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.

Do Necrons get to roll RPs for models that fled due to a failed Ld test?

It doesn't matter how a model dies Crons roll for lost models in the unit every turn until there is no unit left.

Actually this made me thinking.

Battle Primer p.9

In the Morale phase, starting with the player whose turn
it is, players must take Morale tests for units from their
army that have had models slain during the turn.
To take a Morale test, roll a dice and add the number
of models from the unit that have been slain this turn.
If the result of the Morale test exceeds the highest
Leadership characteristic in the unit, the test is failed.
For each point that the test is failed by, one model
in that unit must flee and is removed from play. You
choose which models flee from the units you command.

Index Xenos 1 p.84

Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed at the beginning of your turn.

If I remember it correctly, there are more situations which differentiate between slain and removed from game.

No because flee and slain are two different things. They already have definitions GW doesn't need a special rule for every word in the english dictionary.

It is removed from play it ran away, thus it wasn't slain it's simply gone and cannot come back.

Oh jesus, here we go again.
Everyone knows damn well it's going to be common sense FAQ'd, just like multi wound RP one was.
But please, by all means, let's start up another 13 page crap fest where rules lawyers can waffle on about the intricacies of RAW until words have lost all meaning.

I think there's probably a RAW argument that they were not technically slain, but it would be game design malpractice to FAQ it that way. There's no way that you're supposed to book-keep the number of fled models over the entire game.

 skoffs wrote:
Oh jesus, here we go again.
Everyone knows damn well it's going to be common sense FAQ'd, just like multi wound RP one was.
But please, by all means, let's start up another 13 page crap fest where rules lawyers can waffle on about the intricacies of RAW until words have lost all meaning.

both sides are perfectly reasonable stances so idk what you are complaining at

I play vs. my wife's necrons and I am certainly not bringing this up.

This is incredibly unnecessary bookkeeping that makes the games less fun, weakens a mechanic, and wastes time trying to explain.

We will absolutely be playing that all models are slain regardless and you simply roll a D6 for every dead model.

Hash it out for pages if you want, but this one seems it will only matter to the rules lawyer dweebs who bring this stuff up IRL when people are just trying to play a game.

Because, as we've seen from the previous FAQ(s), this edition they are erring on the side of streamlined play for rules.
Does anyone honestly think they're going to go with a convoluted mechanic which requires extra book keeping here, or the occam's razor that would just bring back any models that were previously lost.
"Oh, they may have gone with the sensible interpretation in all the previous rulings, but this time, this time surely they're going with this particular RAW interpretation that will over complicate and slow down each game!"

What!?! How is it book keeping. Fleeing models are dead and can go back the the case you keep them

If you make a distinction between slain and flee then you also must make a distinction for destroy vs slain. The final step of resolving attacks even says models reduced to 0 wounds are 'either slain or destroyed' so clearly you have to pick which word you want to use every time a model is reduced to 0 wounds, right? If that's the case then you can't stop reanimation protocols for wiping out a unit as long as the last models 'fled' or were 'slain' instead of got 'destroyed.' You also can't get victory points or first blood from any unit that is removed from fleeing instead of being directly slain.

I think this and a lot of the other abusive rules threads can just as easily fall under the first half of 'the most important rule' which doesn't just say roll off with your opponent right away, it first says to talk it over and use what makes the most sense. Tracking the individual wording on how models are removed be they fled or slain or destroyed or disintegrated or liquefied to have 6 different piles of models outside the table that you must never get confused or bled together does not make the most sense.

The wording of Reanimation Protocols indicates that '[completely] slain' and 'completely destroyed' are synonymous.


Reanimation Protocols
Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model’s reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model’s reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up.

So we know for certain that the rules make no functional distinction between 'slain' and 'destroyed'. If there was a functional distinction the rule would read 'unless the whole unit has been completely slain'.

For the sake of ease of book-keeping, I would count "flee" as "slain" so that models that flew the coop have a chance to re-animate.

You could just as easily interpret the reanimation rules as not saying slain and destroyed are synonymous but instead that it means every model removed by 'slain' gets an RP, and only units that are entirely removed by 'destroy' don't get to. It's a ridiculous black hole of arguing every interpretation of every word any rule uses.

 Actinium wrote:
You could just as easily interpret the reanimation rules as not saying slain and destroyed are synonymous but instead that it means every model removed by 'slain' gets an RP, and only units that are entirely removed by 'destroy' don't get to. It's a ridiculous black hole of arguing every interpretation of every word any rule uses.

The grammar of that sentence indicates that the terms 'slain' and 'destroyed' are interchangeable and functionally equivalent. Otherwise the rule would read thus 'unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed (but not completely slain)'.

I would say no, because to me its supposed to invoke the Phase Out rule they had in 3rd (model based instead of army based),
and it seems pretty clear that casualties inflicted by morale are their own thing, but I can see how it can be interpreted as such.

Another one for the FAQ pile I guess.

col_impact wrote:
The grammar of that sentence indicates that the terms 'slain' and 'destroyed' are interchangeable and functionally equivalent. Otherwise the rule would read thus 'unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed (but not completely slain)'.

I agree it's not like I'm actually arguing that's how RP works but we would then be in an argument about what 'unless' means in this context or why they use a parenthesis instead of adding that part at the end of the sentence with a comma for pages and pages when how the rule really works is super clear.

If you start assigning functional differences between 'flee' 'slain' and 'destroyed' then Necrons will always get RP rolls even when the unit is no longer on the battlefield. Only in the rare case that the unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'completely fled' will the unit not receive RP rolls.

col_impact wrote:
If you start assigning functional differences between 'flee' 'slain' and 'destroyed' then Necrons will always get RP rolls even when the unit is no longer on the battlefield. Only in the rare case that the unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'completely fled' will the unit not receive RP rolls.

Yes but if 3 were to flee, and the rest were destroyed/slain. If you took RP rolls they would have to join the models wherever they fled too to be in coherency.

Wagguy80 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you start assigning functional differences between 'flee' 'slain' and 'destroyed' then Necrons will always get RP rolls even when the unit is no longer on the battlefield. Only in the rare case that the unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'completely fled' will the unit not receive RP rolls.

Yes but if 3 were to flee, and the rest were destroyed/slain. If you took RP rolls they would have to join the models wherever they fled too to be in coherency.

if the rest were destroyed no one reanimates

Wagguy80 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you start assigning functional differences between 'flee' 'slain' and 'destroyed' then Necrons will always get RP rolls even when the unit is no longer on the battlefield. Only in the rare case that the unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'completely fled' will the unit not receive RP rolls.

Yes but if 3 were to flee, and the rest were destroyed/slain. If you took RP rolls they would have to join the models wherever they fled too to be in coherency.

And there are no rules for removing 'fled' models from the battlefield. So the fled models are on the battlefield but simply considered 'fled' and 'removed from play'. Further, the 'fled' models can still shoot, move, and charge just like regular models since 'removed from play' has no actual rules associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you start assigning functional differences between 'flee' 'slain' and 'destroyed' then Necrons will always get RP rolls even when the unit is no longer on the battlefield. Only in the rare case that the unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'completely fled' will the unit not receive RP rolls.

Yes but if 3 were to flee, and the rest were destroyed/slain. If you took RP rolls they would have to join the models wherever they fled too to be in coherency.

if the rest were destroyed no one reanimates

The RP rule requires the unit to be 'completely destroyed' in order for RP to not happen. If some models have fled, then the unit can never be completely destroyed.


These points are not meant to be taken for valid arguments but to illustrate that the rules break if certain implausible lines of argumentation are followed.

People can choose between enjoying a functioning game where slain, fled, or destroyed models are not considered in units or they can suffer a profoundly broken and absurd game.

In this situation how then would a pox walker reanimation work. Slay a Cron a pox walker appears does that mean a Cron can't reanimate due to model being turned to chaos? Or a nigh on endless respawn of crons to an ever increasing number of walkers.

( till a new FAQ comes out, I'm playing crons come back until the unit is fully removed from the table top. Regardless of the mechanisms that removes them.

I have enough issues with my club house ruling my crons rules and abilities without more imposed rules and such being added into the potential mix to constantly dilute and weaken my force to obscurity regardless of what rules and abilities that their forces poses.

Drewtavian wrote:
In this situation how then would a pox walker reanimation work. Slay a Cron a pox walker appears does that mean a Cron can't reanimate due to model being turned to chaos? Or a nigh on endless respawn of crons to an ever increasing number of walkers.

That's been answered in the Chaos FAQ.

Drewtavian wrote:
In this situation how then would a pox walker reanimation work. Slay a Cron a pox walker appears does that mean a Cron can't reanimate due to model being turned to chaos? Or a nigh on endless respawn of crons to an ever increasing number of walkers.

This got answered, both get to spawn new models because they both trigger of a model being slain. This also has no precedent n the topic at hand

It's worth noting that if "fled" is not the same as "slain", then a Guard army can deny an opponent the "Slay the Warlord" VP pretty reliably.

1. Take conscripts and a commissar.
2. Nominate one of the conscripts to be your Warlord.
3. Remove the regular conscripts first when the unit takes losses.
4. Fail morale and have the commissar "execute" your Warlord.
5. Your Warlord was removed from play as a result of a failed morale test and therefore was never slain.

Dionysodorus wrote:
It's worth noting that if "fled" is not the same as "slain", then a Guard army can deny an opponent the "Slay the Warlord" VP pretty reliably.

1. Take conscripts and a commissar.
2. Nominate one of the conscripts to be your Warlord.
3. Remove the regular conscripts first when the unit takes losses.
4. Fail morale and have the commissar "execute" your Warlord.
5. Your Warlord was removed from play as a result of a failed morale test and therefore was never slain.

Much to the puzzlement of the Commissar.

RAW, there is a distinction.

What GW intended (use common sense people) is that there is no functional distinction.

Believe whatever you want until the FAQ comes out for it, but don't be surprised when common sense prevails.

Wouldn't common sense be that fleeing necrons don't reanimate because they aren't broken they just fled the battle?

 luke1705 wrote:
What GW intended (use common sense people) is that there is no functional distinction.

Believe whatever you want until the FAQ comes out for it, but don't be surprised when common sense prevails.

Yeah, we used 'common sense' in 7th edition when we let Battle Brothers start in each others transports. We all know how that turned out...

 Ghaz wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
What GW intended (use common sense people) is that there is no functional distinction.

Believe whatever you want until the FAQ comes out for it, but don't be surprised when common sense prevails.

Yeah, we used 'common sense' in 7th edition when we let Battle Brothers start in each others transports. We all know how that turned out...

New edition, new guy in charge. Call me clinically insane, but they've more or less re-earned the benefit of the doubt from me so far. How long they hold onto that....we'll see