Do Horrors Split when they flee?

[Ganigumo]

As title. I'm constantly butting heads with people that say they do split when they flee, and unfortunately GW has not issued any commentary on it.

Now for the rules: 

Horrors split when they are slain.

Fleeing:  You decide which of 
the models from your units flee – 
remove them from play and count 
them as having been slain.

 

As I see it they shouldn't split because models that flee are never actually slain, only removed from play. The statement "count them as having been slain" is both past tense, and the "count them" part is a qualifier used as a substitution for something, in this case they needed to be counted as slain because they weren't actually slain.

[AlexScipio]

8 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:

What happened with the basti save? 

some people didnt know how save rules works and some said that save of 1+ meaned that any result in a dice roll always saved, and even 1s was not a fail. others said that rend caracterist afect the 1+ save, and if you have rend -10, for example, you fail it.

And in the rulebook says the same that the bastiladon faq says, but in diferent places

Edited March 23, 2021 by AlexScipio

[Angela]

Everyone responding to this thread should email the FAQ team. I started playing Tzeentch last fall. The very first games that I played, I was playing both sides and interpreted the rules as not splitting when they flee.  And then I started playing against my husband and he insisted that I was playing wrong and I needed to split the horrors that fled during battleshock because the rules state "count them as having been slain".  So it's not the Tzeentch players cheating, there is genuine confusion. (We argued about the rule; I lost, so now horror in our house split during the battleshock phase.)

[AlexScipio]

9 minutes ago, Angela said:

Everyone responding to this thread should email the FAQ team. I started playing Tzeentch last fall. The very first games that I played, I was playing both sides and interpreted the rules as not splitting when they flee.  And then I started playing against my husband and he insisted that I was playing wrong and I needed to split the horrors that fled during battleshock because the rules state "count them as having been slain".  So it's not the Tzeentch players cheating, there is genuine confusion. (We argued about the rule; I lost, so now horror in our house split during the battleshock phase.)

But why the only part that count is "count as slain" and not the "remove from play" that came first? and why if you split in battleshock not count them to battleshockt test? i mean, they are slain in the turn, so you must add that number to the roll just as the rule says.

The rule is not "count as have been slain", is "remove from play and count them as have been slain", and the sentence says it in one order, not "count them as have been slain and remove it from play", if we play RAW it must affect all the system, not to a copule of words with no context. Rules as written means rules as are really writting, respecting every comma, dot and the order of words in the sentences

and i wrote GW so many times about that

Edited March 23, 2021 by AlexScipio

[Angela]

3 minutes ago, AlexScipio said:

But why the only part that count is "count as slain" and not the "remove from play" that came first? and why if you split in battleshock not count them to battleshockt test? i mean, they are slain in the turn, so you must add that number to the roll just as the rule says.

The rule is not "count as have been slain", is "remove from play and count them as have been slain", and the sentence says it in one order, not "count them as have been slain and remove it from play", if we play RAW it must affect all the system, not to a copule of words with no context. Rules as written means rules as are really writting, respecting every comma, dot and the order of words in the sentences

and i wrote GW so many times about that

I don't know.  I'm the Tzeentch player that's on the side of not splitting and I lost the argument.

[Ghoooouls]

It definitely needs clarification. Fleeing models counting as slain works fine for things such as the LoN command ability to bring a unit back from the dead, but the horrors rule should have clarification of slain and that fleeing models don't count or whatever. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Agree there should be a FAQ but honestly having played systems where units who fail a morale test (or fall below a certain wounds threshold in some systems) break and start retreating towards the nearest board edge, only being lost when they leave the field of battle with opportunities until that point to rally them...  well the whole AoS Battleshock system has always felt like a hand wave/box check to me.  As far as Daemons went I guess I’ve never seen failed Battleshock as per se representing fleeing but from the fluff has always come across more as their losing their grip on the material world and fading back into the Realm of Chaos from whence they came.  From that perspective I can see it either way as the Pink, in failing the Battleshock, loses the struggle to “hold itself together” and splits or that in failing Battleshock it just gets sucked wholly back into the warp.

That said I guess I am confused about what negatives Tzeentch players are being accused of ignoring in taking only the “good side” of this?  (Maybe it is referencing something outside of Battleshock?).  When I play Khorne whether the unit is destroyed by wounds inflicted or Battleshock I still get to claim the blood tithe.  When I play against Warclans if they take the battalion whether the Ardboyz died on the field or fled from it they get a chance to bring them back.  Same for Gitz and the Loonshrine.  (thank you WD for finally extending that to the Trogs!)   Somebody already mentioned it for Death.  Pretty sure it counts the same for auxiliary objectives (cant think of an exception but haven’t played them much so maybe).  I’ve had players hoping to fail Battleshock in order to be able to bring back and reposition.  

Again, Battleshock feels like it was tacked on to the rest of the rules compared to the other systems I’m familiar with but I’m struggling to see many cases where factions who have the option don’t follow the advise of Monty Python and always look on the bright side of death (by Battleshock)...  why would Tzeentch be any different?

[Ganigumo]

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Agree there should be a FAQ but honestly having played systems where units who fail a morale test (or fall below a certain wounds threshold in some systems) break and start retreating towards the nearest board edge, only being lost when they leave the field of battle with opportunities until that point to rally them...  well the whole AoS Battleshock system has always felt like a hand wave/box check to me.  As far as Daemons went I guess I’ve never seen failed Battleshock as per se representing fleeing but from the fluff has always come across more as their losing their grip on the material world and fading back into the Realm of Chaos from whence they came.  From that perspective I can see it either way as the Pink, in failing the Battleshock, loses the struggle to “hold itself together” and splits or that in failing Battleshock it just gets sucked wholly back into the warp.

That said I guess I am confused about what negatives Tzeentch players are being accused of ignoring in taking only the “good side” of this?  (Maybe it is referencing something outside of Battleshock?).  When I play Khorne whether the unit is destroyed by wounds inflicted or Battleshock I still get to claim the blood tithe.  When I play against Warclans if they take the battalion whether the Ardboyz died on the field or fled from it they get a chance to bring them back.  Same for Gitz and the Loonshrine.  (thank you WD for finally extending that to the Trogs!)   Somebody already mentioned it for Death.  Pretty sure it counts the same for auxiliary objectives (cant think of an exception but haven’t played them much so maybe).  I’ve had players hoping to fail Battleshock in order to be able to bring back and reposition.  

Again, Battleshock feels like it was tacked on to the rest of the rules compared to the other systems I’m familiar with but I’m struggling to see many cases where factions who have the option don’t follow the advise of Monty Python and always look on the bright side of death (by Battleshock)...  why would Tzeentch be any different?

The negative is that having a pink flee is 5 wounds, having a blue flee is 2 wounds, and having a brim flee is 1 wound. You get more wounds out of the unit if they split when they flee since the fleeing pink would spawn two blue horrors and the fleeing blue would spawn a brim. It cuts into the units durability in a significant way if they don't have the CP for inspiring presence.

After playing Orks in 40k and orcs and goblins in fantasy I much prefer the "looser" rules around bravery shenanigans. Losing 40+ goblins because your armies bravery was low and you couldn't win any combats was not a positive experience.

[Mcthew]

11 hours ago, Angela said:

Everyone responding to this thread should email the FAQ team. I started playing Tzeentch last fall. The very first games that I played, I was playing both sides and interpreted the rules as not splitting when they flee.  And then I started playing against my husband and he insisted that I was playing wrong and I needed to split the horrors that fled during battleshock because the rules state "count them as having been slain".  So it's not the Tzeentch players cheating, there is genuine confusion. (We argued about the rule; I lost, so now horror in our house split during the battleshock phase.)

Completely agree. 

And this rule has been around for ages. I suspect that the points cost of horrors might reflect that in big blobs battleshock can cause them to split, narratively or not, otherwise this would've been faq'd a while back. (And let's face it, this is one of the easiest of AoS rules to clarify).

If fleeing 'is counted as slain' and battleshock applies to units with 'models slain during that turn,' and battleshock can only apply once per unit unless an ability says otherwise, then sadly the narrative is broke and fleeing horrors explode when fleeing (maybe Tzeencth is upset with their cowardice and seeks change?).

But agree that narratively this 'splitting' on fleeing rule sucks.

It needs to join the queue of ridiculous rules,  though, so take a number friends... 😁

Edited March 24, 2021 by Mcthew

[EMMachine]

9 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

...

That said I guess I am confused about what negatives Tzeentch players are being accused of ignoring in taking only the “good side” of this?  (Maybe it is referencing something outside of Battleshock?).  When I play Khorne whether the unit is destroyed by wounds inflicted or Battleshock I still get to claim the blood tithe.  When I play against Warclans if they take the battalion whether the Ardboyz died on the field or fled from it they get a chance to bring them back.  Same for Gitz and the Loonshrine.  (thank you WD for finally extending that to the Trogs!)   Somebody already mentioned it for Death.  Pretty sure it counts the same for auxiliary objectives (cant think of an exception but haven’t played them much so maybe).  I’ve had players hoping to fail Battleshock in order to be able to bring back and reposition.  

Again, Battleshock feels like it was tacked on to the rest of the rules compared to the other systems I’m familiar with but I’m struggling to see many cases where factions who have the option don’t follow the advise of Monty Python and always look on the bright side of death (by Battleshock)...  why would Tzeentch be any different?

The case of being destroyed is a little different (sadly only with FAQ not with ruletext), but it is handled like this.

Quote

Q: Some abilities refer to units that have been ‘destroyed’. What does this mean exactly?

A: A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees. When measuring the range to a destroyed unit, measure to the position occupied by the last model in the unit to be slain or flee.

Here we have the definition, when the last model is slain or flees, and in case of the battleplans the ruling is for "destroyed" units.

So their they make a difference between slain and flee. Sadly the First blood Battleplan from the corebook only mentions slain (so I'm not sure if GW had the slain or flee definition at the beginning of the edition yet. (so the question is, how many times the "count as slain" is even used anymore except for the

9 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Again, Battleshock feels like it was tacked on to the rest of the rules compared to the other systems I’m familiar with but I’m struggling to see many cases where factions who have the option don’t follow the advise of Monty Python and always look on the bright side of death (by Battleshock)...  why would Tzeentch be any different?

I also quite like the ruling that fleeing models are removed as well because in case of lore, it can mean as well that a hero that is slain, can also be a "Enough, I'm out of here" instead of being dead (something that isn't really posible when a fleeing unit is moving instead of removing models).

[AlexScipio]

12 hours ago, Ghoooouls said:

It definitely needs clarification. Fleeing models counting as slain works fine for things such as the LoN command ability to bring a unit back from the dead, but the horrors rule should have clarification of slain and that fleeing models don't count or whatever. 

The point with the foolishness with battleshock is prove that the sentence has an order of actions for some reason, the way it is written matters:  if you count them as slain and then remove from play, battleshock phase destroys the game RAW because they has been slain, not fleed, because if flee and slain were the same thing, and if are the same thing ALL RULES that ask for a slain model will  be trigger or count flee models, but if you remove it first from game and then, outside the table, count them as slain, game go on with no bugs because it will be the same thing only outside the table, and LoN resurrection or tzeentch resurrect can works normaly with that models that flee, because outside the table flee models count as been slain (and it is because you first of all must remove them from play).

The order of words in a sentence matters, always matters. 

11 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Agree there should be a FAQ but honestly having played systems where units who fail a morale test (or fall below a certain wounds threshold in some systems) break and start retreating towards the nearest board edge, only being lost when they leave the field of battle with opportunities until that point to rally them...  well the whole AoS Battleshock system has always felt like a hand wave/box check to me.  As far as Daemons went I guess I’ve never seen failed Battleshock as per se representing fleeing but from the fluff has always come across more as their losing their grip on the material world and fading back into the Realm of Chaos from whence they came.  From that perspective I can see it either way as the Pink, in failing the Battleshock, loses the struggle to “hold itself together” and splits or that in failing Battleshock it just gets sucked wholly back into the warp.

That said I guess I am confused about what negatives Tzeentch players are being accused of ignoring in taking only the “good side” of this?  (Maybe it is referencing something outside of Battleshock?).  When I play Khorne whether the unit is destroyed by wounds inflicted or Battleshock I still get to claim the blood tithe.  When I play against Warclans if they take the battalion whether the Ardboyz died on the field or fled from it they get a chance to bring them back.  Same for Gitz and the Loonshrine.  (thank you WD for finally extending that to the Trogs!)   Somebody already mentioned it for Death.  Pretty sure it counts the same for auxiliary objectives (cant think of an exception but haven’t played them much so maybe).  I’ve had players hoping to fail Battleshock in order to be able to bring back and reposition.  

Again, Battleshock feels like it was tacked on to the rest of the rules compared to the other systems I’m familiar with but I’m struggling to see many cases where factions who have the option don’t follow the advise of Monty Python and always look on the bright side of death (by Battleshock)...  why would Tzeentch be any different?

ok, this need a FAQ, all here agreed that, but if we are talking about AoS rules, can you quote rules? i mean, i'd played 9th age where flee works in the way you say, but its not AoS. I acusse some tzeentch players about cheating because if they say flee = slain, and if they are slain when flee before removing from the game, there is a bug in battleshock phase about that, the bug do that when a unit fails a test it is automatically destroyed (if you reed the rule as really is written). And as EMMachine says in the answer given to you, destroyed by faq means fleed and slain, if they are the same thing, why does GW need to say that? They count as slain, so, they are destroyed. Thats because flee and slain are not the same and, on table, doesnt trigger the same rules and habilities, and outside the game, when you has removed them from play, flee count as slain.

In adition, slain rule says " Once the number of wounds allocated to a model during the battle equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain. Place a slain model to one side – it is removed from play." The order of actions is just the opposite when it flees, first is slain and then you remove it from play. When flee first remove the model from game and count them has been slain. If we play Rules As Written, we must apply that to ALL THE SYSTEM, not to 6 words in a sentence, and we must observe the order in sentences and every comma, dot, and every other rule, because if it is written in some way that matters.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by AlexScipio

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

As the son of an English teacher, the husband of an English major, and friend of a librarian @AlexScipio I feel for you.  

Unfortunately, the English language is a beautifully imprecise one and GW seems to lean into that imprecision.  Above I have clipped the key sentence and the key word to me regarding the ambiguity, as the word “and” can and frequently is used to state simultaneous actions.  When people sing and dance, they are doing both at the same time.  If my driving instructor paraphrases Jim Morrison and tells me to keep my eyes on the road and my hands upon the wheel, they are expecting me to do both at the same time.

There is a simple substitute in the English language when referencing actions to clearly imply order.  It is “then.”  If GW clearly wanted the counting as slain to come AFTER the removed from play, they should’ve used then.  No need for a FAQ in that case.

But by using “and,” GW has made it easy for players, in complete good faith, to interpret those two actions as occurring simultaneously.  Again, this is a very common (arguably with actions the more common) interpretation of the word “and” given the simple substitute of “then” when an order of operation needs to be stated.

[AlexScipio]

26 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

As the son of an English teacher, the husband of an English major, and friend of a librarian @AlexScipio I feel for you.  

Unfortunately, the English language is a beautifully imprecise one and GW seems to lean into that imprecision.  Above I have clipped the key sentence and the key word to me regarding the ambiguity, as the word “and” can and frequently is used to state simultaneous actions.  When people sing and dance, they are doing both at the same time.  If my driving instructor paraphrases Jim Morrison and tells me to keep my eyes on the road and my hands upon the wheel, they are expecting me to do both at the same time.

There is a simple substitute in the English language when referencing actions to clearly imply order.  It is “then.”  If GW clearly wanted the counting as slain to come AFTER the removed from play, they should’ve used then.  No need for a FAQ in that case.

But by using “and,” GW has made it easy for players, in complete good faith, to interpret those two actions as occurring simultaneously.  Again, this is a very common (arguably with actions the more common) interpretation of the word “and” given the simple substitute of “then” when an order of operation needs to be stated.

So, if it is simultaneos, reed the 2 paragraphs before. Flee models count to battleshock test, because if they count as slain and you add to the test all the models that are slain that turn,  you must add models that flee too, because they count as slain on the table. 

"You must make a battleshock roll for each unit that has to take a battleshock test. To make a battleshock roll, roll a dice. Add the number of models from the unit that have been slain this turn to the dice roll, and add 1 to the unit’s Bravery characteristic for every 10 models that are in the unit when the test is taken. If the modified battleshock roll is greater than the unit’s modified Bravery characteristic, the battleshock test has been failed. If the test is failed, for each point by which the modified roll exceeds the unit’s modified Bravery characteristic, one model in that unit must flee" 

The rule doesnt say slain models before the roll is made, rules doesnt say you cant modify that roll after doing it, rules only says add the number of slain miniatures to the dice roll, and speaks about the modified roll and modified bravery characteristic.

Besides that, in AoS there can be only simultaneos habilities, not rules, faqs only speaks about habilities that happens at the same time, not rules. 

And maybe you should listen to your father and your partnera bit more, "and" is a conjuction that joins sentences, and not always are used to express simultaneos actions, phrases like "i woke up and i had a shower" or "do the dishes and clean your room" are not simultaneous; "And" means also "as a result" with the same valor as "then" and no need to be stated, it depends of the context, like in "bring the flowers into a warm room and they'll soon open", and the context is given by the slain rule, where GW sais that a model is first slain and removed from play, not removed for play and counted as slain. 

Also, rules use a diferent verbal time, doesnt say "count them as slain" but "have been slain", so they are not slain on the table at the same time when they are removed.

And great for your father and your partner and your friend, i'm an attorney, i work every single day with rules written by drunk monkeys, so i feel for you. its not a language thing, its a "law" thing, all rules sistems has "inner rules" about application and interpretation.

And one more time, if they count as slain at the same moment they are removed from play, they count as slain for ALL RULES, not just the good ones (same for gotizar harverster hability, it doesnt trigger when a model flees near it)

Edited March 24, 2021 by AlexScipio

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

As you have already reminded us my good friend @AlexScipio punctuation matters too so the lovely periods included in those sentences are sufficient to avoid the reductio ad absurdum you posit.  That just highlights yet another way GW could have chosen to make absolutely sure people understood these were not meant to be simultaneous.  They could have broken the removed from play and counts as section into two sentences.

And I’m perfectly happy to concede that it doesn’t always mean simultaneous as long as there is acknowledgement that it frequently does.  Here’s a simple test.  Next time you’re at your local club or a tournament go up to 10 people and then ask them to “clap their hands and stomp their feet”.  See how many people do both simultaneously and how many do one then the other.  Go up to another 10 people and ask them to “rub their belly and pat their head”.  See how many do it simultaneously and how many people do one then the other.

Again, I’m personally not advocating for one interpretation or the other.  All I am suggesting is that as written two people in good faith can argue for two different interpretations and thus objecting to the arguments made in this thread that any Tzeentch player who interprets it as they split is acting in bad faith or trying to cheat or that the many TOS who have read it that way must be idiots as itself a bad faith argument.  There is no need for such vitriol in this game (or really any game).

And if I need to cite a rule for that point I give you what GW has described as the most important rule.

That’s it.  GW has acknowledged there will inevitably be ambiguity and has given us a simple way to settle it.  The existence of this thread, the number of TOS that have ruled different ways, etc. all highlight that in this case there is an ambiguity.  To argue that there is no good faith argument behind the alternative interpretations does not change that reality it only makes the game more toxic.  

GW could solve it with a FAQ.  I hope they do.  In the interim I guess I’ll just feel bad for the people who are letting this negatively impact their playing experience.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[AlexScipio]

Yes, punctuation matters as you recall, yes. 

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

As you have already reminded us my good friend @AlexScipio punctuation matters too so the lovely periods included in those sentences are sufficient to avoid the reductio ad absurdum you posit.  That just highlights yet another way GW could have chosen to make absolutely sure people understood these were not meant to be simultaneous.  They could have broken the removed from play and counts as section into two sentences.

But what happens if we analyce each sentence:

You must make a battleshock roll for each unit that has to take a battleshock test. Ok, this unit has models that has been slain, ok, i must make that roll.

To make a battleshock roll, roll a dice.  Ok, i roll a d6.

Add the number of models from the unit that have been slain this turn to the dice roll, and add 1 to the unit’s Bravery characteristic for every 10 models that are in the unit when the test is taken. Ok, so i add the number of slain miniatures this turn.

If the modified battleshock roll is greater than the unit’s modified Bravery characteristic, the battleshock test has been failed. Ok, the total is 12 on the modified dice roll against 10 on modified bravery, ok, the test is failed.

If the test is failed, for each point by which the modified roll exceeds the unit’s modified Bravery characteristic, one model in that unit must flee. Ok, 2 model flee

You decide which of the models from your units flee Ok, this and this.

– remove them from play and count them as having been slain. (If count as slain before been removed from play) Ok, so 2 more miniatures are slain. Ok, come back to step 3, because 2 more miniatures has been slain this turn, and the rule says i add that number to the roll and it doesnt say i do not add miniatures that are counted as slain after roll that dice. Oh, F, other 2 miniatures count as been slain, so i must add it as it is says in step 3. Oh, F, other 2 more, and go on until no more models are in that unit, because of the rule doesnt says that the sequence finishes when you remove theese models.

If we consider that flee triggers the same efects that been slain, we have this bug, because if not trigger all the efects is cheating. I mean, if a rule ask for slain models and flee models counts, that must be the same in all rules which ask for slain models (including this bug), and this is in this way for inner coherence of the system, if A = B and A -> C, then B -> C

But if we consider that flee and been slain are only the same after been removed  from game, that bug never happen, for example, tzeentch cant split horrors that flee, because they are not slain, but, as they count as slain, a tzeentch player can resurrect them with the banner or the spell.

As @Ganigumo said 

3 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

"Count as" usually refers to a subsitution of some sort. You don't need to "Count something as" if it actually happened. Horrors don't split when they are counted as slain, they split when they are slain.

In addition, this happens with all that are similar, OBR harvester dont create news mortek when a enemy fails a battleshock test because they flee, and flee is not been is slain, it count as, there is some diference.

Destroying units are a good example, if flee count as been slain, why mention both? why not only slain?

Flee count has been slain for rules that affects a units removed from play, because you remove them from play and count them as having been slain. And here comes the second point, this:

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

And I’m perfectly happy to concede that it doesn’t always mean simultaneous as long as there is acknowledgement that it frequently does.  Here’s a simple test.  Next time you’re at your local club or a tournament go up to 10 people and then ask them to “clap their hands and stomp their feet”.  See how many people do both simultaneously and how many do one then the other.  Go up to another 10 people and ask them to “rub their belly and pat their head”.  See how many do it simultaneously and how many people do one then the other.

Your example is a language tramp, what if we ask to that group to "jump and take a seat", how many will to both at same time and how many will jump first and after that seat? or if we ask them to "wake up and take a shower". And this faq : 

Q: If several abilities are triggered at the same time (at the start of a hero phase, for example), how do you determine the order in which they are used?

A: If several abilities can be used at the same time, the player whose turn is taking place uses their abilities first, one after the other, in any order they desire; then the player whose turn is not taking place uses their abilities, one after another, in any order they desire. The same principle applies to any other things – such as command traits or artefacts of power – that can be used simultaneously. Note that abilities used at the start or the end of a phase still count as being used in the phase in question.

It only speak about abilities (artefacts and command traits are referred in the rule book as allegiance habilities), not simultaneous rules, so it is an indication that there is a sequence always in core rules.

About this:

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Again, I’m personally not advocating for one interpretation or the other.  All I am suggesting is that as written two people in good faith can argue for two different interpretations and thus objecting to the arguments made in this thread that any Tzeentch player who interprets it as they split is acting in bad faith or trying to cheat or that the many TOS who have read it that way must be idiots is itself a bad faith argument.  There is no need for such vitriol in this game (or really any game).

That’s it.  GW has acknowledged there will inevitably be ambiguity and has given us a simple way to settle it.  The existence of this thread, the number of TOS that have ruled different ways, etc. all highlight that in this case there is an ambiguity.  To argue that there is no good faith argument behind the alternative interpretations does not change that reality it only makes the game more toxic.  

My bad, i only mean some players, a few ones, obviously not all the community. Its like the one who tries to exploit Katakros or the "inmortal bastiladon" before the faq. Most players have good faith, and TO of course are not idiots,they do their best, and its normal that there are diferents decisions, it happens in real life to with law, its perfectly normal. And not all people knows how a rules sistem works with it inner rules and inner coherence, in the same way not all people know how a engine works or how a telephone works. Its normal.

And you are right. Doubt about people good faith is a toxic attidude and i must apologize because i was refering to a minority I had some bad experience with in chat groups from my country, people that insult your mental health for have a different opinion and give arguments about you think diferent, calling me some things i dont know if i cant writte here because of the rules. So i'm sorry for not speak properly and explain that i was referencing that kind of player that are a minority (that in my country some group of them are in the tzeentch, OBR and Seraphon chats).

And at least, the most important rule, is the final step of rules clarification that GW give to the players to resolve question about the rules. If you wrote to the faq mail a bot anwers you with 5 steps to resolve this questions in a game.

Edited March 24, 2021 by AlexScipio

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Except my good friend @AlexScipio we do not take the sentences individually but rather in a paragraph and in an order as written.  Your reductio ad absurdum simply put requires a logical leap that the Tzeentch interpretation does not.  So as fun a scenario as you posit it is not an equivalent to what is under discussion.

And it is not a language trap.  It is a simple example of why the Tzeentch interpretation can be made.  And we can see it from your example of “Jump Up and Take a Seat” because the first response of most people told to do this will be... to freeze.  Because it is a case where using the AND here instead of THEN creates confusion because many people are not unreasonably biased towards the simultaneous interpretation of and in action based instructions.

In between posts I happened to go to my personal trainer for a workout.  Since they are a college educated professional that literally gives people instructions for a living I put the premise to them and they said that if they tell me to do X and Y they are expecting me to do both at the same time.  If they want me to do X followed by Y they will tell me X then Y.   I asked them why and simply put it they told me they do it that way because it provides the clearest approach they can think of.

So while the Tzeentch Interpretaion (good name for a short story...) does not require any leap beyond one many of us make on a regular basis let us now contrast that with the AlexScipio Battleshock Interpretation which requires us to ignore basic writing structure to posit that because we are not explicitly told not to go back and repeat that we should.  I have wracked my brain and simply put cannot think of any cases where absent an instruction to “rinse & repeat” a rule/contract/instruction is interpreted as a loop.  So, for example, if I go and buy something from GW’s website they will apply my local tax to the total.  They will not then apply the tax rate again to the new total ad infinitum.  I’m open to cases I not thinking of but punctuation and sentence order are typically very clear.

And thank you for the clarification re: your comments specificity vs generality.  Sorry to hear in other forums commentators are more abusive in their language.  Unfortunately not surprising.  And to be clear, if I were playing Tzeentch Pink Horrors against you I’d be fine with your interpretation.  But as someone already noted writing rules is tough and interpretations can get complicated so glad GW both acknowledges it and provides at least one simple solution (obviously in a tournament setting a more uniform approach is needed and one reason I always feel bad for TOS as it is a truly thankless job in areas like this).

Edited March 24, 2021 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[NinthMusketeer]

Not responding to any specific post, but I would note that regardless of the interpretation I feel any hostility from either side is unwarranted, as it a situation where someone can very honestly reach either conclusion in good faith. I have seen a lot of the 'I am intentionally trying to game the system for personal benefit' rules arguments (tourney judge, comes with the territory) and this certainly isn't one of them.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

2 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Not responding to any specific post, but I would note that regardless of the interpretation I feel any hostility from either side is unwarranted, as it a situation where someone can very honestly reach either conclusion in good faith. I have seen a lot of the 'I am intentionally trying to game the system for personal benefit' rules arguments (tourney judge, comes with the territory) and this certainly isn't one of them.

Thank you for being a tourney judge.  To be the level of player capable of being effective in that role and then opt out of actually playing is a big sacrifice.  To then largely be dealing with angry people...  Glad people like you step up.

[Kadeton]

On 3/25/2021 at 1:49 AM, NinthMusketeer said:

This is correct. To elaborate; they split when they are slain (present tense) whereas battleshock removes the models and then says to treat them as having been slain (past tense) as in 'now that they are gone treat them as if they had died normally even though they did not.' The tricky part of the rule comes in the present and past tense of "slain" being the same word.

This is the best answer, IMO. There's no distinction (and no need for a distinction) between "This model has been slain" and "This model counts as having been slain" - when something "counts as" something you treat it as that thing in all respects.

But the timing is important. There is no moment at which you can say "This Pink Horror is slain," and split it into Blues. It never, in the present tense, is slain. But at every moment after you remove the Pink from play, you can legitimately say "This Pink Horror has been slain." Any rule that references it having been slain (in the past tense) will take effect as normal.

[Ganigumo]

20 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Why is the timing important? There is literally nowhere in the rules where they make a distinction of "tense". 

As someone else wrote - When you dance and sing you dont dance, then sing. You do it at the same time. I dont see how this is different. When a unit fails a battleshock test, they flee and count as being slain. This is happening at the same time, hence triggering abilities that would otherwise trigger on "slain".

Claiming that you throw the models in the bin, then count them as having been slain once they hit the bottom of the bin is just intrepretating rules rather than reading them and playing by them.

 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. 

You would never point at a duck and say "That counts as a duck" you would just call it a duck.
Also the rules do not say "they flee and count as being slain." they say, verbatim,
 

Quote

flee – remove them from play and count them as having been slain.

My understanding of English is that "count them as having been slain." and "count as being slain" are not synonymous, and that "count as being slain" is not synonymous with "they are slain". (you could count a swan as a duck if you wanted, or a tomato as a vegetable).
If the rules said "remove them from play and count them as being slain" I would agree that they probably should split, but that isn't what the rules say.

[Kasper]

22 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

You would never point at a duck and say "That counts as a duck" you would just call it a duck.
Also the rules do not say "they flee and count as being slain." they say, verbatim,
 

My understanding of English is that "count them as having been slain." and "count as being slain" are not synonymous, and that "count as being slain" is not synonymous with "they are slain". (you could count a swan as a duck if you wanted, or a tomato as a vegetable).
If the rules said "remove them from play and count them as being slain" I would agree that they probably should split, but that isn't what the rules say.

Are you serious? So now the discussion is wether “being” and “having been” is two completely different things for rule purposes 

[Ganigumo]

3 hours ago, Kasper said:

Are you serious? So now the discussion is wether “being” and “having been” is two completely different things for rule purposes 

It's always been what its about? 

On the one side the argument is "Counts as having been slain" = "Counts as being slain" = "They are slain"  so they split (which also necessarily assumes incompetence on the part of the GW writers for not just writing "they are slain", and should be errata'd to just "they are slain" for simplicities' sake)

On the other side the argument is that the significance of "Counts as having been" is that the abilities which check when the model is slain (like horrors "each time a horror is slain...") would return false, but abilities that check if the model had been slain would return true. (this doesn't assume incompetence on GWs part, since the entire context of the statement is necessary, and probably requires a designer's commentary for clarification)

Edited March 30, 2021 by Ganigumo

[Kadeton]

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

Why is the timing important? There is literally nowhere in the rules where they make a distinction of "tense".

This is a patently false assertion. Some rules state that something happens when a model "is slain", and other rules have criteria that require that a model "has been slain". That's a clear distinction of tense.

[EMMachine]

An interesting part in this discussion is that the "destroyed" case is mostly ignored.

Quote

Q: Some abilities refer to units that have been ‘destroyed’. What does this mean exactly?

A: A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees. When measuring the range to a destroyed unit, measure to the position occupied by the last model in the unit to be slain or flee.

So GW rulewriters know the difference between a model being slain or fleeing. Sadly that wasn't part of the Rules itself yet, when they came out in summer 2018.

Now we know that the latest Disciples of Tzeentch Battletome was released in January 2020 (1,5 years after the new edition) and the Horrors Warscroll wasn't a simple copy & paste of the old one because they included Pink, Blue and Brimstone Horrors into 1 Warscroll

 

With this knowledge in mind. When fleeing models should count for "Split and Split again" why didn't GW write "is slain or flees" like they did with the destroyed ruling above? The reason that the "or flees" part is not in the rule is most likely that GW wanted that they don't split when fleeing.

Edit:

Also I think with the new Edition their could be a change in the wording because when looking at the 9th Edition 40k Rules. In case of the combat Attrition Test they write the following

Quote

... You deside which models from your unit flee - those models are removed from play and count as been destroyed, but never trigger any rules that are used when a model is destroyed.

I could see a ruling like this with AoS 3.0 to clarify the ruling entirely.

Edited March 31, 2021 by EMMachine

[jamie.white]

5 hours ago, Marcvs said:

I would really like to see an official FAQ on this point. I agree with the interpretation of the other comments (if you must add that they "count as slain", by definition it means that they were not "slain" in the first place) but the "official unofficial" FAQ where I play says the opposite (since they "count as slain" they split)

Lots of Tzeench players where you play lol . 
 

I mean it’s the most foul abuse of raw vs rai lol. 

[Ragest]

Even if “count as slain” is the same as “slain”, that happens with the models off the table, so they do split off the table aswell.

Tzeentch players are cheating.