TerrorPenguin Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 As above - does this ability cost reinforcement points in matched play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokapoke Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Is the "that unit" wording really that different from the Ring of Immortality artifact for the Death allegiance? That has been FAQ'd to cost points, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerrorPenguin Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 15 hours ago, Burscheid said: I don't think it does, The GHB mentions "set-up" and "replace" for reinforcement points. The warscroll contends you are "reinforcing". Reinforcing is different than replacing. It might be that simple ( and confusing ) -burscheid Would be ironic if they ruled that 'reinforcing' didn't cost reinforcement points (their term) but replacing did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I would say yes, but mainly because they chose to ****** over Death (and others) by having similar items cost points, so no reason this shouldn't. Note I think it's stupid it costs points (same with like the Ring of Immortality or the Phoenix) but since those cost points, fair is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 If a unit has been destroyed, and you set it up again, you are replacing it and it costs points. Only a rule that actually prevents the unit from being destroyed would not cost points. This rule does not prevent the unit from being destroyed, so it does cost points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burscheid Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, rokapoke said: And the words immediately following the colon: "set up". I vote for "confusing" here -- this isn't a "reinforcement" (which has no real definition in the rules) but is a set-up. Yeah totally confusing for sure, but the unit is being set up in the "celestial realm" an then lightning strike down. Does that imply a different set-up ? What does ligthing strike on page 115 say ? Maybe we are missing context ? -burscheid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokapoke Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, Burscheid said: I don't think it does, The GHB mentions "set-up" and "replace" for reinforcement points. The warscroll contends you are "reinforcing". Reinforcing is different than replacing. It might be that simple ( and confusing ) -burscheid And the words immediately following the colon: "set up". I vote for "confusing" here -- this isn't a "reinforcement" (which has no real definition in the rules) but is a set-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burscheid Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I don't think it does, The GHB mentions "set-up" and "replace" for reinforcement points. The warscroll contends you are "reinforcing". Reinforcing is different than replacing. It might be that simple ( and confusing ) -burscheid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnoldrew Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 A consistent reading of their own rules would say that yes, it does cost points. I'm pretty sure that was not their intent, though, and this is just another example of them being ****** at writing rules. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aginor Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Yep. I'd also say it costs points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thediceabide Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Reinforcement Points aren't only for setting up new units, but also to "replace units that have been destroyed" (General's Handbook, p.108). Since the wording of their rule says that you roll after the unit is destroyed, it would fall into this category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan.Ford Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I would side with yes it cost points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kozokus Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Paying 120 points for +1 to bravery is something they would probable not do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turragor Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I don't think this costs points. However I don't think there should be exceptions where abilities like this don't cost points because of slightly different wording. It should all be one and the same. So I think it should cost points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhellion Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2 hours ago, RuneBrush said: The impression given on Warhammer TV yesterday is that it wouldn't. My impression was that Rob was not at all sure. And he was there with Duncan, who is a (n excellent) painter, not a gamer or even rules writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerrorPenguin Posted February 17, 2017 Author Share Posted February 17, 2017 Someone at GW really needs to sit down, look at all the instances of this and just come up with some consistent wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Given the FAQ on the Ring of Immortality, I'd have to say yes. This falls under “replacing a unit that has been removed”, it costs points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuneBrush Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 The impression given on Warhammer TV yesterday is that it wouldn't. I'm fairly sure we'll see an FAQ to clarify. Having seen this question a couple of other places the confusion is the "set up that unit, restored to full health" thus it's the same unit and wasn't destroyed - however it's one of those arguments you'll end up chasing your tail with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrmattywoodz Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I thing that, because of the way this is worded, it MIGHT not cost reinforcement points. The only reason I believe this is because of the wording "set up THAT unit, restored to full health." Because of the wording, I could see the intent being that it does not actually create a new unit, but restores dead models to the unit that was already there (similar to the wad skeletons don't need to pay points for refreshing themselves). That all being said, until I see an FAQ that clarifies this one way or another, I will side with the people that say it cost reinforcement points. I just wound be surprised/offended if tournament organizers or games workshop themselves rule it the other way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaldoBeardo Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Yes. You're still setting up a new unit, similar to (off the top of my head) Ironjawz and Flesheater courts formations.General rule of thumb - if the ability that brings a unit back/creates a unit isn't actually on that unit's warscroll, it *definitely* costs points.Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
TerrorPenguin
As above - does this ability cost reinforcement points in matched play?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
19 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.