Jump to content

Should ring of immortality cost reinforcement points?


TerrorPenguin

Recommended Posts

In the latest bad dice podcast @Ben mentions that models placed on the table because of the ring of immortality should cost reinforcement points.

Ive never played it this way, but in fairness reading the rules it probably should be paid for in this way.

Arguments for and against? It does obviously make a big nerf to putting it on anything riding a zombie dragon / terrorghiest, but if you did put it on a buff model e.g. Gk on foot, it would cost relatively few points for a model which is otherwise unsummonable. 

He did also mention in passing, that people used the sword of unholy power to summon a model without using points, which is never how I'd read the rule. I read this as more your 'has to go off' spell e.g summoning your archai into back lines without the enemy being able to dispel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a pitched battle, you must set aside some of your points in order to be able to use these units" - GHB

"If the model bearing this ring is slain, set it up again anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 12" from any enemy models. The model is restored with d3 wounds remaining"

So is 'restored' equivalent to 'replace' or is it different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seams crystal clear to me but obviously most death players won't agree. 

You need to pay reinforcement points to replace units that have been destroyed.  The Generals Handbook rules for reinforcement points is clear on this.  

The ring activates once the Hero is slain.   I can't see a good argument for why you wouldn't have to pay.

One argument that came up was that it isn't a spell or ability, but the ring is an 'Allegiance Ability' 

every other argument come down to 'what's the point in using it if you have to pay' and that's not really a reason.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone both says on this, original i said it should cost points, but relented as everyone seemed to see it differently. Though honestly i think you should have to pay for it. 

 

To wayniac, no other ability compares to the power of this ring as it preserves your command trait, general, and big fatty models. If you pay it still has use for on vamp lords, ghoul kings, and other cheap heros. 

When it comes to rules questions i believe you must use the exact wording. 

replace's definition has to definitions, the first most common use is metaphorical replacement "take the place of," or used in a sentence "He replaced his smile with a frown as he figured out you need to pay points for the ring of immortality."

Then you have the "put (something) back in a previous place or position." This is the replacement of actual things such as "I replaced my dead zombies."

 

Restore also has a physical definition of "return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position" which could be "I restored my dead zombies." As the definitions are functional the same thing. Than we could restate it as "I replaced my dead zombies" As it is the same thing in ever since of the definition."

 

As such the meaning is the same in both and as such using the ring of immortality does require the expenditure of points.

I am a death player. Its the only army i own and enjoy, but i am also really big on playing a game by all of its rules as the meaning of the worlds inform. If i were to say that the ring of immortality lets you get your guy back for free, i'd be going against the meaning of the worlds. As such the argument i have for as to why zombies merging does not interact with the Generals handbook would become moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ben said:

You need to pay reinforcement points to replace units that have been destroyed.  The Generals Handbook rules for reinforcement points is clear on this. 

But you're not 'replacing' the model. It's not replacements or reinforcements. It's not a new model. It's the same model 'restored' with d3 wounds. In other words, it's just a healing ability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except returning Slain models doesn't cost points, otherwise Death as a whole would cease to function as Banners and Ghouls would be awful. 

Quote

To wayniac, no other ability compares to the power of this ring as it preserves your command trait, general, and big fatty models. If you pay it still has use for on vamp lords, ghoul kings, and other cheap heros. 

Sylvaneth have one that's pretty much identical.

Quote

Then you have the "put (something) back in a previous place or position." This is the replacement of actual things such as "I replaced my dead zombies."

Except you don't replace those in precisely the place they came from, so now what? What about the Newly Dead rule that lets you get more Zombies? How does that work? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

every other argument come down to 'what's the point in using it if you have to pay' and that's not really a reason.   

I think the point is that we've been using it on the wrong units, we've seen it as another chance for our Killy tank generals on zombie dragon and terrorgheists, but as @mmimzie says on a vampire lord or wight king it actually is a decent decision as you could never summon those back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

You aren't replacing the unit, it's getting health back.  Seriously, this is an actual debate?

 

 

4 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Except returning Slain models doesn't cost points, otherwise Death as a whole would cease to function as Banners and Ghouls would be awful. 

Sylvaneth have one that's pretty much identical.

Except you don't replace those in precisely the place they came from, so now what? What about the Newly Dead rule that lets you get more Zombies? How does that work? 

It literally says restore which is the exact same thing as replace for the definition being used in both instances. 

As for these rules the matched play hand book clearly states you "adding models to existing unit's does not cost points." This is a clearly made exception that your purposefully ignoring to make a fake point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Except returning Slain models doesn't cost points, otherwise Death as a whole would cease to function as Banners and Ghouls would be awful. 

IMG_4358.PNG

unfortunately the GHB introduces the term 'adding to' rather than restoring or replacing . The skeleton warscroll says 'returned slain models' and the courtiers say 'add to'

They could really do with using consistent language for this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you don't pay points for the simple fact of definition of the English language the GHB rule of reinforcements is that if you add or replace units. The ring says it restores the model if you have an antique table you restore said table back to its former glory if you replace said table then it is a totally different table al together 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

See though. I was playing a agasint some one the other night who says it's probably not intended that you could pile in on units your not in combat with. Intended. Is definitely the worst way to do things every because its justifys everything.

I wouldn't try to force my opinion of what is intended on someone else, if we disagree then I'd rather stick with RAW.

Nonetheless, if/when I feel RAI is different from RAW I'll mention it to my opponent/TO, if they agree then we can play that way.

If your opponent from the other night meets someone who feels the same way, and they agree to play it that way, then no-one should worry about strict RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game is less than two years old, in it's first edition, and people are already nearing 40k-levels of using poor wording and semantics to gain advantages.

I'm 99% certain the intention of the Ring of Immortality is that the model is not meant to cost points. I can see why it's argued because of mere semantics, but things like this is what kills communities. Hopefully, we'll have a FAQ on the matter, and a more coherent, less rushed Generals Handbook 2.0 in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Payce said:

The game is less than two years old, in it's first edition, and people are already nearing 40k-levels of using poor wording and semantics to gain advantages.

 

To be fair though a lot of that is because GW insists on writing rules in a conversational tone as opposed to a rules manual so there are ambiguities such as this that come up.  Most other games I play write their rules as though they were rules to a board game or whatever, not as though they are talking to you.  Thus you end up with a situation where it can be argued from either point what it "should" be, which in turn leads to arguments when Player A thinks it means X and Player B thinks it means Y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed this debate has resurfaced again. The only distinction between this and the banners which restore models is that it's the final model in the unit. Why is it Death that gets the brunt of the nerf-hammer when they are (by a small margin) the worst Grand Alliance out there - probably because they have the fewest players. The fewest Warscrolls, zero new models, more than half the Grand Alliance in peril of being banned at events including all the shooting over 10 inches, summoning of marginal value, Rules of One on spells and righteous smiting, having the best named characters becoming a marginal advantage since taking them sacrifices the command traits and artefacts. The ward save is the one thing that's keeping them competitive.

How it can be reasonable to pay 400 plus points to bring a model back limping on 2 wounds? It's not the same as bringing on another model of the same type with its full complement of wounds (and indeed with the artefact that it starts with).

It's also worth noting that it's not a no-brainer decision to take it, the Cursed Book and the Tomb Blade are also popular choices. It will be a no-brainer choice to never take it if you have to pay points for 2 wounds.

The Fire Phoenix is costed more than the Frost Phoenix for a reason, namely that it has 50% chance of having way more wounds, which outweights the incredibly strong debuff aura. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're meant to pay the points to bring the hero carrying it back, then the ring is almost utterly worthless. Because that means that either a) your opponent can claim the original points of the hero for his kill total, or b) you now have twice the amount of points riding on a model with d3 wounds. For that matter, if the hero is indeed killed and then "replaced" rather than having d3 wounds restored to him, then I see no reason why he should not be treated as a new model in every respect, i.e. he is no longer your general, can no longer use the command trait, can no longer use a command ability. Why should he? As you have to pay the points AGAIN, it is in every respect a new model, just as if you had summoned a new hero to the table. It is either the same, in which case you don't need to pay the points, or it's a new sub-par version of the hero type, in which case the original is dead, which means that all the traits and abilities he had (such as being the general), died with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point is that the reason why the VLoZD or GKoZD with the ring is so popular is not because it's overpowered, it's because all the other options are (a) not viable or (b) complex (e.g. Settra lists). Putting your command trait ward save on a 5 wound hero like a regular Vampire Lord or a Wight King is generally brave in the pew pew heavy meta we have now (Thundertusk will probably kill it, Kurnoth Hunters will kill it let alone cannons); the good command abilities are on the named characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels like another one of those eternal GW rules debates that goes nowhere and doesn't change how anyone involved will actually play the unit in question. It's just a theater for semantic arguments and nitpicking in an almost legislative manner that ultimately detracts from simply having fun by going over the syntax of every rule and interaction thereof.

Either way, I haven't once in the dozens of games I've had come across someone who thought it should cost points to use the RoI, so I doubt this will ever impact my gaming or by extension, my life.

If it costs points then I demand a return to full health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...