Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with them blowing up the fluff, even if I may not like the new direction they take. In this case, I would simply use the old one and based my armies around it (and the amount of stuff I didn't read would mean I've still got at least 5 years of ''new'' readings). What terrifies me is the possibility the ruleset of 8th edition will be similar to AoS (an abomination of a game IMO). I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed and, while I don't think the changes are gonna be as dramatic (though I didn't believe beforehand that the ''9th'' edition of Fantasy would have been something so different either), I'm gonna hedge my bet and moderate my purchase of 40k until we know for sure.

Nah, they ain't gonna make something so radical, though I think we'd have to disagree on the abomination part, since it seems a fairly biased statement.

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

It "killed" fantasy (because nevermind that it was Kirby flipping the bird and taking a dump on everyone as he left, not AoS in itself), therefore it must be an abomination.

The launch didn't help either.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with them blowing up the fluff, even if I may not like the new direction they take. In this case, I would simply use the old one and based my armies around it (and the amount of stuff I didn't read would mean I've still got at least 5 years of ''new'' readings). What terrifies me is the possibility the ruleset of 8th edition will be similar to AoS (an abomination of a game IMO). I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed and, while I don't think the changes are gonna be as dramatic (though I didn't believe beforehand that the ''9th'' edition of Fantasy would have been something so different either), I'm gonna hedge my bet and moderate my purchase of 40k until we know for sure.

Nah, they ain't gonna make something so radical, though I think we'd have to disagree on the abomination part, since it seems a fairly biased statement.

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

No tactical depth for one. It always revolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice(and then roll a dice. And roll a dice).

It's so bad they needed to add extra rules for competive games that are actually neccessary even for non competive game. Otherwise something as trivial as tzeentch exalted daemon would create about 100 copies of himself in first turn. Turn 2 most of those would generate about 100 more...Good luck clearing that.

It has total absurdity like measure from model that can result in model literally unable to attack anybody...

No points was least of rules issues and they haven't fixed those yet.

tneva82 wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with them blowing up the fluff, even if I may not like the new direction they take. In this case, I would simply use the old one and based my armies around it (and the amount of stuff I didn't read would mean I've still got at least 5 years of ''new'' readings). What terrifies me is the possibility the ruleset of 8th edition will be similar to AoS (an abomination of a game IMO). I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed and, while I don't think the changes are gonna be as dramatic (though I didn't believe beforehand that the ''9th'' edition of Fantasy would have been something so different either), I'm gonna hedge my bet and moderate my purchase of 40k until we know for sure.

Nah, they ain't gonna make something so radical, though I think we'd have to disagree on the abomination part, since it seems a fairly biased statement.

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

No tactical depth for one. It always revolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice(and then roll a dice. And roll a dice).

It's so bad they needed to add extra rules for competive games that are actually neccessary even for non competive game. Otherwise something as trivial as tzeentch exalted daemon would create about 100 copies of himself in first turn. Turn 2 most of those would generate about 100 more...Good luck clearing that.

It has total absurdity like measure from model that can result in model literally unable to attack anybody...

No points was least of rules issues and they haven't fixed those yet.

1) That's a lie. Try to devolve a game into a slapfest in the middle. Try it, you'll lose more often than not if you face a proper enemy. But I guess that it's better to have two armies camp on each side of the game to blow each other, since tabling counts as a victory, no matter how bad you screw tactically (something that AoS's matched play doesn't allow for, tabling automatically ends the game but doesn't mean automatic victory).

2) Again, that's a lie. I've met enough people that didn't abide to those rules to go past the "circumstancial evidence". Also, nice strawman of an argument. Would you kindly tell me who the hell has a hundred heralds? Also, 40k does the same pretty much the same, with a daemons army bringing to the table twice the points' limit almost regularly, so 40k is also a very bad game.

3)FAQed out. And it's certainly not the case for 99.9%, with the exception being modelling for advantage, something that 40k does too by the way (I've met too many kneeling wraithknights and riptides).

4) Shooting in itself is nowhere as bad as you guys make it out to be. Sure, you can shoot in and out of combat but... in my experience that will mean little, shooting can be strong but it's NOWHERE the level of brokeness 40k has.

tneva82 wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with them blowing up the fluff, even if I may not like the new direction they take. In this case, I would simply use the old one and based my armies around it (and the amount of stuff I didn't read would mean I've still got at least 5 years of ''new'' readings). What terrifies me is the possibility the ruleset of 8th edition will be similar to AoS (an abomination of a game IMO). I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed and, while I don't think the changes are gonna be as dramatic (though I didn't believe beforehand that the ''9th'' edition of Fantasy would have been something so different either), I'm gonna hedge my bet and moderate my purchase of 40k until we know for sure.

Nah, they ain't gonna make something so radical, though I think we'd have to disagree on the abomination part, since it seems a fairly biased statement.

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

No tactical depth for one. It always revolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice(and then roll a dice. And roll a dice).

It's so bad they needed to add extra rules for competive games that are actually neccessary even for non competive game. Otherwise something as trivial as tzeentch exalted daemon would create about 100 copies of himself in first turn. Turn 2 most of those would generate about 100 more...Good luck clearing that.

It has total absurdity like measure from model that can result in model literally unable to attack anybody...

No points was least of rules issues and they haven't fixed those yet.

I've only been watching the streams - but the no tactical depth is patently untrue.

The complaints about the new Eldar background being bad seem nonsensical too. We have the barest outline and people feel they can categorically declare it bad.

I'm looking forward to A New (Eldar) Hope

Expect them to screw up gloriously.

Tiresome and pointless negativity.

Vorian wrote:
Tiresome and pointless negativity.

You should expect it when the shadow of AoS looms over 40k, to be honest. I myself am amazed how Fall of Cadia got the relaxed reactions it got.

tneva82 wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
I don't necessarily have a problem with them blowing up the fluff, even if I may not like the new direction they take. In this case, I would simply use the old one and based my armies around it (and the amount of stuff I didn't read would mean I've still got at least 5 years of ''new'' readings). What terrifies me is the possibility the ruleset of 8th edition will be similar to AoS (an abomination of a game IMO). I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed and, while I don't think the changes are gonna be as dramatic (though I didn't believe beforehand that the ''9th'' edition of Fantasy would have been something so different either), I'm gonna hedge my bet and moderate my purchase of 40k until we know for sure.

Nah, they ain't gonna make something so radical, though I think we'd have to disagree on the abomination part, since it seems a fairly biased statement.

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

No tactical depth for one. It always revolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice(and then roll a dice. And roll a dice).

It's so bad they needed to add extra rules for competive games that are actually neccessary even for non competive game. Otherwise something as trivial as tzeentch exalted daemon would create about 100 copies of himself in first turn. Turn 2 most of those would generate about 100 more...Good luck clearing that.

It has total absurdity like measure from model that can result in model literally unable to attack anybody...

No points was least of rules issues and they haven't fixed those yet.

All I'm reading here is "I've never played AoS". Complaints that disregard the General's Handbook (which solves every one of your issues) is very 2015. Maybe you should actually play a real game of AoS before dismissing it with old arguments. If you are actually interested in having an informed opinion (as opposed to hating AoS just for the sake of it) I suggest trying out a Matched Play scenario with armies created by someone who know what they're doing, reading up on the synergies of your army and the rules/GHB beforehand. Who knows, you might actually find yourself having fun!

Bringing it back to news and predictions. If the three are going to be an HQ for the three different eldar factions then could we be seeing Psychic powers for Dark Eldar?

Also is the Avatar going to be a Lord of War? So no wraith knight and Avatar combo, also fills a slot for DE and Harlequins.

 Xeones7 wrote:
Bringing it back to news and predictions. If the three are going to be an HQ for the three different eldar factions then could we be seeing Psychic powers for Dark Eldar?

Also is the Avatar going to be a Lord of War? So no wraith knight and Avatar combo, also fills a slot for DE and Harlequins.

No, I doubt it, she appears to be a craft-worlder so she's more than likely to draw from the runes' disciplines or even phanstasmancy depending on her relationship with the harlequins.

In so far we've seen only HQs... and I shudder just to think what will happen when the avatar and a dual wraithknight force face you. The table-top will look like a raglette.

tneva82 wrote:


No tactical depth for one. It always revolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice(and then roll a dice. And roll a dice).

It's so bad they needed to add extra rules for competive games that are actually neccessary even for non competive game. Otherwise something as trivial as tzeentch exalted daemon would create about 100 copies of himself in first turn. Turn 2 most of those would generate about 100 more...Good luck clearing that.

It has total absurdity like measure from model that can result in model literally unable to attack anybody...

No points was least of rules issues and they haven't fixed those yet.

Yeah, no. Please tell me more about the lack of tactical depth after watching a well tuned Sylvaneth army winning through manoeuvrability against an Ironjawz Ironfist list (Example A: Sylvaneth don't win straight on fights, Ironjawz Ironfist crosses the board in one turn, you figure it out). What about planning ahead for double turns going either players' way, or strategically forcing enemy units to pile in to make space for another unit of yours with models not in base contact with anything so that they can pile in and get in range of a supporting character (Morghast Archai are really good at this) to remove their key buffs? Or how about taking full advantage of retreats to perform a free move onto a previously enemy-occupied objective via a gap in their battle line? There's also the simple fact that, you know, deciding who to strike with at any given moment once assault is joined is immediately more tactically in depth than anything assault-related in 40K thanks to the nature of character buffs being so important and monsters weakening as they suffer wounds among other factors. Age of Sigmar games that "resolve into cram into middle and then start rolling dice" are what I'd expect from beginners, anyone with a mind for the game and an understanding of just how devastating both Magic and Shooting are won't just blindly rush into combat in the way that you suggest. Unlike 40K, every phase is super important in every match-up.

The Generals' Handbook is not strictly about competitive play...which you would know if you took even one second to look at the table of contents. It offers three distinct methods of play; Open Play (no restrictions), Narrative Play (customizable rules for campaigns) and Matched Play (modified rule-set for competitive play). Not everyone plays competitively, and even if they do, the points system is there as a guide-line; the restrictions on summoning and spell-casting exist only in Pitched Battles, a sub-type of Matched Play. Also, the chances of a Herald of Tzeentch summoning even one copy of itself is slim, let alone 100. Theoretically, you can do the same thing in 40K...but let's forget all about that because there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 40K rule-set, is there? What's that about 10 Pink Horrors splitting into 40 separate models for free in the new Wrath of Magnus rules? Hmm...must be a figment of my imagination.

Which was FAQ'd and anyone with common sense knew the rules didn't work that way. Try again. Actually, no, let's look at something else....in 40K, you can make a unit virtually impossible to kill with a 2+ re-rollable invulnerable save. In Age of Sigmar, even if you allow units to get to a 1+ save that automatically passes any save rolls thanks to ignoring Rend and not using the three Rules of One, mortal wounds exist as a hard counter to said units and every army has a method of dishing them out thanks to the Grand Alliances. Nothing is impossible to kill in Age of Sigmar (aside from Carrion, but if you don't land them, they can't help you win the game). If we're going to talk about "total absurdity" in a rules set, 40K eclipses Age of Sigmar fifty times over.
I say all this as someone who loves BOTH games. What rules issues do you refer to in Age of Sigmar?

On topic...are those actually Black Guardians listed in that formation?

HQs that can be used by any of the three eldar factions would be great, especially for harlequins.

All the fluff about the new faction makes it very difficult to predict what would be the in-game faction of the three new models. The avatar might have some special movement rule (like the solitaire), but the visarch is most certainly normal infantry, and will need a transport to get into close combat. His faction will therefore determine which units he can join in a transport at deployment.
In a picture he's surrounded by incubi. So if he's indeed stuck with DE, I hope he has an AP2 sword.

Oh, and do we have a confirmation on the release date yet? Feb 11?

fresus wrote:
HQs that can be used by any of the three eldar factions would be great, especially for harlequins.

All the fluff about the new faction makes it very difficult to predict what would be the in-game faction of the three new models. The avatar might have some special movement rule (like the solitaire), but the visarch is most certainly normal infantry, and will need a transport to get into close combat. His faction will therefore determine which units he can join in a transport at deployment.
In a picture he's surrounded by incubi. So if he's indeed stuck with DE, I hope he has an AP2 sword.

Aye, that would be very welcome! Annoying that we didn't get Veilwalker or some other actual Harlequin HQ, but I'll take it.

I don't think we can assign a specific faction to any of the three. As you say, the Visarch is with incubi in that one pic but he's only with craftworlders in the very first pic we saw the model in. Having said that, it would be a bit odd going forward if we have all three characters in three different codecies. Maybe that old rumour of codecies going the way of the dodo is true and things will be consolidated somewhat.

Thebiggesthat wrote:

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

To be honest, I can't understand how someone could not use it in regards to the AoS ruleset (it's not like Fantasy was my cup of tea either, so my emotional attachment to it was minor). Different strokes for different folks I guess. Still, it kind of gets tiresome to hear the ''you must not have played it'' tirade continuously whenever there is a difference of opinion concerning it.

 Mymearan wrote:
All I'm reading here is "I've never played AoS". Complaints that disregard the General's Handbook (which solves every one of your issues) is very 2015. Maybe you should actually play a real game of AoS before dismissing it with old arguments. If you are actually interested in having an informed opinion (as opposed to hating AoS just for the sake of it) I suggest trying out a Matched Play scenario with armies created by someone who know what they're doing, reading up on the synergies of your army and the rules/GHB beforehand. Who knows, you might actually find yourself having fun!

Well then read better as I have played it. Dozens of games.

And no GH did not solve the problems. As I said. It added points. Lack of points was LEAST of problems. I don't use points all that much in 40k. Doesn't stop me. If lack of points was only issue it would never have been problem.

But the game rules don't hold up to any quality rules. It's shallow, illogical and doesn't lead to interesting games.

Sorry but just because others like dice rolling doesn't mean everybody likes it. I like games that have some depth to it's rules. And by depth I don't mean random dice rolling.

The game is just so frigging ridiculous. Rule where you need to change rules just for model to even legally be able to attack? One model resulting in 100 copies of itself per turn? GH fixed some issues but to fix all would need to rewrite so much it's no longer same game so might just as well start from better base to begin with. There's just one thing rules got right from the get-go. Point costs to formations.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
All I'm reading here is "I've never played AoS". Complaints that disregard the General's Handbook (which solves every one of your issues) is very 2015. Maybe you should actually play a real game of AoS before dismissing it with old arguments. If you are actually interested in having an informed opinion (as opposed to hating AoS just for the sake of it) I suggest trying out a Matched Play scenario with armies created by someone who know what they're doing, reading up on the synergies of your army and the rules/GHB beforehand. Who knows, you might actually find yourself having fun!

Well then read better as I have played it. Dozens of games.

And no GH did not solve the problems. As I said. It added points. Lack of points was LEAST of problems. I don't use points all that much in 40k. Doesn't stop me. If lack of points was only issue it would never have been problem.

But the game rules don't hold up to any quality rules. It's shallow, illogical and doesn't lead to interesting games.

Sorry but just because others like dice rolling doesn't mean everybody likes it. I like games that have some depth to it's rules. And by depth I don't mean random dice rolling.

In other words, you're just making sweeping statements and going on hate mode. Fine by me. You're entitled to have your opinion but just the fact that plenty of other people, some of which aren't even fans of the game, disagree with you may be an indicative.

At the end of the day, any HQ usable to harlies is more than welcome.

Means they can run a CAD and be free to pick what they want.
Rather than paying for a taxweaver on every formation instead.




And as for the end time bollocks, it happened to WHFB as it wasn't drawing in enough money.
40k is doing great as it stands, so no reason to even consider that.

Just the usual nutjobs on here walking around with "the end is nigh" banners trying to get people's attention.

Atia has said it, profits show it, 40k as it is isn't going nuclear any time soon.




Edit: in regards to AoS, lack of rules depth seems to equate to "I haven't played or or even researched it"
It's not lacking depth by any means, and at the current point, tactics are a huge thing mainly down to list synergy.
If you pick and choose random units your not going to win.
So just having to structure the list it's self shows depth before you even get started on a game.

tneva82 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
All I'm reading here is "I've never played AoS". Complaints that disregard the General's Handbook (which solves every one of your issues) is very 2015. Maybe you should actually play a real game of AoS before dismissing it with old arguments. If you are actually interested in having an informed opinion (as opposed to hating AoS just for the sake of it) I suggest trying out a Matched Play scenario with armies created by someone who know what they're doing, reading up on the synergies of your army and the rules/GHB beforehand. Who knows, you might actually find yourself having fun!

Well then read better as I have played it. Dozens of games.

And no GH did not solve the problems. As I said. It added points. Lack of points was LEAST of problems. I don't use points all that much in 40k. Doesn't stop me. If lack of points was only issue it would never have been problem.

But the game rules don't hold up to any quality rules. It's shallow, illogical and doesn't lead to interesting games.

Sorry but just because others like dice rolling doesn't mean everybody likes it. I like games that have some depth to it's rules. And by depth I don't mean random dice rolling.

The game is just so frigging ridiculous. Rule where you need to change rules just for model to even legally be able to attack? One model resulting in 100 copies of itself per turn? GH fixed some issues but to fix all would need to rewrite so much it's no longer same game so might just as well start from better base to begin with. There's just one thing rules got right from the get-go. Point costs to formations.

One model making 100 copies of itself?? Dude, heralds are easy to summon and, in order to get a hundred of them, you'd need a 0.00000012 chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

I really don't understand how anyone could use the word abomination in regards to the AoS ruleset. Unless they've not actually played it....

To be honest, I can't understand how someone could not use it in regards to the AoS ruleset (it's not like Fantasy was my cup of tea either, so my emotional attachment to it was minor). Different strokes for different folks I guess. Still, it kind of gets tiresome to hear the ''you must not have played it'' tirade continuously whenever there is a difference of opinion concerning it.

It also gets tiresome to hear people go and say: IT'S AN INSULT TO WARGAMING.

Yet you don't hear us complain all the time about them insulting a game we do like.

And for the record. You guys may have played it (and decided it wasn't good, to everyone their taste, indeed) but more often than not I've found that people lambasting it don't know that much about the game. Hell, most people uttering this argument outside dakkadakka don't even know of GHB or scenarios.

BTW, was is the prevailing opinion concerning army composition in 8th ed? It seems more likely than not that we'll be looking at something more similar to what is done in AoS. Still, with the number of mini armies GW has been pumping out recently. I doubt they'll be able to support them all in the coming years. Will most of them be SoBed' ?

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
BTW, was is the prevailing opinion concerning army composition in 8th ed? It seems more likely than not that we'll be looking at something more similar to what is done in AoS. Still, with the number of mini armies GW has been pumping out recently. I doubt they'll be able to support them all in the coming years. Will most of them be SoBed' ?

Which you kind of can do already in 7th edition. Allied detachments and unbound (AKA: Open play, but with points) have been a thing in 40k since a year prior to age of sigmar.

I'm doubting they'll stop support. Most kits sold fairly well.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
BTW, was is the prevailing opinion concerning army composition in 8th ed? It seems more likely than not that we'll be looking at something more similar to what is done in AoS. Still, with the number of mini armies GW has been pumping out recently. I doubt they'll be able to support them all in the coming years. Will most of them be SoBed' ?

Which you kind of can do already in 7th edition. Allied detachments and unbound (AKA: Open play, but with points) have been a thing in 40k since a year prior to age of sigmar.

Sure, but I meant that armies will be regrouped under a theme (Chaos, Order, Destruction,...) with several sub armies within them.

I think 8th will hold some changes inspired by AoS.
Things like the grand alliances for example.

Now considering people do that anyway through allies and formations, I don't really have any issue with it.

 Jackal wrote:
I think 8th will hold some changes inspired by AoS.
Things like the grand alliances for example.

Now considering people do that anyway through allies and formations, I don't really have any issue with it.

Agreed.

So long as they don't simplify it too much, this will be a welcome change. I just dread the idea of Unbound being the standard way to play in 8th, for example.

GW make too much money from armies due to list building and mandatory choices.
Without formation like free razorbacks, people wouldn't buy anywhere near as many as they do.

By removing any form of competitive nature to the game they will lose sales at an alarming rate.
Something I think they found in the early days of AoS.

I'd love to believe there is great strategic depth in AoS but I never seem to encounter it when watching or playing. There is quite a bit of tactics - but it often verges on gamesmanship which alienated many from late era WHFB.

There is AoS and there is AoS though.

I don't find 40k that difficult to play. There has always been waves of bloat. People clamour to cut or simplify the rules but without special rules the game quickly becomes pretty boring.

Some rules simplification might be welcomed. I especially like how monsters/behemoths are dealt with in AoS and would welcome something similar in 40k. At the same time it would be bad for all vehicles to effectively just become big humans.

I think we are moving to grand alliances. The FOC will finally give up the ghost (its effectively dead anyway) along with the allies chart. There will probably be Imperium, Chaos, Eldar and Xenos (although not certain about the last) and you will be able to dip in and out of as you want. The reason for this is that GW want you to buy models across their range rather than being locked into a faction they may ignore for half a decade.

I don't think this current campaign is going to end in a flash of light and wake up in "Warhammer: 100k" with what amounts to a complete fluff reset. Then again I didn't think they would do that in WHFB right up to the end. It makes even less sense here though.

Ultimately WHFB is finished and the whys of which have been argued for years. If 40k is finished and we get "Age of the Emperor" then I think it will be a disaster.

tneva82 wrote:
One model resulting in 100 copies of itself per turn? GH fixed some issues but to fix

General handbook...

REINFORCEMENT POINTS
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. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.
Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.
Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).

guru wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
One model resulting in 100 copies of itself per turn? GH fixed some issues but to fix

General handbook...

REINFORCEMENT POINTS
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. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.
Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.
Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).

And let's not forget that you're more likely to win the lottery (some loteries with not too big runs at least) than to pull that gak off. Or that people don't have a 100 copies of the same model unless it's a main-line unit or that people who would try that stuff are douchewaffles whom you really should be playing with anyways as they'll try to break the game, no matter the ruleset.

Even without reinforcement points it can't happen.

The rules of 1 stop you using the summon spell more than once anyway.

 Galef wrote:
So it looks like Ynneadwraith & I have hats to eat.
It seems the Visarch was just a Dire Avenger Exarch names Laaran who followed Yvraine (not Malys) to the Dark City, became and Incubus, then Klaivex and was killed heroically on Iyanden and resurrected be Ynnead.

Lame, but it could grow on me.
If they don't even mention Yriel's fate I'll be pissed. At least make him be the sacrifice that wakes the Avatar of Ynnead for crying out load

-

Yeah...

Logged on this morning, started scrolling through. Currently googling ways to make treated leather and cotton palatable.

Starting to get a little worried...

quote=Yodhrin 714551 9161517 7e83b8c770c85dbbf9c18826fd4f055b.jpg]
They already stated they arent killing the 40k universe like they did for Fantasy. I dont care if they change Dark Eldar, Eldar and Harelquins to the catchall Aelderi. It literally makes no difference to the game. If Aeldari and the Imperium become reluctant allies along with their BFF Trayzn, I dont really like it, but again, if the actual game is fun, why, ultimately, should I care?

Jesus the bitching is impressive. People are so afraid of change it hurts. I had to double check the URL to make sure this wasn't whineseer.