Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1

[EMMachine]

1 minute ago, Sedraxis said:

Because it clearly reads in the FAQ that Destiny Dice are unmodified except when using them for Save or Battleshock rolls. Its that simple.

If you only take a fragment and interpret on it.

The whole sentence is:

Quote

In addition, any rolls that have been replaced
(with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests)
count as unmodified rolls and cannot be re-rolled or
modified further.

The dice values you use for Save rolls and Battleshocktests are still unmodified values, but they get modified with rend or slain models.

It doesn't change abilities that trigger umodified rolls (because its the value before re-rolls or modifiers are applied).

The bigger problem is, that a destiny dice used for save or bravery can be forced to be rerolled because of the exception.

[Phasteon]

It will be fun to play against a „competitive“ Tzeentch player. 

90% rules discussion

10% playing the game

Tzeentch players could at least have dinner with the rules before they * them. 

[Kasper]

25 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

How does "Warhammer Age of Sigmar" even come to such a conclusion.

I mean, "unmodified" roll only means, the value that is shown on the dice. So using a Destiny Dice of 1 is still an unmodified roll for the Banner rules because the dice is showing a 1.

The only intention for the destiny dice in case of Bravery was, that you can't simply make units completly immune to bravery even when spending a 6. (after most units have a bravery of at least 6).

I don't think it is absurd to read it in such a way.

If a DD count as an unmodified roll for all rules beside save rolls or battleshock tests, it could indicate that whenever a DD is used for such a roll it is treated as a non-unmodified roll, aka modified.

[Sleboda]

4 minutes ago, Kasper said:

If a DD count as an unmodified roll for all rules beside save rolls or battleshock tests, it could indicate that whenever a DD is used for such a roll it is treated as a non-unmodified roll, aka modified.

Not criticizing you or your post. Just a reaction:

 

Ouch. That makes my head spin. If I am going to need to track that level of wording, I'm going to forfeit a lot of games to Tzeentch players.

[Kasper]

18 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Not criticizing you or your post. Just a reaction:

 

Ouch. That makes my head spin. If I am going to need to track that level of wording, I'm going to forfeit a lot of games to Tzeentch players.

It could've been explained better.  

[hughwyeth]

I believe the FB community responses have been deleted regarding this?

[Sinfullyvannila]

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

The core rules for "slain models" and "battleshock" read significantly different. The text for "slain models" reads that the models are slain as in dead, then removed from the table. For battleshock the rules read that the models are removed from the table (not slain/dead), but following that they count as slain - For  the purpose of kill points etc. 

 

I’m inclined to agree with this. It’s clearly against intent to generate more models from Battleshock.

[Freejack02]

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

I think there is a significant difference between people playing this hobby, which is ultimately to have fun and socialize, and people doing extradoinary work within their field, which is ultimately driven by earning higher salaries/bonuses.

People play competitive events to compete...obviously I can't speak for every individual, but by and large I am comfortable saying that. I don't think there is a real difference between the racing engineer crafting parts wanting to be the best and a tzeentch player crafting lists wanting to be the best. 

[NJohansson]

9 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

I’m inclined to agree with this. It’s clearly against intent to generate more models from Battleshock.

The actual relevant wording is:

So we have - slain  - remover from play.

Regarding Battle chock:

Once again - remove from play - count as slain (same meaning, reversed words). Note that the unit does not flee - not any of their models, simply remove from play - slain. Regarding the spawning:

Spawning triggers on slain...

Are people really arguing the semantic between counts as slain and purely slain?

I do get that people feel the need for additional nerfs (I am probably in the same camp feeling Tzeentch is still on the higher end of the power curve) but this is getting ridiculous. 

[Sinfullyvannila]

1 hour ago, NJohansson said:

The actual relevant wording is:

So we have - slain  - remover from play.

Regarding Battle chock:

Once again - remove from play - count as slain (same meaning, reversed words). Note that the unit does not flee - not any of their models, simply remove from play - slain. Regarding the spawning:

Spawning triggers on slain...

Are people really arguing the semantic between counts as slain and purely slain?

I do get that people feel the need for additional nerfs (I am probably in the same camp feeling Tzeentch is still on the higher end of the power curve) but this is getting ridiculous. 

So you believe that when the Core Rules were written the intent was to create a situation to spawn more Pinks?

Because I’m speaking of the intent of the wording in the Core Book, that being to count Battleshock-removes models as slain for the purpose of counting them as kill points.

Frankly though, I’m just trying to go by intent in what is clearly an abysmally written book. The FAQ literally cast shade on Tzeentch players for playing Destiny Dice on Battleshock against intention when there was literally no reason to conclude that was against intent and every reason to assume it was the intent to play as written.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Sinfullyvannila

[gjnoronh]

1 hour ago, Freejack02 said:

People play competitive events to compete...obviously I can't speak for every individual, but by and large I am comfortable saying that. I don't think there is a real difference between the racing engineer crafting parts wanting to be the best and a tzeentch player crafting lists wanting to be the best. 

I think people play games with toy soldiers to have fun.  Competition may add some excitement to playing with toy soldiers and is a great excuse to meet new people and play some games.   But fundamentally this is a hobby we do for entertainment - because it's fun.  If it's not fun i don't really understand why anyone would do this particular hobby.    

The racing engineer crafting parts is most likely doing it for a job, a job where winning and losing may be the difference in them having a job or not in the future.  That's intrinsically a very different situation then someone spending money on toy soldiers they can build and paint and play games with.   

The motivation to push your own limits to do better may be universal and absolutely a part of a hobby.    But if the only reason you are playing with toy soldiers is to compete and not to have fun it might be worth carefully considering what gives a player  joy in life.   

Worth a read

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/hobbies-hustle-era-leisure-time-coins.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/in-praise-of-mediocrity.html

Edited February 5, 2020 by gjnoronh

[NJohansson]

33 minutes ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

So you believe that when the Core Rules were written the intent was to create a situation to spawn more Pinks?

Because I’m speaking of the intent of the wording in the Core Book, that being to count Battleshock-removes models as slain for the purpose of counting them as kill points.

Frankly though, I’m just trying to go by intent in what is clearly an abysmally written book. The FAQ literally cast shade on Tzeentch players for playing Destiny Dice on Battleshock against intention when there was literally no reason to conclude that was against intent and every reason to assume it was the intent to play as written.

Intent is a very dangerous notion simply because intent to me is probably not the same as for you - it is not objective but subjective. RAW, while at times is stupid, is much more clearer. If the designers want us to use intent - they clarify it in a FAQ. RAW any DD were possible to use to auto pass battle chock - that was not the intent and has been rectified. Let’s leave it at that.

[Dead Scribe]

Or... and hear me out.... competing IS fun for some of us.  Which in this context means creating the most powerful lists we can so that we are not at a disadvantage against someone else who is doing the same thing.  

Edited February 5, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[novembermike]

2 hours ago, NJohansson said:

The actual relevant wording is:

So we have - slain  - remover from play.

Regarding Battle chock:

Once again - remove from play - count as slain (same meaning, reversed words). Note that the unit does not flee - not any of their models, simply remove from play - slain. Regarding the spawning:

Spawning triggers on slain...

Are people really arguing the semantic between counts as slain and purely slain?

I do get that people feel the need for additional nerfs (I am probably in the same camp feeling Tzeentch is still on the higher end of the power curve) but this is getting ridiculous. 

"Counts as" is usually a technical term. It basically means that the thing happened for look back purposes, but you don't trigger any events. Teleportation is a big example, you can't move again after teleporting because you count as having moved, but you didn't actually do a move event so you don't trigger retreating or anything. This should be the same, the models count as being slain so they can be brought back, you can score, etc, but there's no actual event where they are slain so Horrors splitting wouldn't trigger.

EDIT: I may be thinking of 40k deep strike for the specific rule but I believe they use the same technical language for the most part.

Edited February 5, 2020 by novembermike

[Nogginnocker]

On 2/4/2020 at 5:56 PM, Inquisitorsz said:

The FAQ says: 
"In addition, any rolls that have been replaced (with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests) count as unmodified rolls and cannot be re-rolled or modified further." 
and 
"If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a battleshock test, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the number of models slain from that unit as normal.’"

The Pink Horror Icon Bearer says:
"If the unmodified roll for a battleshock test for this unit while it includes any Pink Horror Icon Bearers is 1, you can return D6 slain Horrors of Tzeentch models to this unit, and no models from this unit will flee in that battleshock phase. "

So using a destiny dice of 1 is still "unmodified" and triggers the Pink Horror banner, which then stops the rest of the battleshock calculation.   
The part in the brackets just means there's further clarification for those specific cases. They should have worded it differently, to avoid using the words "with the exception of" but GW has never been overly clear with their wording. 

I can see how it's confusing, perhaps GW needs to clarify the wording, but i believe the intent is for destiny dice of 1 to still work with the icon bearer. 

I've read this over in my head several times and, for the life of me, I simply can't understand how you came to your conclusion. It's in black and white. They laid out their case of what counts as unmodified regarding the use of destiny dice. Then, they clearly made an exception to the list of "unmodified" by specifically calling out save rolls and battleshock tests. Ergo, they are absolutely not considered to be "unmodified." So, by default they are considered to be "modified" (unless I'm ignorant of a third status - "not modified, but also not unmodified"??). To be clear, I do not know what the actual intent of the rules writers was, nor do other people who claim they do. I'm just focusing on the actual language in the FAQ. For all I know, they flubbed it and made an unintentional mistake. If that's the case, they should really hot fix the FAQ.

Furthermore, the community seems to be focusing on the text of the "masters of destiny" while willfully ignoring the immediately preceding portion, which specifically calls out how frustrating Pink Horrors were becoming to opponents in the meta. To quote,

"Designer’s Note – Destiny Dice and Changehost: While the intention of ‘unmodified’ Destiny Dice was to control unruly casting rolls and other exploits that were identified during testing, and an attempt to keep the Destiny Dice mechanic as straightforward and interpretation-free as possible, we unfortunately did not foresee the consequences this change would have on battleshock and save rolls, especially with regards to units like Pink Horrors, which can tie up enemy units in frustrating ways. This is also contributed to the Changehost becoming an incredibly powerful warscroll battalion in very short order. However, with the help of our dedicated and passionate community, we have adjusted both how Destiny Dice and the Changehost work to achieve their original intent. The Age of Sigmar team deeply thanks each and every one of you for your feedback, and we look forward to continuing to develop our beloved game with all of you together."

I'm curious if the rules designers wanted to see Tzeentch players be forced to make an interesting decision on whether or not to roll on battleshock in order to get that lucky 1 for the banner like the players of other Chaos armies have to do. I think it adds a bit of spice to the game. It's an interesting thing to see a Tzeentch player have to squirm in taking a chance on an actual dice roll in a critical situation when they're apparently so used to simply knowing the outcome ahead of time via DD.

[Inquisitorsz]

33 minutes ago, Nogginnocker said:

I've read this over in my head several times and, for the life of me, I simply can't understand how you came to your conclusion. It's in black and white. They laid out their case of what counts as unmodified regarding the use of destiny dice. Then, they clearly made an exception to the list of "unmodified" by specifically calling out save rolls and battleshock tests. Ergo, they are absolutely not considered to be "unmodified." So, by default they are considered to be "modified" (unless I'm ignorant of a third status - "not modified, but also not unmodified"??). To be clear, I do not know what the actual intent of the rules writers was, nor do other people who claim they do. I'm just focusing on the actual language in the FAQ. For all I know, they flubbed it and made an unintentional mistake. If that's the case, they should really hot fix the FAQ.

Furthermore, the community seems to be focusing on the text of the "masters of destiny" while willfully ignoring the immediately preceding portion, which specifically calls out how frustrating Pink Horrors were becoming to opponents in the meta. To quote,

"Designer’s Note – Destiny Dice and Changehost: While the intention of ‘unmodified’ Destiny Dice was to control unruly casting rolls and other exploits that were identified during testing, and an attempt to keep the Destiny Dice mechanic as straightforward and interpretation-free as possible, we unfortunately did not foresee the consequences this change would have on battleshock and save rolls, especially with regards to units like Pink Horrors, which can tie up enemy units in frustrating ways. This is also contributed to the Changehost becoming an incredibly powerful warscroll battalion in very short order. However, with the help of our dedicated and passionate community, we have adjusted both how Destiny Dice and the Changehost work to achieve their original intent. The Age of Sigmar team deeply thanks each and every one of you for your feedback, and we look forward to continuing to develop our beloved game with all of you together."

I'm curious if the rules designers wanted to see Tzeentch players be forced to make an interesting decision on whether or not to roll on battleshock in order to get that lucky 1 for the banner like the players of other Chaos armies have to do. I think it adds a bit of spice to the game. It's an interesting thing to see a Tzeentch player have to squirm in taking a chance on an actual dice roll in a critical situation when they're apparently so used to simply knowing the outcome ahead of time via DD.

My interpretation is mainly based on how badly GW often writes rules. 
They don't write in absolutes.  
So just because they specify something as "unmodified" except X,Y,Z... that doesn't automatically mean that X,Y,Z are modified by default.  Logically I agree that's how it seems, but in most games and rules I've seen (even outside GW), you always have to go by what is EXPLICITLY written, not what is implied or omitted. 
The die has to be modified by something. The act of replacing a roll with a destiny dice isn't a modification in and of itself.   
For example, if the rule said:  
"In addition, any rolls that have been replaced (with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests which count as modified) count as unmodified rolls and cannot be re-rolled or modified further"
Then I would 100% agree with you as it's explicitly stated. 
That's also why they specifically say that destiny dice cannot be re-reolled. The core rules already say that rerolled dice cannot be rerolled again. They could have said that a replaced dice counts as being rerolled. But instead they chose to word it in such a way that it doesn't count as rerolled, but can't be rerolled either. 

The wording was updated in such a way to allow battleshock and save roles to be modified after the replacement, while the other rolls can't be.
I think they simply forgot that the Icon Bearer referred specifically to "unmodified". That's common problem when a normal descriptive word like "modified" is also used as a keyword. It can easily get mixed into the wrong places or pop up in the wrong part of a sentence. 

I also often look at how else the rule could be worded and if that changes the intent or not. 
For example, if the rule said 
"In addition, any rolls that have been replaced count as unmodified rolls and cannot be re-rolled or modified further (with the exception of save rolls and battleshock tests)." Where the brackets are now at the end of the sentence instead of in the middle.... which then leads directly into the next sentence detailing how battleshock and save rolls are different, you could easily argue that the "except" part refers to the "modified further" part of the sentence in this case. 
I actually think that's how the rule should be worded.   
The existence of the next sentences is also important.  It's not really necessary, but it further clarifies exactly HOW save and battleshock tests can be further modified. 
It says:
"If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a save roll, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the Rend characteristic of the attack as normal.
If you spend a Destiny Dice to replace a battleshock test, the result of that Destiny Dice is modified by the number of models slain from that unit as normal." 

So going by that... if you replace a battleshock test, it can be modified by the number of casualties... but it can't be modified by any other abilities (like add 1 to the battleshock roll of enemies within X) and can't be rerolled.  Similarly, a save roll can be modified by the rend of a weapon, but not by being in cover or a spell/prayer etc....   
Having that extra sentence explicitly states what can modify the destiny dice. Ergo.... only specific things can do it and thus I'd argue it doesn't count as a normal modified or unmodified dice, at least until something actually modifies it.  Whether or not that's intended is up to GW to clarify.
But really we're getting very deep into semantics and grammar here.

It seems like the GW Facebook responses went one way then got deleted so we'll probably have to wait for an official FAQ update.
Like I said, I agree the FAQ wording was poorly written. 
I am basing the Icon Bearer rule on the fact that a destiny dice of 1 has always returned models in the past (and what I wrote above). It's pretty much the only thing that makes destiny dice of 1s useful. But I'm happy to be 100% wrong too. 

[Nogginnocker]

1 hour ago, Inquisitorsz said:

The wording was updated in such a way to allow battleshock and save roles to be modified after the replacement, while the other rolls can't be.
I think they simply forgot that the Icon Bearer referred specifically to "unmodified". That's common problem when a normal descriptive word like "modified" is also used as a keyword. It can easily get mixed into the wrong places or pop up in the wrong part of a sentence. 

I agree with this 100%. Honestly, I'm not fully convinced that they intended to negate using a DD of 1 to invoke the warscroll ability of Pink Horrors if there's still a banner bearer on the table. However, RAW, it still seems fairly clear to me. At least, in the English version of the FAQ. You know, I'd be really curious to see the other translations' takes on the new FAQ are. It might provide some insight. At any rate, I sincerely thank you for this far more elaborate explanation. It helped me see the thinking behind the other side's interpretation. Again, my comments were dealing strictly with RAW and not RAI here.

At the end of the day, I highly recommend any Tzeentch players who intend to attend any tournament first contact the TO and see their ruling (barring any pending future clarification of the FAQ) before blowing a gasket at the tournament if a TO decides to play by RAW. This should help you mentally prepare ahead of time. As for me, this is a moot issue because I play Nighthaunt and my list is easily capable of taking out 10 or 20 pinks in a turn. I also have multiple methods of targeting the specific banner bearer. So, it's no skin off my back. I've just been observing this back and forth from the sidelines and decided to provide my measly two cents' worth. Thank you for your time and further explanation, Inquisitorsz! That was kind of of you.

[Inquisitorsz]

16 minutes ago, Nogginnocker said:

I agree with this 100%. Honestly, I'm not fully convinced that they intended to negate using a DD of 1 to invoke the warscroll ability of Pink Horrors if there's still a banner bearer on the table. However, RAW, it still seems fairly clear to me. At least, in the English version of the FAQ. You know, I'd be really curious to see the other translations' takes on the new FAQ are. It might provide some insight. At any rate, I sincerely thank you for this far more elaborate explanation. It helped me see the thinking behind the other side's interpretation. Again, my comments were dealing strictly with RAW and not RAI here.

At the end of the day, I highly recommend any Tzeentch players who intend to attend any tournament first contact the TO and see their ruling (barring any pending future clarification of the FAQ) before blowing a gasket at the tournament if a TO decides to play by RAW. This should help you mentally prepare ahead of time. As for me, this is a moot issue because I play Nighthaunt and my list is easily capable of taking out 10 or 20 pinks in a turn. I also have multiple methods of targeting the specific banner bearer. So, it's no skin off my back. I've just been observing this back and forth from the sidelines and decided to provide my measly two cents' worth. Thank you for your time and further explanation, Inquisitorsz! That was kind of of you.

No worries. I'm a bit of a rules lawyer so I enjoy these debates a bit too much.... though I'd usually err on the side of RAW.... but GW does RAW so badly that I find a 50/50 mix of RAW/RAI works best lol. 

I'd say most big event TOs would be aware of these kind of issues but I agree Tzeentch players should seek clarification.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter one way or the other, as long as all players know which way to play it. 
The problems stem from confusion and arguments not from the rule being either A or B. 

[Kadeton]

I'm honestly not even sure what the "cannot be rerolled or modifier further" stipulation was supposed to achieve.

What would be the point of rerolling a die whose value you'd set using a DD? That's literally just wasting a DD for no reason, unless there are circumstances where spending a DD would provide some other advantage... but I strongly doubt it would be difficult to burn any number of DDs if that was all you wanted to do.

Would it somehow be a problem if the DDs were affected by other modifiers? Most players have a tendency to think of their rolls in terms of what they need after modifiers anyway.

The modifiers that are really important, and would be of greatest benefit to the Tzeentch player to ignore, are the ones they're no longer allowed to ignore!

I don't understand why they felt the need to make this rule so convoluted. They could have just changed it to "In addition, any rolls that have been replaced count as unmodified rolls, and are subject to any modifiers or rerolls as normal." The world would keep turning, and nobody would be confused - you literally just replace the die that you would roll with one that has a predetermined result, and then treat that die exactly as if you had rolled that number.

[angrycontra]

7 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I'm honestly not even sure what the "cannot be rerolled or modifier further" stipulation was supposed to achieve.

What would be the point of rerolling a die whose value you'd set using a DD? That's literally just wasting a DD for no reason, unless there are circumstances where spending a DD would provide some other advantage... but I strongly doubt it would be difficult to burn any number of DDs if that was all you wanted to do.

Would it somehow be a problem if the DDs were affected by other modifiers? Most players have a tendency to think of their rolls in terms of what they need after modifiers anyway.

The modifiers that are really important, and would be of greatest benefit to the Tzeentch player to ignore, are the ones they're no longer allowed to ignore!

I don't understand why they felt the need to make this rule so convoluted. They could have just changed it to "In addition, any rolls that have been replaced count as unmodified rolls, and are subject to any modifiers or rerolls as normal." The world would keep turning, and nobody would be confused - you literally just replace the die that you would roll with one that has a predetermined result, and then treat that die exactly as if you had rolled that number.

I believe that the "no rerolls" thing is there to eliminate all the "reroll any successful rolls" (like that tzeentch shield artifact, nurgle wither staff/allegiance ability etc.) Abilities. Modifiers I do agree with though, they make the rule unnecessarily complicated.

[Kasper]

10 hours ago, NJohansson said:

Are people really arguing the semantic between counts as slain and purely slain?

 

No, my point was the chain of events.

One says the models are slain on the table and trigger such abilities. You then remove them off the table.

The second says you remove your models off the table, then they are basically slain but they dont trigger as they were already removed from play. The slain part is purely for kill points.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Kasper

[Phasteon]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

No, my point was the chain of events.

One says the models are slain on the table and trigger such abilities. You then remove them off the table.

The second says you remove your models off the table, then they are basically slain but they dont trigger as they were already removed from play. The slain part is purely for kill points.

This. 

Tbh I would call a Tzeentch player who splits his Horrors after battleshock losses a cheater. 

9 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

Or... and hear me out.... competing IS fun for some of us.  Which in this context means creating the most powerful lists we can so that we are not at a disadvantage against someone else who is doing the same thing.  

There is a difference between building a powerful list or bending the rules in a cheesy way. And thats whats discussed here. Not the attempt of some Tzeentch players to create a competitive list but to use a thing thats unclear but potentially very game decisive for their advantage without 100% knowing its RAW that way. Thats cheating. 

If I dont know how to interpret a rule I interpret it to my opponents advantage so I dont win because of an advantage I shouldnt have had. Thats called sportsmanship and thats what most people seem to forget when talking about competitive play.

Unfortunately even in casual hobby gaming many people are bad sports.

 

Edit: And before you start to argue „that its clear how to interpret this rule“ – no its not. 

„You cant shoot after retreating“ – THATS a 100% clear rule.

„Is being slain and removed or being removed and count as being slain the same thing“ is not 100% clear. RAW there is a difference because otherwise the battleshock rule could just say „the models are slain“

Edited February 6, 2020 by Phasteon

[NJohansson]

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

No, my point was the chain of events.

One says the models are slain on the table and trigger such abilities. You then remove them off the table.

The second says you remove your models off the table, then they are basically slain but they dont trigger as they were already removed from play. The slain part is purely for kill points.

Again now you are adding a subjective (personal) opinion “The slain part is purely for kill points”. If that was the case the rule would have said so. The rule simply states - remove from play, counts as being slain. The only real argument is if “counts as” is the same as purely “slain”.
 

RAW - I would argue that they are the same simply because all rules share the same trigger - slain. The argument that why did they not write it the exact same is a weak one - GW has never been good at writing legal texts (rules are basically legal texts) and while better then previously they still are ambiguous and seldom perfectly worded. An important aspect is also that pure legal text tend to get very difficult to read for a layman - if they would writ perfect legal text the absolute majority of players would find the rules cumbersome and hard to follow. 

RAI - never liked this argument, but if going down this path - when looking at RAI (which a lot of legal systems use) one of the most basic principles is to look at how was the rule/similar rules prior to this - a change against previous principles is done through clear statement - ambiguity errs on the side of how it used to be. In light of this - my understanding is that previously the majority of players played that if Horrors were destroyed (even through Battle chock) you still got the summoning points. Slightly different mechanic but still a clear indication on the possible intent. 

[Kasper]

21 minutes ago, NJohansson said:

Again now you are adding a subjective (personal) opinion “The slain part is purely for kill points”. If that was the case the rule would have said so. The rule simply states - remove from play, counts as being slain. The only real argument is if “counts as” is the same as purely “slain”.

Situation A: Your models are slain on the table. Throw them in the bin.

Situation B: Throw your models in the bin. The models count as being slain.

Those are 2 different situations.

Now if the battleshock rules read as ".. models flee and count as being slain. Remove them from play" the two rules would've been identical, and the models fled from battleshock would count as slain on the table, then removed. It feels to me that you are reading the "counts as slain" out of context of what the rule actually says. You can't just search through a PDF and anytime a sentence says "slain" think that Horrors will split.  

 

Lets say you have 5 Pinks left in a unit (for simplicity sake) and they all flee due to battleshock. The entire unit is removed from the table. The Horror mechanic specifcally states you have to add to an already exsisting unit. Nowhere in the battleshock rules does it say that you remove models one by one, so you wouldn't have a unit to add additional horrors to anyways.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Kasper

[Phasteon]

As soon as a FAQ says „Horrors that are removed by battleshock will still split“ its perfectly fine. But before that its 50/50 and as it makes a huge impact on the game I‘d advise every player to take the safe route and just remove them without splitting. 

What truely competitive player (not talking to you WAAC „that guy“) would want to win a game because he abused a rule that wasnt 100% clear.