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.

Firstblood is the "first model removed as a casuality" and jaws "removes from play", so if for example, my priest with some grey hunters drop from the sky in a drop pod and kills the enemies' HQ using jaws as the first 'shot' in the game. Is it firstblood and slay the warlord? To me this seems a no brainer RAI but it's not strictly RAW... or am i missing something?

If JotWW starts making casualties then you are going to make a lot of Necron players very happy.

P.S.- I'm the guy contesting first blood on DP JotWW, that psychic power is truly infuriating.

first blood is not the first model removed it is the first unit. but i think you just wrote it down wrong and knew the rule.

Unit or indepenat character, so warlord would be first blood

I don't think the unit, character or model is the dispute here, but rather whether or not a "something which is removed from play" (jaws wording) falls under the category of "casualty" (first blood wording).

MarkyMark wrote:
Unit or indepenat character, so warlord would be first blood

Yes, but the first blood rule is "The first unit, of any kind, to be removed as a casualty". JotWW specifically doesn't create casualties(if it did then Necrons would be able to get up, Eternal Warriors would survive it, etc.). As far as i can tell, since JotWW doesn't create casualties, and First Blood requires casualties, then it can never score first blood by itself.

The Slay the Warlord rule uses the word "slain" and is tallied at the end of the game. Since JotWW doesn't say anything about whether or not the models it removes from play are "slain" or not I would assume that they are, and that it can therefore score Slay the Warlord.

Keep in mind that the only true way to remove casualtys is by sweeping advance or running off the table. But mostly everyone plays it as the first model killed/destroyed which is why vehicles can grant first blood!

The First Blood rule says: "The first unit, of any kind, to be removed as casualty", which would include vehicles

Problem is, vehicles are not removed as a casualty. A wrecked vehicle is not even removed as it is still on the table.

Yeah, meaning either EVERYONE is playing it wrong when you pop a rhino you get first blood, or you can still get first blood from JotWW. What prevents EW and RP from not working isn't he word causality, it's that it is removed.

Yes, if you Slay the Warlord and he is the first unit to die you will get First Blood too.

Note this only applies if the Warlord is also his own unit.

It wouldn't count if you sniped the Senior Officer out of a Company Command Squad with Jaws. You would only get Slay the Warlord as you didn't kill a unit.

Yes the first UNIT removed, taken off the board, dead, slain, become a causality, and doesn't have an EL token on the board, and can't stand back up from magic rules. (Bionics or the special character that never dies)

So it's debatable if it's first blood..?

definitely slay the warlord..?

Does a necron get back up from JotWW? Does an everliving necron get back up from jaws?

Lol, I'll post my full argument from our Facebook group here just so people know where I am coming from:

"I think the source problem is writer's being loose with the words "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty". Unfortunately several rules are dependent on a difference that I'm not even sure is supposed to exist.

If I can't re-animate because my models are 'removed from play' instead of 'removed as a casualty' (and there has been no FAQ clarifying re-animation aside from a 5th ed. that allowed re-animate against jaws[reportedly]) then logically that wording difference is significant and applies similarly to all rules, unless those rules have been modified by an FAQ. Since first blood is similarly worded as 'casualty' then either, it cannot score first blood because it does not cause 'casualties' or I can re-animate because models 'removed from play' and models 'removed as a casualty' are the same thing."

I'm relatively new to 40k, but my inner mathematician demands that inconsistencies be resolved. Tell me if I'm being a butte though.

No because Jaws is RFP.

it's only debatable is a exploded vehicle (that is removed and not a causuality) also is debatable.

yeah that is for sure

Nope, because the model is removed.

 jegsar wrote:
it's only debatable is a exploded vehicle (that is removed and not a causuality) also is debatable.

yeah that is for sure

Nope, because the model is removed.

But if the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" is significant for RP, then what makes it not significant for FB? Neither has been clarified in an FAQ. The only difference I could see is if Codex to Codex rules interactions are handled differently or to a different standard than Codex to Rulebook interactions, but even then I would have to think that Codex to Rulebook interactions would be held to a higher standard.

MBIII wrote:
[But if the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" is significant for RP, then what makes it not significant for FB?

Because RAW units are only removed as casualty in two circumstances: 1) They are swept or 2) they fall back to table edge.
So strict RAW, those are the only ways you could get First Blood.
Now, it is pretty obvious that this is not in fact case (see example about how both players can get First Blood) which means that in First Blood, 'unit removed as casualty' means 'unit destroyed by any means'.

Luide wrote:

MBIII wrote:
[But if the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" is significant for RP, then what makes it not significant for FB?

Because RAW units are only removed as casualty in two circumstances: 1) They are swept or 2) they fall back to table edge.
So strict RAW, those are the only ways you could get First Blood.
Now, it is pretty obvious that this is not in fact case (see example about how both players can get First Blood) which means that in First Blood, 'unit removed as casualty' means 'unit destroyed by any means'.

That's debatable, at least your first statement. The 6th ed. book states that any model who's strength, toughness, or wounds is reduced to 0 is removed as a casualty. At a certain point in the unit state, the unit will consist of 1 model that is both the unit and a single model (e.g. all the other models are dead), if it is removed from play as a casualty then so is the unit. The terms unit and model are never written as exclusionary.

It would help if you would actually read the rules before making such misinformed statements.

BRB p. 15 Shooting phase, heading "Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties" shooting does indeed cause casualties.

Again BRB p. 25 Assault phase under heading "Allocate Wounds", "To allocate casualty removal, allocate each Wound as follows".

Where does this non-sense come from that only falling back or sweeping advance are removed as casualty?

Luide wrote:

MBIII wrote:
[But if the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" is significant for RP, then what makes it not significant for FB?

Because RAW units are only removed as casualty in two circumstances: 1) They are swept or 2) they fall back to table edge.
So strict RAW, those are the only ways you could get First Blood.
Now, it is pretty obvious that this is not in fact case (see example about how both players can get First Blood) which means that in First Blood, 'unit removed as casualty' means 'unit destroyed by any means'.

I have no idea where anyone gets this from but it's a common fallacy with no basis in the rules:

Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. Reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties.

p15 (allocate wounds & remove casualties, the shooting phase)

After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed. [...] Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.

p25 (allocating wounds, the assault phase)

These both show that you can remove as casualties for any normal shooting/assault attack. In fact, there is almost no cases you can mention where it's hard to unequivocally show the models are removed as casualties. The debate for this RFP vs RAAC only comes up when comparing codices authored by Phil Kelly to any other codex, as they are the only ones containing RFP weapons. In all other codices where a weapon or ability has a similar effect (i.e. ignores EW and just kills the model), it is written RAAC. It also brings up the following two issues, the first of which is the reason for the thread:

1) You don't get first blood. There's just no way you can justify not giving everliving rolls by claiming it doesn't count as a casualty and then claim it still counts as being removed as a casualty for first blood. If you treat them the same, aka interchangeable, no such flaw comes up. It's also then easier to justify vehicles counting as first blood.
2) Any Necron unit who's last member is killed by a RFP weapon neither gets to roll for his counters nor remove them. This is because the only occasions counters can be removed is when the last model in the unit is removed as a casualty or you fail the roll. You can't take the roll as the unit is destroyed, yet you can't take off the counters as you don't satisfy the criteria to do so. No such problem occurs when you treat them the same.

To me, this makes it very apparent that they're supposed to be treated interchangeably but people will fight to the death to be able to snipe away Necrons with Jaws...

jaws. give first blood and slain the warlord because a shooting psykek power hut the hq

I think it's self evident with the latest faqs that strict RAW isn't the way the game is played. That and along with the casualties morale check rule and the St Celestine FAQ, plus the lack of any evidence for the opposite, make the intention behind JotWW clear. It creates casualties like every other ability in the game.

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

You can't have it both ways.

If its not a casualty for RP, then it's not a casualty for first blood.

You know, I don't play SW so i couldn't care less about RP but RAW if you rule that JotWW doesn't give first blood, then you are ruling that blowing up my chaos rhino doesn't give first blood so please don't let it give first blood.

Eyjio wrote:

Luide wrote:

MBIII wrote:
[But if the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" is significant for RP, then what makes it not significant for FB?

Because RAW units are only removed as casualty in two circumstances: 1) They are swept or 2) they fall back to table edge.
So strict RAW, those are the only ways you could get First Blood.
Now, it is pretty obvious that this is not in fact case (see example about how both players can get First Blood) which means that in First Blood, 'unit removed as casualty' means 'unit destroyed by any means'.

I have no idea where anyone gets this from but it's a common fallacy with no basis in the rules:

Next, allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit. Reduce that model's Wounds by 1. If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty. Continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties.

p15 (allocate wounds & remove casualties, the shooting phase)

After determining the number of Wounds inflicted against a unit at a particular Initiative step, Wounds are allocated, saves taken and casualties removed. [...] Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty.

p25 (allocating wounds, the assault phase)

These both show that you can remove as casualties for any normal shooting/assault attack. In fact, there is almost no cases you can mention where it's hard to unequivocally show the models are removed as casualties. The debate for this RFP vs RAAC only comes up when comparing codices authored by Phil Kelly to any other codex, as they are the only ones containing RFP weapons. In all other codices where a weapon or ability has a similar effect (i.e. ignores EW and just kills the model), it is written RAAC. It also brings up the following two issues, the first of which is the reason for the thread:

1) You don't get first blood. There's just no way you can justify not giving everliving rolls by claiming it doesn't count as a casualty and then claim it still counts as being removed as a casualty for first blood. If you treat them the same, aka interchangeable, no such flaw comes up. It's also then easier to justify vehicles counting as first blood.
2) Any Necron unit who's last member is killed by a RFP weapon neither gets to roll for his counters nor remove them. This is because the only occasions counters can be removed is when the last model in the unit is removed as a casualty or you fail the roll. You can't take the roll as the unit is destroyed, yet you can't take off the counters as you don't satisfy the criteria to do so. No such problem occurs when you treat them the same.

To me, this makes it very apparent that they're supposed to be treated interchangeably but people will fight to the death to be able to snipe away Necrons with Jaws...

In both of these situations, the unit is not removed as casualties, the models are. Sweeping Advance (And Fall Back to the edge) both specifically state that the unit is removed as casualties (thus the reason why Necrons cannot use RP/EL in either situation, as the model was not removed as a casualty).

That being said, nobody plays that Sweep/Fall Back are the only ways to actually get First Blood, and if a unit is removed from the table (however it may be) then it grants First Blood.

A unit removed as a casualties* is used interchangeably with all the models in a unit being removed as casualties. This is shown in pg 15 - Allocate unsaved wounds & remove casualties: "... Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more wounds left, or the whole unit is removed as a casualties". The contrary would mean a Royal Court after being shot down by bolters would never get to roll RP because in the end it was the unit that was removed as casualties and not the model. Which of course is 100% false.

*A unit removed as a casualties: unit-singular casualties-plural. So casualties doesn't refer to just the unit but to the models in the unit as a whole.

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 love how intermittantly random dudes come in to post and tell you that if 'Shumwon dies firsht, den its firsht blud!'

the argument is clearly around the wording, i.e removed from play vs removed as a casualty.

you could argue it all day, and ive been down this path.

Its just going to have to be a matter of how you and your gaming group want to sort it out.


imo, the idea was for JoWW to be one of the more powerful psychic abilities in the game, it was with all intention, a line of death.

In 5th ed of the BGB, the best way to acheive that was to write that it removed you from play, so that you couldnt get your FNP / Invul / RP rolls.

At the end of the day, if JoWW removes your warlord,
are you able to still use him? - No
Is he sitting in your pile of dead models off to the side? - Yes

I think RAI, he's dead boy. hes dead.