If the new GHB brings some or all of the Ironjawz point cost reductions that we're hoping for, would running a Weirdnob with a Balewind Vortex be viable?

[Choogly]

It seems like BWV could be a good way to mitigate some of the Weirdnob's weaknesses. At the same time, I could see the merit in a "the points would be better spent elsewhere" argument. Thoughts?

[Oreaper84]

so unless they also change some of the wording on measuring and such.......sadly it is difficult to run effectively.  Namely because then model count for the Weirdnobs casting bonus is measured from him (either directly or top down....i've seen both rulings) and given the 3 inch bubble from the base of the vortex, you really have to purposefully wrap the thing to get the bonuses. Now i have done it with a kunnin ruk, but at that point its just a YOLO foot of gork spam. A better and viable option IMO is a Wurgog with it. 2 spells plus no anchor by units allows for the most milage out of the range and buff.

The other limiting factor is the immobility of it once you plant. To get your 100 pts worth you want to drop this thing turn 1 or 2 and doing that means  is where it is for the rest of the game, because if you thought 100 pts was over priced then there is no way your going to set aside an EXTRA EXTRA 100 in case you need to summon it a 2nd time. Now if GHB2 clarifies summoning and pt costs for things like this, then maybe it will see some viability because it really does throw a wrench in the enemy's plan for certain battle plans.

 

[Choogly]

7 minutes ago, Oreaper84 said:

so unless they also change some of the wording on measuring and such.......sadly it is difficult to run effectively.  Namely because then model count for the Weirdnobs casting bonus is measured from him (either directly or top down....i've seen both rulings) and given the 3 inch bubble from the base of the vortex, you really have to purposefully wrap the thing to get the bonuses. Now i have done it with a kunnin ruk, but at that point its just a YOLO foot of gork spam. A better and viable option IMO is a Wurgog with it. 2 spells plus no anchor by units allows for the most milage out of the range and buff.

The other limiting factor is the immobility of it once you plant. To get your 100 pts worth you want to drop this thing turn 1 or 2 and doing that means  is where it is for the rest of the game, because if you thought 100 pts was over priced then there is no way your going to set aside an EXTRA EXTRA 100 in case you need to summon it a 2nd time. Now if GHB2 clarifies summoning and pt costs for things like this, then maybe it will see some viability because it really does throw a wrench in the enemy's plan for certain battle plans.

 

Ah, I didn't realize you'd need to pay 100 to summon it a second time. That would be a hindrance. At the same time, I don't think that strategically planting your weirdnob would be bad on principle - having that kind of crazy range would help compensate for the lack of mobility.

[Nico]

I believe you can refund the cost of the same Balewind until such time as you summon the same one back in a different spot. However, as you say, this is in limbo unless you ask a TO for an event or until an FAQ. 

[Chris Tomlin]

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I believe you can refund the cost of the same Balewind until such time as you summon the same one back in a different spot. However, as you say, this is in limbo unless you ask a TO for an event or until an FAQ. 

Really? "refund the cost"?! Where are you getting that from bro?

I certainly wouldn't rule it that way at my events. Happy to be proven wrong though  

[Forestreveries]

Really? "refund the cost"?! Where are you getting that from bro?
I certainly wouldn't rule it that way at my events. Happy to be proven wrong though [emoji4] 

Yeah that seems completely nonsensical. Just creating rules from thin air


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

The Warscroll allows for banishment of the Balewind Vortex and the final words imply that "it" (i.e. The particular Balewind Vortex) in question can be summoned again.

I agree that this isn't clear.

The refunding points temporarily concept was my attempt to reconcile the wording on the scroll with Reinforcement points.

It doesn't strike me as overpowered to be able to bring it back given that the 7 cast is far from trivial - nor is the 100 point cost.

[Solaris]

It literally says that you can dismiss it and summon it again on the scroll, I don't see how this can be interpreted in any other way to be honest. "Refund" is a very inaccurate word for it though. It is rather that you summon the same Vortex several times, therefore paying for it once only.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

Honestly the resummoning for free seems like the most logical conclusion now that I've seen the language.  Amazing what one can learn when you actually read the rules!  It certainly seems to be the intent from my reading of Held Aloft.

[Thomas Lyons]

5 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

Honestly the resummoning for free seems like the most logical conclusion now that I've seen the language.  Amazing what one can learn when you actually read the rules!  It certainly seems to be the intent from my reading of Held Aloft.

The problem is that any time you "setup" a unit, even if it is the same one (ala RoI or Flamespyre), you must pay for the entire thing again.  This is the precedent that has been set up setting up through summoning.  I am not sure why this would follow different rules (as those things that are returning to the battlefield have also already been paid for and are indeed the exact same things being brought onto the table [even at a reduced functionality!]).

[Furious]

You can set up Chameleon Skinks multiple times a battle with their Chameleon Ambush ability, but only pay for them once.

[Solaris]

3 hours ago, Furious said:

You can set up Chameleon Skinks multiple times a battle with their Chameleon Ambush ability, but only pay for them once.

Same goes for Tomb Swarms and Sepulchral Stalkers.

[N_Watson]

I believe the intent of the FAQ on setting up and reinforcement points is to prevent something that is "destroyed" being returned to the battlefield for free. 

Dismissing the BWV and attempting to resummon the same one later doesn't seem broken it unintended to me. 

Anyone got examples of where this would be OP? 

[Fungrim]

1 hour ago, N_Watson said:

I believe the intent of the FAQ on setting up and reinforcement points is to prevent something that is "destroyed" being returned to the battlefield for free. 

Dismissing the BWV and attempting to resummon the same one later doesn't seem broken it unintended to me. 

Anyone got examples of where this would be OP? 

Rather appropriately the Ardfist (I know it's not summoning, but similar concept)

40 points - to (by the above notion) bring back a whole unit of Ardboyz (of any undefined size) for free once it's been wiped out. I got super excited when I first read that, figured it was a no-brainer. Then realised you'd have to pay for the repeat unit...

[Voc]

Probably best they split this rule in two when they publish the GHB2 ie; "summon" (pay for reinforcements) and "re-summon" (do not pay for reinforcements)...

Or people just play the rules as written and stop trying to interpret them differently

[Chris Tomlin]

7 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

The problem is that any time you "setup" a unit, even if it is the same one (ala RoI or Flamespyre), you must pay for the entire thing again.  This is the precedent that has been set up setting up through summoning.  I am not sure why this would follow different rules (as those things that are returning to the battlefield have also already been paid for and are indeed the exact same things being brought onto the table [even at a reduced functionality!]).

I agree 100% with Thomas.

The problem with comparing it to things that disappear and reappear is that you are not paying points to do it. The difference here is the initial summoning.

Having read the wording I maintain that I would rule that each individual summoning costs reinforcement points. I don't even think it's that ambiguous tbh. Happy to be proven wrong with an FAQ though.

@Ben Johnson - How would you play this out of interest?  

[Solaris]

8 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

The problem with comparing it to things that disappear and reappear is that you are not paying points to do it. The difference here is the initial summoning.

Having read the wording I maintain that I would rule that each individual summoning costs reinforcement points. I don't even think it's that ambiguous tbh. Happy to be proven wrong with an FAQ though.

@Ben Johnson - How would you play this out of interest?  

Disagree entirely. You are paying the points for a unit that is deployed off the board. You then bring it in as per the rules on its warscroll, and you can take it off and bring it in again as per the rules on its warscroll. I don't see how this is any different from the Balewind Vortex, except for the fact that you need a dice roll to do it.

I agree with you that it's not really that ambiguous. As per the Held Aloft rule shown above, it is entirely clear that you can take it off and back on again.

I think the crucial difference between the Chameleon Skinks, Sepulchral Stalkers, etc... and things like the Ardfist, Flamespyre and Ring of Immortality is that unit is taken off the table in the former case, while it is killed in the latter. I do agree that there is some ambiguity in the case of the Vortex, since it is banished rather than just taken off the table. However, I still do think it is quite clear that you would be able to summon the same one again.

[Thomas Lyons]

4 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Disagree entirely. You are paying the points for a unit that is deployed off the board. You then bring it in as per the rules on its warscroll, and you can take it off and bring it in again as per the rules on its warscroll. I don't see how this is any different from the Balewind Vortex, except for the fact that you need a dice roll to do it.

I agree with you that it's not really that ambiguous. As per the Held Aloft rule shown above, it is entirely clear that you can take it off and back on again.

I think the crucial difference between the Chameleon Skinks, Sepulchral Stalkers, etc... and things like the Ardfist, Flamespyre and Ring of Immortality is that unit is taken off the table in the former case, while it is killed in the latter. I do agree that there is some ambiguity in the case of the Vortex, since it is banished rather than just taken off the table. However, I still do think it is quite clear that you would be able to summon the same one again.

There is no question that you would be able to summon it back again.  The question would be whether you have to pay the points for setting it up again after you have already set it up once.  The key is that you aren't setting up the Balewind off the table when you start the game like those other units.  You are using reinforcement points to set up a new thing.  Every time you set up a new thing in this way (in every other instance of the game), you have to pay reinforcement points.  To make matters worse, it has been officially ruled that if you take an old thing off the table (like with RoI and Flamespyre), then it must be setup again, and thus have points paid for it again.

[Chris Tomlin]

Yeh, once again I think @Thomas Lyons has nailed it. I'm not for one moment disagreeing it can be taken off and summoned again, that's right there in writing.

However, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that when you do summon it again it suddenly doesn't cost reinforcement points. On the contrary, as Thomas states, every other instance of this in the game does require reinforcement points. This is clarified by FAQ.

[Solaris]

1 minute ago, Thomas Lyons said:

There is no question that you would be able to summon it back again.  The question would be whether you have to pay the points for setting it up again after you have already set it up once.  The key is that you aren't setting up the Balewind off the table when you start the game like those other units.  You are using reinforcement points to set up a new thing.  Every time you set up a new thing in this way (in every other instance of the game), you have to pay reinforcement points.  To make matters worse, it has been officially ruled that if you take an old thing off the table (like with RoI and Flamespyre), then it must be setup again, and thus have points paid for it again.

Hmm, okay. I see the point. I'm still not entirely sure though. I do think the Balewind falls under a third category that neither of the previous examples illustrate. Let's compare:

RoI, Flamespyre, Ardfist: These are set up on the table initially, and when they die they can be set up again.

Chameleon Skinks, Tomb Swarms, Sepulchral Stalkers: These can be set up on or off the table initially. You can then take them off by your own accord and set them up again. If they are taken off the table by your opponent (i.e. killed), they cannot be set up again.

Balewind Vortex: This is not set up initially, but summoned in. To my knowledge, you have to include it in your army list, and as such it does not use reinforcement points but army points. You can summon it in, dismiss it, and summon it in again. Your opponent can not take it off the table in any way.

In the first case you pay reinforcement points for the second setup, and in the second case you don't. I would say that the crucial difference between the cases is who is in control of taking it off the table. In all cases where the controlling player is in control, the second setup is free, and in all cases where the opponent is in control, the second setup has to be paid for.

7 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

However, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that when you do summon it again it suddenly doesn't cost reinforcement points. On the contrary, as Thomas states, every other instance of this in the game does require reinforcement points. This is clarified by FAQ.

The thing is that there is no other instance of this in the game. The Balewind is unique, and doesn't fall clearly into either category. Look at the rules for the Chameleon Skinks:

Chameleon Ambush: Instead of setting up this unit on the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is in hiding. In any of your movement phases, you can reveal a unit that is in hiding by setting it up anywhere on the battlefield.

Disappear from Sight: In your hero phase, this unit can blend with its surroundings and go into hiding. If it does so, remove it from the battlefield. You can reveal it as described above in any subsequent turn.

It is entirely obvious that this is a second setup. If you also think that this should be paid for, then I can understand your opinion. There is a precedent for the GH making certain warscrolls useless in Matched Play. If you don't think that this second setup should be paid for, then your opinion is inconsistent.

[Chris Tomlin]

@Solaris - I'll read the rest and reply again in a min, but just quickly, a Balewind Vortex is not included in your army list. It just one of many things that can be selected to summon from your reinforcement pool, no different to Nurglings or Pink Horrors etc (random examples).

This further pushes the notion that each time it is summoned you pay from your pool. The more this convo goes on the more convinced I am that this is correct.

 

[Thomas Lyons]

3 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

@Solaris - I'll read the rest and reply again in a min, but just quickly, a Balewind Vortex is not included in your army list. It just one of many things that can be selected to summon from your reinforcement pool, no different to Nurglings or Pink Horrors etc (random examples).

This further pushes the notion that each time it is summoned you pay from your pool. The more this convo goes on the more convinced I am that this is correct.

 

So, to Solaris' credit, the rule is either "add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed."  There are two issues here with our reading.  First, the Balewind isn't destroyed, it is dismissed, and if you've already summoned it once, it might be considered having been added to your army.  This is debatable, but possible (like Chameleon skinks summoned onto the table and then disappearing from sight [thus being removed from the table again]).  In this instance, they were added with reinforcement points but then a rule removed them from the table, only to be able to be added again.  I'm still not convinced, but if Solaris' case is true, Chameleon Skinks in the example I've provided are the closest equivalent.

More importantly, the Balewind is not a unit, so arguably none of these rules apply to it.  A case could be made that it sits in another ruleset for adding scenery that we simply don't have.  

At the end of the day, it needs clarified.  I am still a proponent of the "pay for every time you summon it," because this seems to make sense with how everything else seems to work and the scroll isn't explicit enough to make it clear that it doesn't need to be paid for when being resummoned.  If this is the intent, then it should be made clear.

 

[Chris Tomlin]

14 minutes ago, Solaris said:

Balewind Vortex: This is not set up initially, but summoned in. To my knowledge, you have to include it in your army list, and as such it does not use reinforcement points but army points. You can summon it in, dismiss it, and summon it in again. Your opponent can not take it off the table in any way.

If the Balewind was actually part of the army list I'd be more inclined to agree with the counter argument I suspect. Dunno.

As this can be so heavily debated I guess it does need an FAQ. Would be interesting to see which way it'd go or what the intent is.

At the moment, for my events I would certainly still rule that it costs reinforcement points as I haven't seen enough yet to sway me the other way.

[Nico]

The Camo Skinks analogy is an interesting one.

The one point that is very clear is that as Chris said the Balewind doesnt need to be listed - I think people just do this as Scrollbuilder has an option for doing so.

[Chris Tomlin]

Thinking on it more, is it not just simply a case of Matched Play's reinforcement points/summoning rules effecting/altering the rule on the Warscroll?

I know that is already the crux of what we are saying, but is it really any different to the FAQ on Kroak, or a Tzaangor Shaman not being able to duplicate spells in Matched Play? We know that rules on the scroll are sometimes altered for Matched Play, that is accepted by all.

So sure, you can dismiss the Vortex, then summon it back later. In Open/Narrative that's cool.
Then you get to Matched and have to adhere to the additional rules there. We know that a summoned warscroll costs reinforcement points, right? So why would it suddenly become "free" the second time around? It's not a case of taking it off and just setting up the next turn or whatever. It explicitly refers to it being summoned again...why would this bypass the reinforcement cost? Literally nothing suggests that.

I'm trying here guys, but honestly am really struggling to see any reason this would be "free" on a second summoning.