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.

You pick up a unit that is below half strength and put it back on the table in full strength.
Page 241 states: New units and units replacing others have to be payed for in reinforcement points.
Page 363 states: Units that are removed from the table and put back in full strength are not the same unit, but a new unit.
So when using Unstoppable Green Tide in a games using points I would have to pay reinforcement points.
I didn't find anything contradicting this.

So is "Having to pay reinforcement points for Unstoppable Green Tide" the correct way to play and if not can you please give a reference saying different.

Thanks.

brumbaer wrote:

Page 363 states: Units that are removed from the table and put back in full strength are not the same unit, but a new unit.

This is not what page 363 states.
Page 363 says:
"Some rules enable units to teleport or else be repositioned and set back up on the battlefield. Other rules enable units to be removed from the battlefield and be replaced by a new, full-strength unit, which is then set up on the battlefield."
"Some rules" and "other rules" is not the same as "every rule".

The Unstoppable Green Tide stratagem says:
"Use at the end of your movement phase. Select a unit of Boyz that has less than half of its starting number of models remaining. Remove it from the battlefield and set up the unit at full strength within 6″ of a board edge and at least 9″ from an enemy model."
This rule is clear in that the unit that returns is the same unit that was removed, but restored to full strength in the process. It doesn't mention the unit being new, or replaced.

But at the end of the box
"Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including unita set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength). These rules reprersent new units jopining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield."

 Super Ready wrote:

brumbaer wrote:

Page 363 states: Units that are removed from the table and put back in full strength are not the same unit, but a new unit.

This is not what page 363 states.
Page 363 says:
"Some rules enable units to teleport or else be repositioned and set back up on the battlefield. Other rules enable units to be removed from the battlefield and be replaced by a new, full-strength unit, which is then set up on the battlefield."
"Some rules" and "other rules" is not the same as "every rule".

The Unstoppable Green Tide stratagem says:
"Use at the end of your movement phase. Select a unit of Boyz that has less than half of its starting number of models remaining. Remove it from the battlefield and set up the unit at full strength within 6″ of a board edge and at least 9″ from an enemy model."
This rule is clear in that the unit that returns is the same unit that was removed, but restored to full strength in the process. It doesn't mention the unit being new, or replaced.

You missed the last line.

BRB, Page 363 wrote:Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength). These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield.

@OP: Yes, you must pay reinforcement points for the new unit, and must pay reinforcement points for the entire spawned unit, not just points for the models replacing previously slain models. If your unit of Boyz cost 240 points, you need 240 points of Reinforcement Points to use Unstoppable Green Tide to bring it back. Now, IIRC, buffs like 'Ard Boyz would still apply to the refreshed unit since those buffs aren't a limited duration.

Ahh, my bad! I did indeed miss that line. Agreed, then, reinforcement points must be paid.

An ork unit which is set up at full strength with UGT is neither a new unit, nor is it replacing a destroyed unit. You dont have to pay reinforcement points for them.

 p5freak wrote:
An ork unit which is set up at full strength with UGT is neither a new unit, nor is it replacing a destroyed unit. You dont have to pay reinforcement points for them.

Use this Stratagem at the end of your Movement phase. Select a unit of BOYZ from your army that has less than half its starting number of models and remove it from the battlefield. You can then set it up again wholly within 6" of the edge of the battlefield and more than 9" from any enemy models, at its full starting strength. You cannot select a unit for this Stratagem that has been merged via the Mob Up Stratagem. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.

Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength) These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield..

Some rules allow you to add new units to your army during the battle, or else replace units that have been destroyed.

To me this implies (at least) that units that are removed and set up at full strength are equivalent to destroyed units.

Perhaps worth considering, nowhere does Green Tide state that you are "adding models" (as is done with the GSC strat for example).

You simply deploy at full starting strength.

So it's somewhat questionable IMO, whether any rules written to govern "adding models to units" (including the no-reinforcement-points rule) would apply.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
An ork unit which is set up at full strength with UGT is neither a new unit, nor is it replacing a destroyed unit. You dont have to pay reinforcement points for them.

Use this Stratagem at the end of your Movement phase. Select a unit of BOYZ from your army that has less than half its starting number of models and remove it from the battlefield. You can then set it up again wholly within 6" of the edge of the battlefield and more than 9" from any enemy models, at its full starting strength. You cannot select a unit for this Stratagem that has been merged via the Mob Up Stratagem. You can only use this Stratagem once per battle.

Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength) These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield..

Some rules allow you to add new units to your army during the battle, or else replace units that have been destroyed.

To me this implies (at least) that units that are removed and set up at full strength are equivalent to destroyed units.

Well, i see your point. Its a grey area, and it needs a FAQ clarification. HIWPI, it already costs 3CP, so thats enough, paying another 250+ pts. would be to much.

Well, strats like Send in the Next Wave, etc.. aren't cheap on CP either and still do cost reinforcement points.

It would (potentially) seem logical for GW to close that loop-hole that Orks had to get around having to play by the same rules other armies do with these type of strats.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
To me this implies (at least) that units that are removed and set up at full strength are equivalent to destroyed units.

It's just an interpretation of the rules. A very odd one actually.

RAW it's pretty clear to me that you don't need to pay reinforcement points for using that stratagem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, strats like Send in the Next Wave, etc.. aren't cheap on CP either and still do cost reinforcement points.

It would (potentially) seem logical for GW to close that loop-hole that Orks had to get around having to play by the same rules other armies do with these type of strats.

Other armies can restore wounds or even resurrect models for free though via datasheet abilities or paying just 1CP (Hospitaller, Apothecary, etc...), even expensive ones, multiple times per game.

 Blackie wrote:

Other armies can restore wounds or even resurrect models for free though via datasheet abilities or paying just 1CP (Hospitaller, Apothecary, etc...), even expensive ones, multiple times per game.

Then why does „Send in the Next Wave“ costs Reinforcement Points for a Guard player?

RAW, the wording of Green Tide matches that of Next Wave, setting up a unit at starting strength (which is also what the rare rules section references), not adding models to a unit as found in the wording of the Apothecary.

Is that „fair“? Maybe not, but that wasn’t the question.

Send in the next wave affects a unit that was destroyed.

Unstoppable greentide can't be used on a destroyed unit.

The AM stratagem can be applied every game and only costs 2CPs. The ork one can be applied only if the opponent doesn't finish a unit off and costs 3CPs.

They are very different actually. Unstoppable green tide is basically a combination of the Hospitaller rule that resuscitates models and a limited Da Jump. Tell me where in the rules it says that a unit that is removed from the battlefield to be repositioned counts as destroyed.

Page 241, Reinforcement Points: "Sometimes a rule will allow you to add extra models to an EXISTING unit from your army during the battle. UNLESS OTHERWISE STARTED, adding these models DOES NOT cost any reinforcement points".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Now, IIRC, buffs like 'Ard Boyz would still apply to the refreshed unit since those buffs aren't a limited duration.

'Ard boyz is referred to a specific unit. If that unit counts as destroyed and it's replaced by a new one, it's true that 'ard boyz doesn't have a limited duration but it can't be transfered to a new unit either.

 Blackie wrote:
Page 241, Reinforcement Points: "Sometimes a rule will allow you to add extra models to an EXISTING unit from your army during the battle. UNLESS OTHERWISE STARTED, adding these models DOES NOT cost any reinforcement points".

This doesn't make any reference to units being removed from the battlefield wholesale and being set back up, though - so the immediate example that springs to mind is Reanimation Protocols.

However, I would say that this rule amply covers that "otherwise stated" criteria, because it states a unit being removed then set back up at starting strength counts as replacing a destroyed unit:

Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength). These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield.

That line even goes so far as to specify the intent as well as the RAW, removing any grounds for the opposing argument completely. This should be put to bed already.

It is not replacing a destroyed unit, and the parens statement only applies to the subject - destroyed units. Not any time a unit is brought back

BCB - there's only an implication if you treat the list as exhaustive, which has zero textual support. The list is not defined as exhausted, so you cannot assume it is.

RAW no reinforcement points.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is not replacing a destroyed unit, and the parens statement only applies to the subject - destroyed units. Not any time a unit is brought back

BCB - there's only an implication if you treat the list as exhaustive, which has zero textual support. The list is not defined as exhausted, so you cannot assume it is.

RAW no reinforcement points.

The phrase "(including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength)" begs to differ with what you say. It's not saying to remove a destroyed unit and set it back up at full strength.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It is not replacing a destroyed unit, and the parens statement only applies to the subject - destroyed units.

The part I quoted in my last post literally says, "by the way, if a unit is removed then brought back at its starting strength, it counts as replacing a destroyed unit." Because that's what the context of the word "includes" means in that line.
It is literally the only reason that part in brackets exists. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

The part in brackets can be removed and not change the rule. That's the function of parens. You're saying it changes the rule...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The part in brackets can be removed and not change the rule. That's the function of parens. You're saying it changes the rule...

The brackets don’t change the rule, but they add more things the rule for replacing destroyed units covers, specifically units removed before they are completely destroyed and set up at full strength.

E.g. Red miniatures (and green miniatures) get an extra 1“ of movement.

The brackets don’t change the rule, but expand the things it applies to.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The part in brackets can be removed and not change the rule. That's the function of parens. You're saying it changes the rule...

The brackets don’t change the rule, but they add more things the rule for replacing destroyed units covers, specifically units removed before they are completely destroyed and set up at full strength.
E.g. Red miniatures (and green miniatures) get an extra 1“ of movement.
The brackets don’t change the rule, but expand the things it applies to.

Bingo, this. Again, it's really not difficult. The inclusion of restored and re-set-up units in this definition, is the only reason for those brackets to exist.

Bah, until I see a FAQ that explicits says that Endless Green Tide costs 240 points of reinforcement points I won't believe that argument.

Not that it would affect my games as I never use that stratagem (I don't play large squads of boyz) anyway.

To me it's insane to even think that the intended rule is to pay 240 reinforcement points (+ special weapons) that most of the times couldn't be used to reposition a full mob of boyz. There are little chances to get those 240 points, that's why Endless Greentide isn't that powerful even at the basic cost of 3 CPs. Basically the ork player would play with -240 points pretty much every game.

At that point why don't put a squad of boyz in reserve instead of paying the same amount of reinforcement points? It would cost 240 points and 2 CPs with full unrestricted deep strike instead of 3 CPs and limitations where to appear.

What page is the whole: "Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength). These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield."?

It's the boxout on page 363, under Rare Rules. And yes, I did miss the line at first too.

To me it's insane to even think that the intended rule is to pay 240 reinforcement points (+ special weapons) that most of the times couldn't be used to reposition a full mob of boyz.

Yeah, it's not an ideal way to spend the points. But then I'd say it's insane to be able to bring somewhere around 200 points on and reposition it somewhere on the battlefield for just CP, even if it is 3.
We could argue intent until we're blue in the face - personally I think it's intended because of the rule for paying reinforcement points at all is a statement of intent in general for bringing large units on, but I agree that it isn't worth it and isn't the best way this could have been applied. Having a separate mob of boyz is the way I'd go instead.

 Super Ready wrote:

Yeah, it's not an ideal way to spend the points. But then I'd say it's insane to be able to bring somewhere around 200 points on and reposition it somewhere on the battlefield for just CP, even if it is 3.

It never was gamebreaking in 8th and it isn't now though.

The point is many competitive ork lists have been based on multiple 30man squads of boyz in 9th, none was using reinforcement points. We're talking about GT gaming, not games against friends. Now I don't have the battle reports on everything but if Endless Greentide was barred from these kind of lists (all of which were 2000 points on the nose, no reinforcements) it would certainly have came out in some review. So far I've only read about Endless Greentide matching very well goffs lists, and I found hard to believe that pros have done it wrong the whole time.

Sisters, SM, Necrons, etc... can all bring back 200+ points of stuff, not on a single unit but usually on stuff way more valuable than boyz, paying nothing. Not points or CPs.

 Blackie wrote:

To me it's insane to even think that the intended rule is to pay 240 reinforcement points (+ special weapons) that most of the times couldn't be used to reposition a full mob of boyz. There are little chances to get those 240 points, that's why Endless Greentide isn't that powerful even at the basic cost of 3 CPs. Basically the ork player would play with -240 points pretty much every game.

Why would that be insane if that's exactly how it works for Imperial Guard and Tyranids?

So Orks just get to skip all that cost because they have a model or two left before they bring the unit back? Seems just as whacky to assume that.

It changes the rule by changing "destroyed unit} to mean something completely different. A unit that exists is not by definition a destroyed unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It changes the rule by changing "destroyed unit} to mean something completely different. A unit that exists is not by definition a destroyed unit.

No? It just says those different things follow the same rules.

"Cars (and Motorcycles) have to turn right" doesn't turn Motorcycles into cars. Of course motorcycle aren't cars. It just makes Motorcycles also turn right.


"Destroyed units that are replaced (and units removed and set up at full starting strength) are considered new units" does at no point claim to turn those covered under the bracket into destroyed units. It just places them into the same category for the purpose of rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It changes the rule by changing "destroyed unit} to mean something completely different. A unit that exists is not by definition a destroyed unit.

Which is irrelevant since the quote I gave clearly stated that they are including units you take off the table, then set up again at full strength. As the others have said, what was in the parentheses was an addition to what was affected by the rule. It doesn't make sense, but that is how GW wrote it. As to whether tournaments follow the RAW for it is a different matter...

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Why would that be insane if that's exactly how it works for Imperial Guard and Tyranids?

So Orks just get to skip all that cost because they have a model or two left before they bring the unit back? Seems just as whacky to assume that.

I've already explained. Because for IG and tyranids works everytime, for orks it doesn't.

If the boyz unit is wiped out the player can't use those 240+ reinforcement points. That's a huge difference with the armies you mentioned.

I finally managed to get a close look to the Advanced Rules section and now it's 100% clear that orks don't have to pay reinforcement points for the use of Endless Greentide.

The last part says: Note that points 5-8 do not apply to any unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit (including units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength) These rules represent new units joining the fight, rather than the existing units being repositioned on the battlefield..

The repositioned full strenght boyz unit is definitely the same unit and not a new one, as clearly stated. Hence the player doesn't need to pay reinforcement points to apply the stratagem. Which is also the way all GTs resolved this matter so far.

It literally says "remov[ing] a unit then set[ing] it back up at its full starting strength" "represent[s] new units joining the fight". How you can interpret that as "definitely the same unit and not a new one" is beyond me.

However, I am not 100% certain and I think that perhaps because you can't use EGT if the unit has died might justify not costing reinforcement points.