Daemonic Ritual - Cost?

[Quixus]

They lost 11, but only 4 are still lost. Replaced models aren't lost at the time the rule checks to see how many it can spawn.

Have you got a rule for that? Is it specified that the same model, that was lost, comes back?

[Tyriks]

 

They lost 11, but only 4 are still lost. Replaced models aren't lost at the time the rule checks to see how many it can spawn.

 

Have you got a rule for that? Is it specified that the same model, that was lost, comes back?

That's the grammatical range of the word replace. It means to restore something or to take the place of something. You can't restore things that aren't damaged, and you can't take the place of something without removing the original. So either way, the word is incompatible with expanding the unit.

 

Additionally, the rule quoted specifies models from that unit that were lost. That would necessitate that the model was already in the unit.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Tyriks

[Plasmablasts]

 

 

 

I would argue they can't, as some of those "lost" models have already been "found". You can't bring an already revived model back to life again.

I don’t think that argument would stand, as the total number of models lost is lower than the starting number, so the second wave of replacements in this example could still be “original” models. Plus, I don’t think anything in the wording implies that a model can’t be replaced more than once.

 

For what it’s worth, the rule as quoted does not state “once per turn” or anything similar, so that suggests the maximum is per game. However, I might be missing a relevant phrase from the wording that presumably preceeds “Alternatively”.

That's not what the question was, though. This is talking about a unit that has a starting size of 20, having taken 11 casualties over the battle, but due to replacements currently has 16 models. You can only "replace" another 4, to bring it back up to the original starting size of 20. You can only replace something once, unless GW is using a different definition. When you replace the casualty, it no longer exists, as there's now a "living" model in its place. I can't replace a broken item more than once, as when I do it the first time, the broken item is no longer there to be replaced again.

Apologies: re-reading GML’s question, I see I misunderstood it. I agree with the interpretation of “replace” as precluding increasing the squad above the original size.

[lokoloki]

Hi I also have a question about the reinforcements points and daemons.

 

A friend of mine is a daemons player and he said that when a unit of daemons that was destroyed that unit can be brought back to the table without paying any reinforcements point because he is only replace a unit that have been destroyed, and not adding a unit to the army.

 

The exact words are important because he keeps bringing page 214. Saying that the second paragraph mention the unit that are added tho the rosters pay the points but don't say anything about unit replacing destroyed one's.

 

I do think he is wrong but since we can't convince the other we decided to put the question on the internet and trust the wisdom of the B&C.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

They are totally and utterly full of :cuss.

[Tyriks]

First paragraph makes it very clear: "Sometimes a power or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed... In a matched play game, you must set aside some of your points in order to use these units."

[Gentlemanloser]

He might be getting confused with the new Stratagem that allows certain Daemon units to be brought back fully when destroyed by GK units for 2 CP.  This Stratagem (As far as I'm aware) states it doesn't cost reinforcement points to do so.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Neither my GK book nor my Daemon book has a p. 214.

[lokoloki]

Neither my GK book nor my Daemon book has a p. 214.

Is the page 214 of the rulebook.

[Tyriks]

But those rules specify that both summoning new units or replacing destroyed ones require you to pay reinforcement points.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Precisely.

 

To both posts.

[lokoloki]

he sends me an email that he also is sending to GW FAQ, so this more or less explains his arguments and views. 

 

Dear GW,

I have a few questions about Daemonic Ritual ability:

 

"Sometimes a psychic power or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. One of the most common examples of such an ability might allow you to summon a unit of DAEMONS to the battlefield."

 

and

 

"Each time a unit is added to an army during battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points."

(page 214 - Rulebook 8th edition).

 

Q1: The expression "summon a unit of DAEMONS" (page 85 - Codex: Chaos Daemons - 8th ed.) refers to words "add" and "replace" stated above?

 

Q2: When I replace units, I must pay reinforcement points, or I only must pay when I add a unit?

 

Q3: When I use an ability like Daemonic Ritual that states "summon a new unit", this means that I can "add" or "add or replace" a new unit? In other words, can I replace a previous slain unit to the board using Daemonic Ritual?

 

edit: how would you respond to that?

Edited March 8, 2018 by lokoloki

[Gentlemanloser]

Ah i see his arguement now.

 

The first paragrah states add or replace, as if these are two seperate conditions.

 

The second paragrah only references add(ed). It doesn't mention replaced units.

 

What he misses though is this line from the first paragraph.

 

You must set aside some of your points in order to use *these* units.

 

Which referes to both added and replaced units.

[Eddie Orlock]

Roll up to 3 dice - this is your summoning roll. You can summon one new unit ...

Per the same cited reference, the summoned unit is explicitly new, and ergo must be additional to those already listed on the rosters. It should be paid for accordingly. Said ability does not once use the word 'replace' or any word like it.

 

--------

 

Just because there's a conditional exemption built into a rule doesn't mean that any rule that invokes that rule can also invoke the exemption. Yes, if a unit was recycling, it could be exempted, but the Demonic Ritual ability doesn't permit this as noted above.

 

--------

 

If you think a fluff justification would help, remind your friend that when Demons are banished back to the warp, one of the rules is commonly that they're stuck there for some period of time. Often this is some poetic number like 'One year and a day'. The point is, while the same Demon might eventually re-manifest in the same space as the battle you're currently fighting by the time it does so the fight would've been long over. Thus, those summoned by the ritual must indeed be new demons. In this case, the rules support the fluff, and the fluff supports the rules.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yep, you're not summoning a replacement unit, you're summoning a new unit of the same type and size as one that's already been destroyed.

[Gentlemanloser]

Next question.

 

A unit of 10 Allarus Terminators split into single unit's by Unleash the Lions strat.

 

Do You needed to pay reinforcement points for them?

 

If not, why.

[Eddie Orlock]

Do You needed to pay reinforcement points for them?

Such an excellent question that I raised it on the previous page of the thread.

 

I think the design intent here is fairly likely that they shouldn't, but how can we get there within the existing rules framework?

 

I guess we could read some semi-formal definition into the word 'split' that makes the resultant units not 'new', just 'redisignated'. Alternatively, we might attach 'newness' to a unit only iff all the models that comprise it independently have some kind of 'new' attached to them.

 

If we could build a case that could close-couple 'Reinforcement Points' to the 'Reinforcement' side-bar we might be able to then argue that since the strat(s) in question don't actually set anything up anew a check never triggers. Outside of a naming coincidence though, I'm not sure I could make such a link stick.

[Gentlemanloser]

Aparently I'm a troll for insisting that gw should issue a FAQ in this issue.

 

And that a unit of 10 allarus are exactly the same as 10 units of a single allarus...

Edited March 23, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Claws and Effect]

Next question.

 

A unit of 10 Allarus Terminators split into single unit's by Unleash the Lions strat.

 

Do You needed to pay reinforcement points for them?

 

If not, why.

Did you already pay the points cost for the unit of 10?

 

If you did and have the same number of individual models you had before, then the answer would be no, you do not pay reinforcement points.

 

The 10 Allarus were presumably already on the table and had been paid for already.

 

Now if that strategem allowed you to add more Allarus than you had before (Like splitting a unit if 10 into 12 units of 1), then you would have to pay reinforcement points for any additional models produced in that way.

 

Pretty obvious really, at least to me. What you're describing is essentially the same thing as splitting a 10 man Tactical squad into 2 5 man squads with the Combat Squad ability, and we already know you don't pay reinforcement points for that.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Eddie Orlock]

[W]e already know you don't pay reinforcement points for that.

Well, this calls that into question. I agree with the premise though, but the trick is how to get there without mass rule fiats.

 

Anyway, I think a possible reconciliation came to me in a dream the other night. Previously we'd noted that explicitly new units had to be paid for. What may distinguish these operations from those operations is that for these a unit of some variety is first removed from the roster without being destroyed as part of the action which could mean we could claim those new elements added are replacements and thus not 'new', just a modification of a prior entry.

 

I'm not sure what I've typed up here is hugely different, other than I've used larger words, but I think the base concept is that things you remove are defacto a credit against the costs of the things you add back in.

[Claws and Effect]

It was GML's specific example I was referring to there.

 

Splitting a unit of 10 into 10 units of one shouldn't cost reinforcement points because the models involved had already had their cost paid. If it did you'd be paying the points for those models twice.

 

It's the same as combat squads being treated as 2 separate units after they are split. You've already paid for them, so you don't need to pay again.

[Eddie Orlock]

Splitting a unit of 10 into 10 units of one shouldn't cost reinforcement points because the models involved had already had their cost paid. If it did you'd be paying the points for those models twice.

Which would be all well and good if pg. 214 made reference to 'models', but it doesn't, it calls up 'units'.

 

I mean, this is largely an academic question. I doubt very much is anyone would actually try to claim that those new 'units' would cost points when we all know their the same models over again.

 

The problem is, if we embrace too much interpretation, eventually the whole edifice of reasonably reliably parseable rules crumbles into a sea of idiosyncrasy. Have you ever played the 'Legend of the Five Rings' while it was published by AEG? That game, at various points in it's history had 'The rule of obvious legality'. A horrific rules patch that basically said that even if a card clearly violated any number of base game rules, it still worked as the designers intended. Of course, this game was played world wide. If you think rules debates get vigorous around here, they've got nothing on what happened over there. You'ld get FAQ documents for these cards that provided a bespoke interpretation of how those cards played for nearly each and every possible card it could interact with. Often in ways that would be totally counter-intuitive to how much of the audience initially read the card.

 

Now, I don't think this kind of exemption will get to that point, but the hazard is real.

[Claws and Effect]

A quick check told me that a unit of 10 Allarus is 840 points by default.

 

There is no way it is intended for you to have to pay another 840 points to split them into different units using a Strategem that costs CP to use.

 

That defies any kind of game design logic I can think of. You would have to make that one unit practically your entire army in order for that Strategem to not be utterly useless.

 

And since you don't pay the cost of the unit again when you use the Combat Squad Strategem to split a Tac squad in mid battle, I am reasonably certain it works exactly the same. In this case there is precedent.

[Quixus]

And since you don't pay the cost of the unit again when you use the Combat Squad Strategem to split a Tac squad in mid battle, I am reasonably certain it works exactly the same. In this case there is precedent.

We all agree that this is the intention of the rule but neither the Combat Squads ability nor the stratagem tells us that we do not have to pay for the two new units. There is however the rule about reinforcements. There is no stipulation in there that it does not apply to units that are added by removing a different unit.

[Claws and Effect]

 

 

And since you don't pay the cost of the unit again when you use the Combat Squad Strategem to split a Tac squad in mid battle, I am reasonably certain it works exactly the same. In this case there is precedent.

We all agree that this is the intention of the rule but neither the Combat Squads ability nor the stratagem tells us that we do not have to pay for the two new units. There is however the rule about reinforcements. There is no stipulation in there that it does not apply to units that are added by removing a different unit.

But pretty much every case I've seen where you DO pay for reinforcements explicitly says so in the entry.

 

Eisenhorn's rules are a good example of that. It specifically states that you have to pay the cost of a Daemonhost to summon Cherubael.

 

Using common sense and precedent, I would say that you DON'T pay reinforcement points unless it explicitly says you do.

 

Daemon summoning, tervigons, Cherubael, and probably a number of other examples I'm not thinking of right now all specifically say you pay reinforcement points to use that ability.

 

My interpretation is that reinforcements specifically refers to the creation of units whose point cost is not already accounted for in the list.

 

That doesn't apply to combat squadding because you are simply splitting the models that already exist (and have already been paid for) into separate units for the purpose of how they are played on the table.

 

More to the point, in the case of combat squadding it says that they are TREATED as 2 separate units for game purposes, not that they actually ARE. A combat squadded Tac squad still only occupies one slot in the list for organizational purposes.

 

Summoning daemons, on the other hand, is creating new units that were NOT already accounted for in the list. The intention I perceive there is to give you a choice on exactly what you summon depending on what seems most useful at the time.

 

In another way of looking at it:

 

Whether or not you pay reinforcement points for a unit depends on whether it adds more firepower to your list. 2 5 man Tactical squads has exactly the same firepower as a 10 man squad. Splitting them doesn't add more guns, it just lets you cover more ground.

 

So it's really an A or B question. Specifically the question is: Does this give me more attacks than I had before?

 

If yes, pay reinforcement points.

 

If no, do not.

 

A combat squadded Tac squad actually produces less attacks than 2 5 man squads because it only has 1 Sgt. 2 5 man squads obviously has 2 Sgts that can both take a combi-whatever and chainsword.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Claws and Effect