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.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:
also, dude please read tide of traitors .. it doesn't say what you think it says ... no mention of points at all unless it has been FAQ'ed outside of the codex copy

My apologies, I had it mixed up with the Astra Copywritum stratagem "Send in the Next Wave!", which was errata'd to say "This unit costs reinforcement points in a matched play game." My point still stands, just replace Tide of Traitors with Send in the Next Wave!

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

Why would they start the paragraph under points with a sentence that discusses both those scenarios and then only prescribe one of those options and never mention the other?

Because that's the only one that paragraph applies to?

Dear Valued customer of ACME Insurance ... with regards to your new million dollar policy Sometimes we will allow you to add units to your policy, or replace units that have been destroyed.

We will charge you $1,000,000 for adding new units..

The end .. thanks
Please don't ask us about adding destroyed units .. that info is classified .. and you probably can't even afford it !

Good bye

Oh okay that totally proves your point wow what a completely well thought out answer that isn't in any way trolling.

no probs, the same as in Tyranids to add a new unit of 5 stealers.

but none of these things replace a unit that is slain ..

so reinforcement points starts to say we should do stuff when models are destroyed but doesn't actually specify, in your opinion, how to cost them ... it doesn't say either way to pay or not pay.

so I can sacrifice a chicken and put Roboute Guilliman back on the table (I know you love using random acts to exemplify the permissive nature of 40K) or just not pay anything at all ... or pay 400 new shiny warbucks ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacksmiles wrote:


Oh okay that totally proves your point wow what a completely well thought out answer that isn't in any way trolling.

yes it's snarky, but I was trying for an analogy where a contract or set of rules starts a thought and doesn't actually finish it .. at all.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The rules also say you can have only one Guilliman in your army. If the one you're setting up is a new unit, then it would be the second Guilliman in your army and be against the rules. So, they're treating him as the same Guilliman. He died than he got better.

sounds like another Addition to BCB's signature -- Guilliman can never resurrect as he can't be in your army twice

Also, Gulliman's rule says you're setting him up again, not setting up a new unit that's also a Gulliman. Therefore, you're setting the same unit up again, not a new unit.

 doctortom wrote:


Also, Gulliman's rule says you're setting him up again, not setting up a new unit that's also a Gulliman. Therefore, you're setting the same unit up again, not a new unit.

To set something up .. it needs to first be removed tho yes?

so Reading the rule over and over ..

RG is hit, fails a save so we follow the apply damage step .. he loses his last wound (Reduced to 0 wounds) and NOW we are instructed to roll a dice..

What the rule does NOT say is "Instead of removing" or instead of being slain etc... it lets you carry on the logic of the game and RG is removed from the table (To either be setup or not at the end of the phase)

if he is NOT removed, because armour of fate ... how can he be setup again?

if he is not removed .. he can still be targeted

if he is not removed, the opponent Cannot score Slay the Warlord or king slayer..

If he IS removed .. and replaced .. then he is doing so using points as per the instructions for adding a new unit to the army.

____________

I Should add here that this is not picking on RG alone .. I actually do not want it to work this way, I play Necrons and this applies to a relic and a stratagem in similar fashion.

Guiliman is a single-model unit. I can see your logic but don’t agree that’s how it works.

Your argument has some merit if spiralling down a RAWhole, but let’s be honest, it’s understood that it doesn’t cost points here. Even this forum’s most ardent “RAW-even-if-stupid” adherent is saying it doesn’t cost points. Fun intellectual exercise, maybe. Useful discussion? Not really. It doesn’t cost reinforcement points to resurrect Guilliman. Intent is understood. Let’s not cycle round this one for 13 pages?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Guiliman is a single-model unit. I can see your logic but don’t agree that’s how it works.

Your argument has some merit if spiralling down a RAWhole, but let’s be honest, it’s understood that it doesn’t cost points here. Even this forum’s most ardent “RAW-even-if-stupid” adherent is saying it doesn’t cost points. Fun intellectual exercise, maybe. Useful discussion? Not really. It doesn’t cost reinforcement points to resurrect Guilliman. Intent is understood. Let’s not cycle round this one for 13 pages?

Cheers Johnny, I must admit I was hoping for some counterpoints to it but it seems that it's that way.

so I can safely play Trazyn the infinite, any Necron character with the NanoScarab Casket or use the Necron "Resurrection Protocol" Stratagem to accomplish the same means without paying extra points.

Same for Celestine

This makes me happy!

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Also, Gulliman's rule says you're setting him up again, not setting up a new unit that's also a Gulliman. Therefore, you're setting the same unit up again, not a new unit.

To set something up .. it needs to first be removed tho yes?

so Reading the rule over and over ..

RG is hit, fails a save so we follow the apply damage step .. he loses his last wound (Reduced to 0 wounds) and NOW we are instructed to roll a dice..

What the rule does NOT say is "Instead of removing" or instead of being slain etc... it lets you carry on the logic of the game and RG is removed from the table (To either be setup or not at the end of the phase)

if he is NOT removed, because armour of fate ... how can he be setup again?

if he is not removed .. he can still be targeted

if he is not removed, the opponent Cannot score Slay the Warlord or king slayer..

If he IS removed .. and replaced .. then he is doing so using points as per the instructions for adding a new unit to the army.

____________

I Should add here that this is not picking on RG alone .. I actually do not want it to work this way, I play Necrons and this applies to a relic and a stratagem in similar fashion.

You are wrong.

Advanced rules take precedence over core rules. Guilliman has a specific special rule that allows him to stand back up, with a reduced number of wounds I might add.
His rule says that when he is reduced to 0 wounds he isn't automatically slain, but has a chance to be set up again close to his original position.

A thought:

If the resurrected Guilliman is a new Guilliman, then the new Guilliman has not died yet this game, and therefore can resurrect again (on a 4+). And so on.

I'm going to appeal to RAI here which some people will disagree with, but oh well. This result is clearly not the intention, ergo the resurrected Guilliman is the same Guilliman, ergo you don't pay reinforcement points.

 Stux wrote:
A thought:

If the resurrected Guilliman is a new Guilliman, then the new Guilliman has not died yet this game, and therefore can resurrect again (on a 4+). And so on.

I'm going to appeal to RAI here which some people will disagree with, but oh well. This result is clearly not the intention, ergo the resurrected Guilliman is the same Guilliman, ergo you don't pay reinforcement points.

This is correct. A fresh unit would have the rules re-set, as well as his wounds.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Also, Gulliman's rule says you're setting him up again, not setting up a new unit that's also a Gulliman. Therefore, you're setting the same unit up again, not a new unit.

To set something up .. it needs to first be removed tho yes?

so Reading the rule over and over ..

RG is hit, fails a save so we follow the apply damage step .. he loses his last wound (Reduced to 0 wounds) and NOW we are instructed to roll a dice..

What the rule does NOT say is "Instead of removing" or instead of being slain etc... it lets you carry on the logic of the game and RG is removed from the table (To either be setup or not at the end of the phase)

if he is NOT removed, because armour of fate ... how can he be setup again?

if he is not removed .. he can still be targeted

if he is not removed, the opponent Cannot score Slay the Warlord or king slayer..

If he IS removed .. and replaced .. then he is doing so using points as per the instructions for adding a new unit to the army.

____________

I Should add here that this is not picking on RG alone .. I actually do not want it to work this way, I play Necrons and this applies to a relic and a stratagem in similar fashion.

The flaw in your logic is assuming he is remived and replaced. He is removed, but placed again when the rules tell you to. This does not cost reinforcement points. Otherwise, you would have to pay reinforcement points for anybody embarking then disembarking from a vehicle, using Gate of Inifinity, etc.

 doctortom wrote:


The flaw in your logic is assuming he is removed and replaced. He is removed, but placed again when the rules tell you to. This does not cost reinforcement points.

Otherwise, you would have to pay reinforcement points for anybody embarking then disembarking from a vehicle, using Gate of Inifinity, etc.

Not really, Reinforcement points only call when a NEW unit is added (summoning) .. OR when a destroyed unit is replaced (Resurrection).

disembarking etc. is not one of those things.

..................

The whole premise relies on the RAW matching the RAI and I'm afraid as has been mentioned already is that this is one of those RAI moments, which I can accept.

JohnnyHell said it best ... this is now more of a thought exercise .. as GW have so many conflicting ways that a single USR could have done the job for all instances

I don't for one minute think that Roboute should cost 800 points for a chance to come back

BUT

if the Logic applies to him, then I expect the same logic to apply to all resurrection abilities

Nothing has changed he has been around for a long time and is a commonly seen tourney model there is therefore consensus on how he is played amongst rhe majority of the community in this case that he doesnt cost reinforcement points. Arguing about it wont change that.

 doctortom wrote:
The flaw in your logic is assuming he is removed and replaced. He is removed, but placed again when the rules tell you to. This does not cost reinforcement points.

But when is a unit considered destroyed? Is it when the last (or in this case, only) model is removed from the table?

Does RG's rule state it takes affect before you remove the model or after you remove the model? Alternatively, does it state it takes affect before his unit is considered destroyed?

If a unit is destroyed when its last model is removed from the table, and RG's rule doesn't intrude itself in removing the model, then he would require Reinforcement Points to return as his unit was destroyed and the unit would be returning to the table when his model is.

If RG's rule DOES intrude itself before removing the model, then he wouldn't require Reinforcement Points to return, as the unit is not being returned to the table.

I have not seen rules quoted on any of those questions, just statements on how they should be considered.

U02dah4 wrote:Nothing has changed he has been around for a long time and is a commonly seen tourney model there is therefore consensus on how he is played amongst rhe majority of the community in this case that he doesnt cost reinforcement points. Arguing about it wont change that.

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes these discussions get back to the TC's and they change their minds for their packets.

There is a relevant FAQ for nids. Endless Swarm brings back a destroyed unit.

Q: Do you pay reinforcement points in matched play
for units brought back into the game using the Endless
Swarm Stratagem?
A: Yes.

I'm sorry but..
RG Armour of Fate was FAQd already

ULTRAMARINES
Q: Does Roboute Guilliman’s ability to return to the battle
via the Armour of Fate require the controlling player to have
reinforcement points for it?
A: No.

DamonRafael wrote:
I'm sorry but..
RG Armour of Fate was FAQd already

ULTRAMARINES
Q: Does Roboute Guilliman’s ability to return to the battle
via the Armour of Fate require the controlling player to have
reinforcement points for it?
A: No.

You know .. I didn't even think to look in the INDEX FAQ ... has it been so long already lol

Not many do seeing index FAQ's are not valid anymore. Luckily no need for it here.

why do you say index's faqs are not valid anymore?
The rule is the same, I can't see why we shouldn't rely on those

tneva82 wrote:
...index FAQ's are not valid anymore...

Do you have any proof?

 DeathReaper wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
...index FAQ's are not valid anymore...

Do you have any proof?

Do you have proof that they do apply? You can't apply FAQs for one book to another, that simply isn't how it works. You can't prove a negative, it's up to you to show positive proof that they are valid.

Its clear evidence of RAI at the very least

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
...index FAQ's are not valid anymore...

Do you have any proof?

Do you have proof that they do apply? You can't apply FAQs for one book to another, that simply isn't how it works. You can't prove a negative, it's up to you to show positive proof that they are valid.

the FAQ refers to a rule. There are no reasons at all to say that said FAQ can't be applied if the rule itself is copy-pasted to another book.

I think we're done here.