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.

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.

To me it clearly says that points 5-8 do not apply to Endless Greentide and those rules (points 5-8) represent new units rather than existing units etc, which implies that the unit affected by Endless Greentide is the same one from the beginning and not a new one as points 5-8 do not apply in that case.

I wonder if there is a misunderstanding here, in how the English language is being applied? I notice we've got a few international posters in the thread and it's fair to say, the rule is a complicated sentence.
So just in case:

The sentence starts the part in brackets with the word "including". The way that the sentence is structured, means that the part in brackets - "units set up via a rule that instructs you to remove a unit then set it back up at its full starting strength" - is considered to be a part of the group that comes just before it - "unit that has been set up because it is replacing a destroyed unit".

In other words - the group of various rules considered to be replacing destroyed units includes a unit that has been removed and set back up at full strength. So rules-wise, it is no longer considered the same unit, it has been replaced.

Except if it has a status effect on it, that status effect remains. Ergo it is not a new unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except if it has a status effect on it, that status effect remains. Ergo it is not a new unit.

Is this the case...? I see nothing on the stratagem or the Codex FAQ to prove this out.
It may be irrelevant anyway, depending on the wording. If there is indeed a rule to say the unit keeps status effects, without confirming that it is indeed the same unit, that doesn't do anything to override it being a new unit. It would just mean the new unit gets the status effects of the old one.

I think we have a case here of two rules that do not need to be directly tied to each other. Since the unit is not a new unit (UGT doesn't instruct you to add a unit) nor a replacement to a destroyed unit, it does not require Reinforcement points to be used.

However, as a unit that was removed from the board and setup at full strength, it "counts" as a new unit for the purposes of the rules for Repositioned and Replacement Units.

This is not unlike the rules for "out of phase actions" allow you to utilize all relevant rules, aura, and the like for a phase, but not utilize stratagems that call for a specific phase unless you are actually in that phase.

I believe it might be useful to compare what is said about the subject in eigth edition core rules (which I think my friend has in his basement, I can't find mine now) vs what is said about it in ninth edition core rules, because its entirely possible that it was an intentional shift in the way the rule viewed orks as a result of the specific rephrasing of the matter in the rare rules section for 9.

In other words, yes, I believe green tide DIDNT require poitns to use in 8, but they may intend it to in nine, and if the phrasing of the relevant core rulebook stuff was altered to make sure it did, then its not just raw, but rai, that it should be treated now like 8th edition send in the next wave for valhalla.

IE, it becomes a narrative play strategem, basically, or useful only to obtain a full unit that can't be shot off the board easily because it comes in new from reinforcements on turn 2. Which seems a poor trade for just buying a second such unit and putting it in strategic reserves, in matched play games.

 alextroy wrote:
I think we have a case here of two rules that do not need to be directly tied to each other. Since the unit is not a new unit (UGT doesn't instruct you to add a unit) nor a replacement to a destroyed unit, it does not require Reinforcement points to be used.
However, as a unit that was removed from the board and setup at full strength, it "counts" as a new unit for the purposes of the rules for Repositioned and Replacement Units.
This is not unlike the rules for "out of phase actions" allow you to utilize all relevant rules, aura, and the like for a phase, but not utilize stratagems that call for a specific phase unless you are actually in that phase.

Again though, what about that last line...? It gives us the intent:

"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."

I would normally have agreed with you were it not for that line, but I do also have to point out that if your position was correct, it's missing some wording - there are plenty of other examples in the rules that are presented as "for the purposes of (this rule)"... and that wording isn't used here.

No where in either rule are you instructed to pay Reinforcement points in this case. You are working backwards to reach that conclusion.

So, why exactly is a unit that is set up again considered a unit that is "added to your army"?

The two rules simply define a different set of situations they affect, there is no reason to assume one affects the other.

I think there is some confusion going on between the mechanics, and the description for why certian rules do, or dot not apply.

Mechanically the unit is removed from the table, and then set up again (at full strength). Thus, mechanically Reinforcement Points aren't needed as in terms of the army list it is the same unit. So for example the unit would (still) be considered part of the detachment etc...

As a unit removed and then re-deployed at full strength only points 1-4 apply as stated on pg 363.

Descriptively this represent a load more boyz rocking up, rather than a load of boyz getting back up. Hence why any 'affects' are wiped clean (i.e. point 8 doesn't apply)