Daemonic Ritual - Cost?

[Gentlemanloser]

Sadly that's not the rules.  You *have* to pay reinforcement costs unless specifically told you do not have to.

 

Not the other way round.

 

The FAQ makes that clear.

 

Let's take Tervigons again.  The Nid player has a squad of 30 gants.  They lose 15.  Next turn, the Tervigon spawns another 10 gants.  If the Player chooses to add these new 10 to the existing unit, there is no cost.

 

However if the player chooses to create a new unit of 10, there is a cost.

 

The overall number of minis doesn't change, an extra 10 models are being placed on the board.  Just the creation of a new unit that was not originally on your army roster.

 

 

Edit: The Tervigon rules don't mention Reinforcements, nor paying (or not) for these units.

 

Edit2: The FAQs;

 

Q: If a rule creates a new unit during the battle in a matched

play game and adds them to my army, must I pay for the unit

with my reinforcement points?

A: Yes (unless the rule itself says otherwise). If you don’t

have enough reinforcement points, you cannot add that

unit to your army.

 

Q: What about rules that transform one model into another

model – such as turning an enemy Character into a Chaos

Spawn; do I still need to pay reinforcement points to add the

Chaos Spawn to my army?

A: Again, yes (unless the rule itself says otherwise).

 

Q: What about rules that add models to existing units; do I

need to pay reinforcement points for those models?

A: No (unless the rule itself says otherwise).

 

Both Combat Squads and Unleash the Lions create new units.  As neither rules specify they do not cost reinforcement points, we have to pay for them.

 

Yes it's a massive stupid oversight, and no one *would* play like that.

 

But the RAW is clear.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Claws and Effect]

If anyone tells me I have to pay the points again for a combat squadded unit, I'm packing up my models.

 

That defies anything even resembling common sense.

 

And I'm pretty sure the Tervigon rules do say you must pay for any newly created units. I'll check the Codex when I get home.

 

And just so we're clear, you're saying that a 130 point Tactical squad with zero upgrades will cost a total of 260 points if you want to combat squad It? According to the rules?

Edited March 29, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.  Stupid oversight is stupid.

 

And I checked both the Index and the Codex, the Tervigon rules don't mention costs at all.

 

Edit: Especially as the fix is simple.  The stratagems should state they don't cost reinforcement points.  Or you errata the main book rules to amend the reinforcements rule so that existing units broken down into multiple smaller units don't ever cost reinforcement points.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Gentlemanloser

[Claws and Effect]

Perhaps it wasn't an oversight at all. Perhaps GW just had enough faith in the players to assume that no one in their right mind would interpret it like that and saw no reason to be overly specific about it.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's not about interpretation though.  Our nid player is *adamant* that he can spawn new units of gants from Tervigons at no cost.

 

We all need a robust common ruleset to play by.  And when we're told all new units must be paid for (unless specified otherwise) then we have to pay for all new units...

 

As stupid as that oversight is (and no I'd never enforce that in game, but it *is* a failure of the written rules that GW should correct).

[Claws and Effect]

It's not about interpretation though. Our nid player is *adamant* that he can spawn new units of gants from Tervigons at no cost.

Did you show him the FAQ you quoted in the post above that says, in no uncertain terms, that he is wrong?

[Gentlemanloser]

Yup.

 

And he's still adamant that because his Codex (which in his words came out after the rulebook) doesn't specify a cost, he doesn't have to pay.

[Tyriks]

One distinction is that splitting a unit is different than bringing in reinforcements, but I agree that GW should clarify this.

[Claws and Effect]

Yup.

 

And he's still adamant that because his Codex (which in his words came out after the rulebook) doesn't specify a cost, he doesn't have to pay.

It's actually kind of sad that GW needs to be THAT specific to curtail people abusing things.

 

What that guy is insisting he can do is exactly the reason the Reinforcements rule was created in the first place.

 

It's to stop people like him from bringing 8 Tervigons and spawning 80 Termagants every turn.

 

He'd never get a game against me.

 

It also flies in the face of their stated position that you can use the rules however you want.

 

Still not changing my position that Combat Squad and Unleash the Lions don't cost points to use, based on common sense and logic.

[Gentlemanloser]

Totally don't disagree!

 

Sadly common sense isn't RAW.  Like the ability to charge through a wall and be immune to overwatch as you're out of line of sight...  Ugh.

[Quixus]

It also flies in the face of their stated position that you can use the rules however you want.

Does GW actually say that? AFAIK they only say if rules conflict, find a solution or roll off. So 50% of the time he can spawn the Gaunts. Your only option to prevent him from doing that is to not play him.

 

Sadly common sense isn't RAW.

More importantly common sense is neither common nor unambiguous.

 

Like the ability to charge through a wall and be immune to overwatch as you're out of line of sight...  Ugh.

It is an abstraction for simplicity of the rules and melee needs any buff it can get. But, yes it is silly.

[Claws and Effect]

Totally don't disagree!

 

Sadly common sense isn't RAW. Like the ability to charge through a wall and be immune to overwatch as you're out of line of sight... Ugh.

I normally give RAW more credence than this. But RAI is seldom this blatantly obvious.

 

It makes zero sense to write a rule that doubles the cost of a squad when you use it while actually making it weaker than 2 squads half the size that cost the same points. It would be worse than useless.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Claws and Effect

[Quixus]

We all agree with you, but it does not change what GW wrote. Unfortunately as written it cannot be interpreted otherwise, anything else is a houserule albeit a sensible one

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Cool, so I'm going to pay for a Spawn and keep it off the table on the off-chance that a Character gets turned.

 

Good job, guys.

[Gentlemanloser]

Or simply dont play matched, and this is all a non event.