Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, we know it's about the wording, that's the entire point. You haven't actually said whether you think it should grant first blood or not.

The argument that all models in a unit =/= unit is also patently absurd. If all models in a unit fire, you must treat it as the unit firing as otherwise you can't use any of the shooting rules. Treating them as different, in any circumstance means half the rules become unusable as they refer to models, not units. That's not saying "model" and "unit" are interchangeable, but "all models in a unit" and "unit" are.

Also, the argument that because it denies FNP and ignores EW holds no ground. Aside from the fact RP didn't even exist when the SW codex was written (hence saying it was written explicitly to deny it is absurd), as I pointed out earlier there are several weapons with such traits, yet say RAAC. In the Necron codex alone there's the Tesseract Labyrinth (roll under/equal to wounds or die), Transdimensional Beamer (Strength test or die) and Time's Arrow (Initiative test or die). The only difference between them is how they are used (i.e single shot, in assault, etc) and the use of RAAC instead of RFP. They are theoretically no less powerful, unless you treat RFP differently which raises the issues from before with first blood and RP.

I don't think you can argue intent either on the grounds that one of them is a maze that traps gods, one is a dimensional teleport and the last is an attack from the remnants of a god. I dunno about you, but I'd put that at least on par with being swallowed by the ground in a RAI argument. This doesn't even consider the fact that "killing" a model without treating it as a casualty literally makes no sense by the very definition of casualties.

Honestly, I believe the reason RFP was used is so people can't go "oh, but my dreadnought is a vehicle so can't be removed as a casualty", not so it denied a rule which, at that point in time, didn't exist. In fact, thinking about that, if you treat RFP and RAAC differently, that happens with the Transdimensional Beamer and Time's Arrow as well, so you would theoretically be unable to get rid of the dread OR have a weird case where a vehicle is a casualty. Once again, that seems wrong - two almost identical things need a characteristic test or die, yet one can't always complete the action? Odd.

Play how you want though, we've had this topic many times and until it's FAQ'd (so, never then) it will keep popping up. I'm almost certain they're supposed to be the same thing, yet others are sure they are right. It's just a game.

Im willing to bet that any necron player would be fine with EITHER interpretation as long as it stayed CONSISTANT.

You can not say that removed from play is the same as removed from play as a casualty for First blood and then claim that removed from play is NOT the same as removed from play as a casualty for ressurection protocols...

Actually, re-reading the rules, there is no actual way to get First Blood, as it requires a unit to be removed as a casualty. Shooting, CC, sweeping, falling back to the table edge, etc, removes a unit as casualties, not as a casualty.

Well considering that casualties is just the plural of casualty, then there is really no issue

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually, re-reading the rules, there is no actual way to get First Blood, as it requires a unit to be removed as a casualty. Shooting, CC, sweeping, falling back to the table edge, etc, removes a unit as casualties, not as a casualty.

I really, really hope this was a post with tongue firmly in cheek....because if it wasn't....sigh

It is a strict RAW reading. It is for all intents and purposes same as argument as "JoTTW cannot cause First Blood".

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
I play SW and as I see it it would give Slay the Warlord because the Warlod is dead but would not give First Blood unless the whole unit is killed or the Warlord is alone by itself.

I agree. And I'm a SW player too.

Why is this a big deal?
Are people saying that if you use jaws and take out 2 models in a unit, then with the next unit killed the rest of the enemy squad that you wouldn't get first blood?

The slaying of the warlord is not conditional on casualties. So Jotww is not a problem on this one.

 jegsar wrote:
If the word for first blood is casualties then blowing up a Rhine doesn't give first blood.

I don't think it should. You don't remove vehicles as casualties.

The wording for First Blood, is the first unit removed as a casualty. Currently there is no way for a unit to be removed as a casualty, only as casualties.

 Happyjew wrote:
The wording for First Blood, is the first unit removed as a casualty. Currently there is no way for a unit to be removed as a casualty, only as casualties.

Models are removed as casualties not units. So by your logic you can never score first blood except with single model units.
Since that model can be removed as a casualty and that model is the unit ergo the unit has been removed as a casualty.

Per pg 15, a unit removed as casualties means each model in the unit is removed as casualties.

Threads like this are a condemnation of the human race.

People are having fun discussing something silly. It's an amusing pastime.

Does JotWW grant First Blood? HIWPI, yes, if the models removed "kill" the unit completely.
Does it grant Slay the Warlord? Again, HIWPI, yes.
Can models come back from it? Only St. Celestine, as her FAQ allows it.

So you just pick and choose when you want "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" to mean the same thing?

For my money they should be treated as the same thing. Celestine's ruling should be seen as an illustrative example, not a unique exception.

Slay the Warlord does not require the warlord to be removed as a casualty. First Blood doesn't work right the wayit is written.