Ynnari Artefact: The Lost Shroud in Seer council

Questions for you fellow tricksters:

1) Would The Lost Shrouds FNP allow taking fnp against perils with farseer before expending WC to avoid the damage from perils?
2) Would Eternal warrior give Farseer possibility to 'save' from perils of the warp "Dragged to the Warp"?

The Shroud would allow some fun tricks to play around with psychics and also giving a tanking farseer to the unit without bringing a seperate IC to the unit.

Do you think The Shroud is worth the points?

1) Both effects are triggered when a model suffers an unsaved wound. The Ghosthelm says that if he suffers an unsaved Wound from Perils of the Warp, he can prevent it by immediately expending a Warp Charge point. FNP does not have the 'immediate' phrasing so my opinion is that you would have to either expend the warp charge and guarantee negating the wound or take your chance on FNP.

2) If the test is failed, the Psyker is removed as a casualty. Eternal Warrior has no effect on that.

Thanks for your insight Count A!

I don't put as much weight on the "immediate" wording, since they both happen "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". That is a clearly defined time, and as such, both are immediate when that occurs.

So I'd think it would fall under the sequencing rule, wherein whoever's turn it is would decide the order in which 2 simultaneous events happen. Since you only cast psychic powers on your turn, that would mean you decide, in my opinion.

Whilst the trigger event occurs simultaneously, it doesn't necessarily follow that the subsequent events also happen at the same time and the presence of the word 'immediately' certainly implies that it needs to be carried out before any non-immediate action.

It says you roll for feel no pain "when a model suffers an unsaved wound". That doesn't leave any room for interpretation. That is a solid, definite, established point in time, and that is "when the wound happens", which in the English language, equals the exact same thing as if I said "immediately when a model suffers an unsaved wound". In the latter case, the word "immediate" is extraneous, verbose, redundant, and superfluous, just like the extra 3 synonyms I used to describe it here.

Is it possible they intended it to mean what you're saying? Perhaps, but taking it just as written, with normal English comprehension based on our current understanding of the language, there is functionally no difference in saying it either way.

In any event, if you take the FNP roll first, you'd be prevented from using the Ghosthelm afterwards as you did not do so immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Count Adhemar wrote:

In any event, if you take the FNP roll first, you'd be prevented from using the Ghosthelm afterwards as you did not do so immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Taking the FAQ into consideration (the Necron one, just because I had that in mind) :

" Necron Reanimation Protocols are taken at the
same time as Feel No Pain rolls would be, to potentially
avoid suffering unsaved Wounds (and any ensuing tests
that suffering an unsaved Wound may cause)."

It is not an unsaved wound until you have attempted and failed any FNP you might have. You then immediately act on the unsaved wound.

Count Adhemar wrote:

In any event, if you take the FNP roll first, you'd be prevented from using the Ghosthelm afterwards as you did not do so immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Also not true. If we have 2 rules that use the "immediately" wording, we have to choose one to resolve first, and that uses the sequencing rules. That doesn't make one of them not work.

Happy_inquisitor wrote:

It is not an unsaved wound until you have attempted and failed any FNP you might have. You then immediately act on the unsaved wound.

I agree, Happy_inquisitor, and since that is your first post, welcome to the Dark City!

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

In any event, if you take the FNP roll first, you'd be prevented from using the Ghosthelm afterwards as you did not do so immediately upon suffering an unsaved wound.

Also not true. If we have 2 rules that use the "immediately" wording, we have to choose one to resolve first, and that uses the sequencing rules. That doesn't make one of them not work.

Except they don't both use the 'immediately' phrasing, only one does. But I know you think that this can be ignored. I disagree.

If A happens, do B.
If A happens, immediately do C.

With normal English comprehension based on our current understanding of the language, you do C first.

Happy_inquisitor wrote:

It is not an unsaved wound until you have attempted and failed any FNP you might have. You then immediately act on the unsaved wound.

Except FNP only triggers when you suffer an unsaved wound. By that logic, it would never trigger.

Interesting debate. I sent a question to gw. Hope we get an answer for this as well.

Let us be clear here, the way this was worded needed a FAQ. It got a FAQ. The sequence we have been given in the FAQ is

A wound is taken
Take the best applicable save
Take any tests to ignore a wound (such as FNP)
Trigger any rules which act on an unsaved wound

I see little point going back and discussing that the original wording does not make this clear to everyone, that is why there was a FAQ.

Allrighty, so this was in the newest version. Great, that would give the benefit of FNP on perils of warp wounds.

Happy_inquisitor wrote:

Let us be clear here, the way this was worded needed a FAQ. It got a FAQ. The sequence we have been given in the FAQ is

A wound is taken
Take the best applicable save
Take any tests to ignore a wound (such as FNP)
Trigger any rules which act on an unsaved wound

Apart from a Shadowfield.

Grrrrr.

Happy_inquisitor wrote:

Let us be clear here, the way this was worded needed a FAQ. It got a FAQ. The sequence we have been given in the FAQ is

A wound is taken
Take the best applicable save
Take any tests to ignore a wound (such as FNP)
Trigger any rules which act on an unsaved wound

I see little point going back and discussing that the original wording does not make this clear to everyone, that is why there was a FAQ.

I agree we should be clear. Neither of the rules (Helfrost and Vast Stasis Anomaly) that were discussed in the Necron FAQ contains the 'immediately' requirement. The Ghosthelm does. You are required to use the Ghosthelm immediately. If you do anything else, including making a FNP roll, you are not doing so.

If anyone wants to ask the question to GW, feel free. I don't care if it gets FAQ'd to work the way you want it to. But I don't agree that we should simply ignore parts of a rule to gain a marginal advantage.

Well considering the Farseers and Eldrad with the ghost helms the advantage is small, maybe not indifferential but small. On the otherhand it could be said that Farseer benefits more on saving one warp charge for other spells than many other casters.

I posted the question forward to GW. As RAI I would lean towards to first choose to expend the WC and negate the wound or not to expend a WC, get wounded and take FNP. As if you decide to negate the wound you never got wounded at all, without a wound you do not get to roll FNP.

No one in their right mind would agree with you, Count. Because that would mean that 2 people that have abilities that work "immediately" on the same trigger would cause the person who's turn it is to cancel out the ability of the person who's turn it isn't. No one in the history of public 40k events has ruled interactions that way.

The Ynnari rules are a prime example of this. If 2 Ynnari armies face each other and each gain a "soulburst" action(that has the "immediately" wording) at the same time, off the same unit dying, your interpretation would make one person's power not function while the other person's does. You can't, with a straight face, seriously try to convince us that you believe this to be the case.

I posit that we ARE resolving them BOTH immediately, but the rules of REALITY require us to roll for one first. That's what the sequencing rules are for. We're STILL resolving them BOTH immediately, but are required to do so in an order determined by the sequencing rules.

But in the core case here, only one rule stipulates immediately. So that one should have priority.

WildCandy wrote:

I posted the question forward to GW. As RAI I would lean towards to first choose to expend the WC and negate the wound or not to expend a WC, get wounded and take FNP. As if you decide to negate the wound you never got wounded at all, without a wound you do not get to roll FNP.

Feel free to ask them and <deity> forbid I would ever expect anyone to change their mind on the internet but honestly I think they answered it already.

From the BRB FAQ

Q: Does a wound negated by Feel No Pain count as saved or
unsaved for the purposes of wargear that has an effect if a unit
suffers an unsaved wound?
A: It counts as saved, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Until you roll that dice you do not know whether the wound is saved or unsaved - so triggering something on an unsaved wound before then is incorrect so far as I can see.

Jimsolo wrote:

But in the core case here, only one rule stipulates immediately. So that one should have priority.

That isn't the argument the Count is currently making. They're 2 completely different arguments.

As for your argument, I've already addressed it here:

Previous argument against the notion immediate trumps X time when it IS X time.:

To expound on my previous argument, if I tell you we need to follow all of these rules:

We need to flip a penny immediately.
We need to flip a quarter at 2:07:30pm
We cannot do both at the same time.
It is 2:07:30pm.

What do we do first?

We're told to roll FnP WHEN a model suffers an unsaved wound. Not later, but WHEN it occurs. That means immediately. As shown in the example above, just having the "Immediately" descriptor doesn't trump being told to do something at a specific time, when that time is RIGHT NOW. In such a case, they both mean the same thing, and the word "immediately" is a superfluous use of a word. That is the case we have here. "Immediately" is a redundant word. They're both being told to do something at the same time, and that time is RIGHT NOW. When that occurs, we're given specific rules on how to handle that situation, regardless of what extraneous descriptors they used to say, "right now". Those rules are the sequencing rules. The sequencing rules even lay out that they are to be used when there is debate over the interpretation of what abilities go first, of which this is a clear example.

That's a false equivalency.

There's more than one case of a rule telling us to do something when X triggering condition occurs. Usually those are resolved in the order of the controlling player's choice. The addition of the word 'immediately' in two simultaneous events (in this case taking a FNP roll or using the Ghosthelm) gives a clear indication of precedence.

It seems clear to me that if you gamble on the FNP, you cannot then try to use the Ghosthelm.

Jimsolo wrote:

That's a false equivalency.

There's more than one case of a rule telling us to do something when X triggering condition occurs.  Usually those are resolved in the order of the controlling player's choice.  The addition of the word 'immediately' in two simultaneous events (in this case taking a FNP roll or using the Ghosthelm) gives a clear indication of precedence.

It seems clear to me that if you gamble on the FNP, you cannot then try to use the Ghosthelm.

I disagree. I don't care about FnP vs. Ghosthelm. I care about people thinking that a random use of the word "immediately" somehow supercedes other things that are also indicated as immediate, simply using other wording. Short of GW directly telling us this is the case, it sets a dangerous precedent, when we have specific rules outlining what happens when 2 things are to occur simultaneously.

Your position here is one in which it seems that you're pretending synonyms do not exist. If GW wants something to supercede the sequencing rules, they need to state it more clearly than to use an ambiguous word like "immediately", when other things like feel no pain could easily be described to be done immediately as well.

If I pulled a GW rules guy aside, and talked to him specifically about the FnP rule, in a vacuum, and in looking at the rule and reading what it said, I asked, "So, when one of my models suffers a wound and fails to save it, I roll for feel no pain immediately, right?"

No one would EVER say no. And therein lies the fault in your argument. Both of them are expressly immediate occurances, simply expressed in different ways.

I'm not pretending anything--the game is rife with occurrences of simultaneous events. Something has to determine what order they resolve in. When one rule has an additional stipulator for timing (not just when a wound is suffered, but immediately when a wound is suffered) you can't just ignore it. The additional stipulator indicates a difference--the effect which is specified as immediate must be resolved before effects which do not.

This is one of the most embarrassing arguments I've witnessed outside of dakka dakka. If I suffer an aneurysm from reading this can I hold the site administrator responsible?

I doubt there will be a concensus found on this aspect. Right or wrong let's see if GW gives us a exact ruling, maybe it would be to direction of Shadow field or towards more advantageous direction.

I thank for everyone's support and insight on the question.