Shadowfield and FnP

I have a quick but very disturbing question.

We have a situation. Archon fails SF inv. but the FnP roll is passed, does that mean SF will be still working as passed PnP discounts the unsaved wound ?

This one's a bit murky but I'd have to say that the shadowfield still goes kaput. FNP says that if you make the roll you "treat it as having been saved" but the shadowfield is destroyed "if the save is ever failed" and the triggering factor for FNP is when the model "suffers an unsaved Wound". So in order to take the FNP you have to have failed the save and therefore the shadowfield shorts out.

Seconded

I'll go ahead and disagree.

If you make the FNP roll, you treat the wound as having been saved.

If the wound save is made, would the Shadow Field break? It would not. Therefore, if the FNP roll goes off, the Shadow Field remains.

At least, that's how the rules are currently written.

The shadowfield failed causing a unsaved wound allowing you to do a FnP roll. I'm agreeing w/ Count and Carp on this one.

Okay...but the FNP rules tell you to treat the wound as having been saved. If you treat the Shadowfield as dropped, you aren't doing that.

Jimsolo wrote:

Okay...but the FNP rules tell you to treat the wound as having been saved.  If you treat the Shadowfield as dropped, you aren't doing that.  

In which case you wouldn't be entitled to a FNP roll in the first place. But then you'd have taken an unsaved wound, which means you could roll for FNP...and then the universe implodes.

Thank You for Your response. To sum it up, I fail the 2++ pass FnP, but after that I have to fight with mighty 5+ but with full wounds.

DarkCycu wrote:

Thank You for Your response. To sum it up, I fail the 2++ pass FnP, but after that  I have to fight with mighty 5+ :)but with full wounds.

Yes, indeed.

With the exception of Force weapons, is there any other instance of a ruling this way? Every other effect-upon-an-unsaved wound I'm aware of does not activate if the FNP is successful.

For example necron entropic weapon effect. But regarding SF it seems quite logical.

Logical or not, i am with Jimsolo here. The RAW says you treat it as having been saved. Therefore your shadowfield is fine IMO.

RAI i would lean towards the alternate view presented.

I think there is definitely enough wiggle room in the RAI to argue the point. Much like the whole 'is the ram part of the hull' issue, I think I will let my opponent decide in friendly games.  In competitive play, unless a TO rules otherwise, I'm playing it RAW.

Jimsolo wrote:

I think there is definitely enough wiggle room in the RAI to argue the point.  Much like the whole 'is the ram part of the hull' issue, I think I will let my opponent decide in friendly games.  In competitive play, unless a TO rules otherwise, I'm playing it RAW.

It's a completely paradoxical rule. In order to roll for FNP you have to have taken a wound, which means that your shadowfield has failed. Yet, if you succeed, you haven't taken a wound, which means you weren't entitled to FNP, which means you've taken a wound, which means you can roll FNP...

As I said in the first post, it's a bit murky but I agree with what you say above. Friendly games, play it however you want and in tournaments, check with the TO.

Just as a last point, from a purely fluffy perspective it makes no sense for FNP to affect a shadowfield. FNP just means shrugging off the effects of a wound, not that it never happened.

To be honest, first i thought, WOW, FnP can make SF so much better. Later, on one hand, thanks to Count, i've taken his point of view as SF has its own rules, 2+ on 1 it fails and cannot be used any more. But on the other, FnP is something that should have some FAQ in conjunction with e.g. SF, just for the sake of clarification.

Feel no Pain wording is "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved". I'd come down on the side that it can't be used, because you treat the wound as having been saved, not the save as having been passed. Subtle but distinct difference. If the wording was 'treat the save as having been passed' instead, I'd argue that the shadow field should be kept.

The 'treat it as having been saved' part is intended as a clarification, but in this specific case it just serves as a complication that muddies the waters. RAW - ambiguous. HIWPI - no shadowfield.

I would certainly the side of P_P's post here.

I wouldn't dream of trying to put this past another player unless they were the filthiest of rules-lawyering scoundrels, themselves.

I really don't see the big issue. If you fail the shadow field, bang it's broken. Then after you tossed away the broken thing, you go and take the FNP roll. FNP only changes the outcome but the fact remains, that you broke the shadow field.

[quote="Count Adhemar"]

Jimsolo wrote:

Just as a last point, from a purely fluffy perspective it makes no sense for FNP to affect a shadowfield. FNP just means shrugging off the effects of a wound, not that it never happened.

On that score, I am in complete agreement. Unfortunately, there is a voluminous body of examples where the rules defy both fluff and real-world logic.

Panic_Puppet wrote:

Feel no Pain wording is "the unsaved wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved". I'd come down on the side that it can't be used, because you treat the wound as having been saved, not the save as having been passed. Subtle but distinct difference. If the wording was 'treat the save as having been passed' instead, I'd argue that the shadow field should be kept.

The 'treat it as having been saved' part is intended as a clarification, but in this specific case it just serves as a complication that muddies the waters. RAW - ambiguous. HIWPI - no shadowfield.

I'm afraid I'm not picking up what you're laying down, brother.    In order to save a wound, you have to pass the save. The two seem pretty interchangeable to me. Maybe I'm just not getting it.

I suppose you could put it this way.

Treating him as though he are your brother does not make him your brother.

He is your brother.

These are equivalent to:

Treat the save as if it was passed and

The save was passed.

So treating it as though it was passed would mean you have no wound but save was 'actually' failed. and the shadow field shorted out.

Whereas if the wording was if you pass FnP then the save was passed you would say the shadowfield was still up.


That analogy may not be as simple as I thought it was in my head.

See it that way: You wouldn't have to use FnP, when your shadowfield had saved you.
The FnP is just the cause, the wound doesn't affect the wearer.

No, because it goes like this.

Wound caused - shadowfield failed - wound taken - FnP passed - treat wound as if saved.

The wound is not actually saved, you just treat it as such. The wound is still taken just shrugged off through super human abilities or will power.


Treat I think is the key word here.


As per my previous example:

Treating someone as though they are your brother does not make them your brother.


I certainly wouldn't ever try to pull this on someone, seems a bit of a fast one playing word circles.

Isn't that, what I tried to say?

Oh sorry, I totally rage rush read your post and misunderstood it!

  I am ashamed and profoundly apologise

Ah, great! At first, I thought, I've translated it wrong. No need, to apologize, though.