concussed? What constitutes an "unsaved wound"?

[Fibonacci]

Correct.  Based on the first question in the C:DE FAQ

[DarkAngeal]

Thanks Fibonacci!

[Quixus]

FAQs are not rules. They are houserules and opinions by GW staff. FAQ's cannot change the rules. That is what errata do.

 

What the rules actually say is:

Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved.

A model that suffers one or more unsaved Wounds from a weapon with this special rule is reduced to Initiative 1 until the end of the following Assault phase.

If the wound is treated as if it had been saved, the model does not effectively suffer an unsaved wound. So nothing happens. If the model were reduced to I1, it is not treated as if the wound had been saved, which contradicts FNP.

 

So barring any erratum concerning the interaction of those two special rules, the model is not reduced to I1 until the end of the following assault phase.

 

Additionally an answer to a supposedly frequently asked question has no bearing on any other question, especially not questions concerning another book.

[Sugarlessllama]

FAQs are not rules. They are houserules and opinions by GW staff. FAQ's cannot change the rules. That is what errata do.

 

 

 

 

Could you please link me to any documents GW has referred to as "Errata"? Because I had the understanding that GW have always listed their "Errata" as "FAQ". After all, all the FAQs state to replace certain text with other text within a book. Additionally, since the rules clarifications in the  FAQs are written by the rules staff, it would stand to reason that their "opinion" would be a final ruling.

 

But again, if this is for a tournament I would say the TO has the right to rule things however they want. 

[Fibonacci]

FAQs are not rules. They are houserules and opinions by GW staff. FAQ's cannot change the rules. That is what errata do.

So the 6th edition Heldrake never happened?

 

Not that it matters since nothing here has changed.  Only clarified.  Effects that trigger off of taking an unsaved wound still happen even if the wound is later ignored by feel no pain.  That one FAQ answers a few other long running debates.  Funny how answers to question seem to answer questions.

 

Speaking of house rules, if that is how you and your friends want to play, that's cool.  Coming to an agreement and being consistent with your agreements is key to preventing in game arguments from happening.  But with a choice between GW's published answer vs anonymous-dude-on-the-internet's opinion, I think I'll take GW's word on the matter.

[Acebaur]

 

FAQs are not rules. They are houserules and opinions by GW staff. FAQ's cannot change the rules. That is what errata do.

 

 

 

 

Could you please link me to any documents GW has referred to as "Errata"? Because I had the understanding that GW have always listed their "Errata" as "FAQ". After all, all the FAQs state to replace certain text with other text within a book. Additionally, since the rules clarifications in the  FAQs are written by the rules staff, it would stand to reason that their "opinion" would be a final ruling.

 

But again, if this is for a tournament I would say the TO has the right to rule things however they want. 

 

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rules-Errata?_requestid=2626430#40k-errata

 

If you read the second paragraph in the previously linked by Fibonacci DE FAQ you'll see where it describes what the difference is between Errata, Amendments, and "FAQ". 

 

@Quixus: I'm sorry man, but you are wrong. The FAQ section is no longer described as being "GW house rules" like it used to be back in the old days. It simply says that they answers to frequently asked questions. So while normally a FAQ for one book does not carry over into anything else, here they are discussing a rule that is found in the BRB and the wording is the exact same as it is for concussive. 

[Quixus]

While the FAQ are no longer explicitly referred to as houserules they can still only clarify rules not change them. A rules change must be issued as erratum. The document titled "WARHAMMER 40,000: THE RULES Official Update Version 1.0" (and not FAQ something) has this to say:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

So only what is in the errata section, can actually change rules. The FAQ section answers questions about the rules, so is is not rules itself. The answer that additional effects applicable to unsaved wounds would apply to wounds that are ignored through FNP is not backed up by the rules.

 

BTW do units that ignore the unsaved wounds through FNP still lose combat? Following the strange logic of the DE FAQ would mean exactly that. Unsaved wounds are calculated for the combat result. The FNP unit has taken unsaved wounds, but ignores them. So either you treat the wounds as saved (i.e. they do not count for combat resolution) or you don't. The FNP rules are clear what you are supposed to do. The DE FAQ contradicts them.

[jeffersonian000]

Amendments change the rules, too, per your quote. Just say'n.

 

SJ

[tylerw]

While the FAQ are no longer explicitly referred to as houserules they can still only clarify rules not change them. A rules change must be issued as erratum. The document titled "WARHAMMER 40,000: THE RULES Official Update Version 1.0" (and not FAQ something) has this to say:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

So only what is in the errata section, can actually change rules. The FAQ section answers questions about the rules, so is is not rules itself. The answer that additional effects applicable to unsaved wounds would apply to wounds that are ignored through FNP is not backed up by the rules.

 

BTW do units that ignore the unsaved wounds through FNP still lose combat? Following the strange logic of the DE FAQ would mean exactly that. Unsaved wounds are calculated for the combat result. The FNP unit has taken unsaved wounds, but ignores them. So either you treat the wounds as saved (i.e. they do not count for combat resolution) or you don't. The FNP rules are clear what you are supposed to do. The DE FAQ contradicts them.

 

FNP saves are frequently allowed to save Riptide Nova Reactor wounds, and it is usually based on FNP NOT being a saved wound.

[Quixus]

Amendments change the rules, too, per your quote. Just say'n.

True, if you are talking about an old codex brought in line with a new rulebook. This does not happen to the rulebook itself. Anyways there are no amendments to the 7th edition rulebook.

 

 

 

While the FAQ are no longer explicitly referred to as houserules they can still only clarify rules not change them. A rules change must be issued as erratum. The document titled "WARHAMMER 40,000: THE RULES Official Update Version 1.0" (and not FAQ something) has this to say:

Each update is split into three sections: Amendments, Errata and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the rulebook, while the Amendments bring the rulebook up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules.

So only what is in the errata section, can actually change rules. The FAQ section answers questions about the rules, so is is not rules itself. The answer that additional effects applicable to unsaved wounds would apply to wounds that are ignored through FNP is not backed up by the rules.

 

BTW do units that ignore the unsaved wounds through FNP still lose combat? Following the strange logic of the DE FAQ would mean exactly that. Unsaved wounds are calculated for the combat result. The FNP unit has taken unsaved wounds, but ignores them. So either you treat the wounds as saved (i.e. they do not count for combat resolution) or you don't. The FNP rules are clear what you are supposed to do. The DE FAQ contradicts them.

 

FNP saves are frequently allowed to save Riptide Nova Reactor wounds, and it is usually based on FNP NOT being a saved wound.

 

FNP is not a save, and by extension wounds ignored by FNP are not saved wounds, they are in fact unsaved wounds. However the rules for FNP tell us to treat such a wound as if it were saved. So when such a wound is treated as if it were saved everything that happens on saved wounds nad nothihng that happens on unsaved wounds happens on the ignored wounds as well, if not, such a wound would be treated differently than a saved wound. Since Concussive does nothing on a saved wound the model is not reduced to I1.

[Jarl of Wulfen]

I'm not familiar with the necron dex, but do their reanimation protocol rolls act in a similar fashion with what is being discussed in this thread. I play Space wolves and just got some helfrost shootiness. If I shoot something, ignore its armor, but it makes the RP roll, does it take the frost test?

[Quixus]

At least the RP of the previous codex only happened after a model was removed as a casualty, so there would be no interactions with concussive or FNP.

[Jarl of Wulfen]

Sorry, let me clarify. My question was more with regards to a test after an unsaved wound. Helfrost is AP 3 so necron warrior would not get an armor save, but would get RP. If he passes the RP roll, does the wound count as saved and doesn't need to roll a str test? Or does the fact he didn't roll an armor, cover, or invulnerable save mean he does take the test, if he passed the RP roll?

[Quixus]

With the caveat that I only have access to the previous Necron codex (so I do not know if the rule has changed), the necrons first get a save (or don't because of AP 3) and then have to make the STR tests. If a test is unsuccessful the model is removed from play. Since "removed from play" is not the same as "removed as a casualty" there will be no RP roll.

[Dam13n]

The rule has changed.  It's now like feel no pain, just with a few key differences.

[Quixus]

What are the key differences? Does it instruct you to treat an unsaved wound as a saved one? If so, concussive does not apply to those wounds.

[Dam13n]

I deliberately didn't say... remember that "Rules Fishing" is something we actively try and avoid here in the OR.  If you don't own a copy of the new Necron Codex and want to know what rules are contained within it, then you should purchase the book.