Re: Lt's reinforcing. 2 Things:

1. Why does the table contain reinforcement costs for creatures from AoD and WoD since an Lt. cannot reinforce them because they are not printed on his card?

This is another area which is a bit annoying. They didnt include enough AoD and WoD stuff in RtL. Some of the Lt's should have minions from AoD and WoD listed as possible reinforcements - but not sure what.

2. I presumed that the reinforcement value was a kinda rough comparable rating. However, comparing Beastmen, Ferrox, and Deep Elves, all of which are worth 4 - Are they actually that similar? I thought Deep Elves were a lot better. But then again, maybe they are, just not enough to cost 5.

The reinforcement costs are not in any way a good metric for the 'power' of a monster. Looking at the incredibly cheap cost of Nagas compared to like Beastmen proves this, as Nagas are pretty much the best creature in RtL.

However, it is *possible* that the Reinforcement costs were made as they are not to balance costs for the monsters, but as a subtle way of balancing the Lieutenants themselves. Maybe the cheap cost of Nagas is a sneaky way of strengthening Lady Eliza (the only Lt. who can summon them), who would otherwise be too weak if they were appropriately costed, and the high cost of useless Ogres is a stealth nerf to Thaadd.

Or maybe, there just wasn't that much work that went into those numbers. It's one of the two.

1) I imagine the reason they included the critters from the expansion was in preparation for future expansions and whatnot.

2) I agree with The_Immortal's assessment, with one addendum: To use the Naga as an example... Yes, in general, it is superior to a beastman. However, in an outdoor encounter, with trees constantly being an issue, a Naga is severely limited in both its movement and its ability to attack at range. Then again, the other non-flying large monsters aren't similarly less expensive, so who knows. Probably Imm's argument is a strong one ;-)