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.

Humour me then, in what way exactly is first blood broken? How is it more broken than making RP bug out? Oh yeah, it isn't.

Wrong on casualties too, what a shock. You take a morale check for losing 25% of your models but the example shows us losing a model is a casualty. It's called casualties because if you remove a model... they're a casualty. Which handily brings us to your last point.

Context. It's funny how ironic this is. You are fufilling every condition in English to call the removal a casualty. You refuse to as it isn't explicitly called one in the codex. Taken in context, you cannot do that - it literally makes no sense to do so. The model has died as a mental construct. It is a casualty. It doesn't make sense to not be. This is akin to the ridiculous arguments that you can have damaging non weapons in 40k. You go against English without permission to do so.

As I said, you are wrong. You are wrong RAW, RAI and in English itself. Not quite sure how you aren't getting that.

Or,perhaps, Rigeld isnt.

I suggest you look back over the history of this; you have shown no new argument on this.

I have. There is no need when the arguments weren't disproven.

For morale they're considered casualties. For RP they are not. That is illogical.

First blood doesn't allow anything that isn't RaaC. You wouldn't get it killing a model with jaws and it isn't demonstrably broken itself. That is illogical.

In English the action you are doing is in the definition of casualties. You don't call it one as it doesn't say the word anywhere. That is illogical.

RaaC and RFP are regularly switched yet you hold onto the idea they are separate because it only happens in certain entries. That is narrow minded.

Functionally identical weapons in different codices use different wording. In Phil Kelly's they are RFP. In Mat Ward's they are RaaC. There is no other difference to the functionality yet you treat them as totally separate entities. That is almost ridiculous and definitely stupid.

RP counters clearly go wrong. You can say it's not breaking but it's obviously unintended behaviour. That is foolish again.

The fun thing is I do have more places it makes these illogical bits in the rules now - I don't need them. Not one point was refuted. Not one. I expect another "lol yeah but it doesnt say casualty" even though you're happy to bend it for morale. Enjoy playing the game wrong I guess. Do remember not to cheatily give yourself first blood though.

ERm, yep, they were - couple of times. You just aggressively yelled "youre wrong" and ignored thew arguments.