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.

nekooni wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Fortunately, they added a note to the codex to address this issue. I really don't understand how people can read the note as not saying that you're paying less than 8 points for the team.

There're 10 soldiers in a squad, each one costs 4 points. Now two of these guys bring a heavy weapon along for 5 points. That makes a total of 45 points, but I don't have to pay extra for having the ability to bring a heavy weapon if I chose to do so - I only pay extra for the heavy weapon itself.

You don't pay extra, but you also don't pay less.
Otherwise I'd like to know how you end up with 36 points plus the heavy weapon.

* Why is one guardsmen still being paid for?
* Why aren't you paying just 32 + the Heavy Weapon now?
* Why would you assume that yours is the proper interpretation when a squad with a mortar now is cheaper than a squad without?

I won't claim that it's the best interpretation for a rules-as-written argument, but it's a pretty good pick for rules-as-intended, and it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules as written.

You dont "pay" for guardsmen, you calculate a value based on the number of MODELS.
A HWT is a single model.
An infantry squad with a HWT consist of 9 models. So that makes 36pts according to the codex, then you add the wargear for each model.

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Fortunately, they added a note to the codex to address this issue. I really don't understand how people can read the note as not saying that you're paying less than 8 points for the team.

There're 10 soldiers in a squad, each one costs 4 points. Now two of these guys bring a heavy weapon along for 5 points. That makes a total of 45 points, but I don't have to pay extra for having the ability to bring a heavy weapon if I chose to do so - I only pay extra for the heavy weapon itself.

You don't pay extra, but you also don't pay less.
Otherwise I'd like to know how you end up with 36 points plus the heavy weapon.

* Why is one guardsmen still being paid for?
* Why aren't you paying just 32 + the Heavy Weapon now?
* Why would you assume that yours is the proper interpretation when a squad with a mortar now is cheaper than a squad without?

I won't claim that it's the best interpretation for a rules-as-written argument, but it's a pretty good pick for rules-as-intended, and it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules as written.

You dont "pay" for guardsmen, you calculate a value based on the number of MODELS.
A HWT is a single model.
An infantry squad with a HWT consist of 9 models. So that makes 36pts according to the codex, then you add the wargear for each model.

Wouldn't that make the unit Understrength then, since you only have 9 models, not 10? Which means you can only include it in an Auxiliary Support Detachment. Correct?

 Happyjew wrote:

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Fortunately, they added a note to the codex to address this issue. I really don't understand how people can read the note as not saying that you're paying less than 8 points for the team.

There're 10 soldiers in a squad, each one costs 4 points. Now two of these guys bring a heavy weapon along for 5 points. That makes a total of 45 points, but I don't have to pay extra for having the ability to bring a heavy weapon if I chose to do so - I only pay extra for the heavy weapon itself.

You don't pay extra, but you also don't pay less.
Otherwise I'd like to know how you end up with 36 points plus the heavy weapon.

* Why is one guardsmen still being paid for?
* Why aren't you paying just 32 + the Heavy Weapon now?
* Why would you assume that yours is the proper interpretation when a squad with a mortar now is cheaper than a squad without?

I won't claim that it's the best interpretation for a rules-as-written argument, but it's a pretty good pick for rules-as-intended, and it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules as written.

You dont "pay" for guardsmen, you calculate a value based on the number of MODELS.
A HWT is a single model.
An infantry squad with a HWT consist of 9 models. So that makes 36pts according to the codex, then you add the wargear for each model.

Wouldn't that make the unit Understrength then, since you only have 9 models, not 10? Which means you can only include it in an Auxiliary Support Detachment. Correct?

Well...you tell me. RAW it sure looks like it since no matter how or when, its still only 9 models.

Jeez come on people... arguing this is an understrength squad is just silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Jeez come on people... arguing this is an understrength squad is just silly.

It was never the intention of the thread, it is just a sidenote that came up when looking into the rules.
Im positive we all agree that an infantry squad with HWT is not understrength, but what to make of the rules.

And im still not sure how we are supposed to calculate the value of infantry squads

They don't appear to meet the definition of understrength units given in the rulebook.

So...36pts, 38pts or 40pts?

Soulless wrote:
So...36pts, 38pts or 40pts?

We don't know, all are potentially correct and without official GW clarification you'll have to check pre-game every single time, or assume the most expensive.

Soulless wrote:


The codex specifically says that in order to determine your armys total points value you add up the values for all models and their wargear. In which case we would be trading two 4pts guardmen for one 6pts HWT.
But since the codex states that there is no additional points cost for HWTs in an infantry squad, that should mean we get the HWT for 4pts. (otherwise it wouldnt need to state this since 6pts is still less then the 8pts we pay for the two initial guardsmen).

That leaves us with 9 models, 4pts each.

You're paying 4 points each for 10 models. . . the 6 points you are referencing specifically refers to a totally different unit. The 6 points is per model for a Heavy Weapons Squad, not a HWT.

Unit entry says 2 guys form a heavy weapon team. There is no cost associated with THIS move, until you account for the points of whichever heavy weapon you equip them with, and specifically the codex states they MUST take a heavy weapon from the list.

So yeah. . .looks like you're paying 2 points more for a troops slot heavy weapon because you're still paying the 40 points for the base squad.



EDIT: I would say this is an order of operations thing. . .the base squad is 10 models, ergo 40 points. Once you've paid for the squad, you're trading one "model" to create a larger base (note that HWTs have 2 wounds,) the combination of bodies to get a HWT is an upgrade. You don't pay less points for "9 models" because you're eventually going to pay points for a gun.

Dionysodorus wrote:
They don't appear to meet the definition of understrength units given in the rulebook.

Understrength Units
"Each unit's datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. "

Index Imperium 2 (I don't have the IG Codex yet, but I'm assuming this part is the same)
This unit contains 1 Sergeant and 9 Guardsmen (page 16)
Infantry Squad - 10 models (page 142)

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

Of course we all know that this is NOT intended, and no one in their right mind would try to force someone to play it that way.

Anywho, back to the real topic at hand.

Soulless wrote:
So...36pts, 38pts or 40pts?

For the reason Ensis Ferrae gives above (that the 6 point cost is per Heavy Weapons Team in a Heavy Weapons Squad) it's definitely not 38 points. I think it's obvious that two models are being considered as one per the current Heavy Weapons Team models, and so it should be obviously 40 points plus the cost of the heavy weapon.

 Happyjew wrote:

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

No. . . Because per the unit entry, you are "upgrading" the unit with a HWT. You're not under strength at all. You still bought a 10 model squad.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Soulless wrote:


The codex specifically says that in order to determine your armys total points value you add up the values for all models and their wargear. In which case we would be trading two 4pts guardmen for one 6pts HWT.
But since the codex states that there is no additional points cost for HWTs in an infantry squad, that should mean we get the HWT for 4pts. (otherwise it wouldnt need to state this since 6pts is still less then the 8pts we pay for the two initial guardsmen).

That leaves us with 9 models, 4pts each.

You're paying 4 points each for 10 models. . . the 6 points you are referencing specifically refers to a totally different unit. The 6 points is per model for a Heavy Weapons Squad, not a HWT.

Unit entry says 2 guys form a heavy weapon team. There is no cost associated with THIS move, until you account for the points of whichever heavy weapon you equip them with, and specifically the codex states they MUST take a heavy weapon from the list.

So yeah. . .looks like you're paying 2 points more for a troops slot heavy weapon because you're still paying the 40 points for the base squad.



EDIT: I would say this is an order of operations thing. . .the base squad is 10 models, ergo 40 points. Once you've paid for the squad, you're trading one "model" to create a larger base (note that HWTs have 2 wounds,) the combination of bodies to get a HWT is an upgrade. You don't pay less points for "9 models" because you're eventually going to pay points for a gun.

Points arent spent as you build your army, they are calculated for a finished army, based on the army's final composition.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

No. . . Because per the unit entry, you are "upgrading" the unit with a HWT. You're not under strength at all. You still bought a 10 model squad.

That's probably the best solution still, and means the squad is still 40 points.

nekooni wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

No. . . Because per the unit entry, you are "upgrading" the unit with a HWT. You're not under strength at all. You still bought a 10 model squad.

That's probably the best solution still, and means the squad is still 40 points.

Nope, because points dont come into play until after the squad has finished all its upgrades and equipped all its models.

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

No. . . Because per the unit entry, you are "upgrading" the unit with a HWT. You're not under strength at all. You still bought a 10 model squad.

That's probably the best solution still, and means the squad is still 40 points.

Nope, because points dont come into play until after the squad has finished all its upgrades and equipped all its models.

But then you're under strength again, aren't you?

nekooni wrote:

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

No. . . Because per the unit entry, you are "upgrading" the unit with a HWT. You're not under strength at all. You still bought a 10 model squad.

That's probably the best solution still, and means the squad is still 40 points.

Nope, because points dont come into play until after the squad has finished all its upgrades and equipped all its models.

But then you're under strength again, aren't you?

I dunno, you tell me. Im only interested in how to calculate the points for a squad, and the rules state that points values are added up for all models in an army, which I read as all models present in the final army.

Soulless wrote:
I dunno, you tell me. Im only interested in how to calculate the points for a squad, and the rules state that points values are added up for all models in an army, which I read as all models present in the final army.

Well that's certainly a helpful attitude, thanks for the great conversation.

nekooni wrote:

Soulless wrote:
I dunno, you tell me. Im only interested in how to calculate the points for a squad, and the rules state that points values are added up for all models in an army, which I read as all models present in the final army.

Well that's certainly a helpful attitude, thanks for the great conversation.

What did I do wrong now, ive tried nothing but be polite and ask for help to figure out how this should be ruled...Yet you find something wrong with my attitude?
You asking me a question I cannot answer so i wonder, can you and if so please tell me how you would rule this.

The squad is clearly consisting of 9 models, with one being a HWT. But we know that GW doesnt intend every infantry squad with a HWT to be considered understrength.
Points are calculated after a squad is completely configured which should mean it is based on a 9 model unit.

If there is something ive missed, in the rules or codex or erratas/faqs that clears this up then please tell me.

 Happyjew wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
They don't appear to meet the definition of understrength units given in the rulebook.

Understrength Units
"Each unit's datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. "

Index Imperium 2 (I don't have the IG Codex yet, but I'm assuming this part is the same)
This unit contains 1 Sergeant and 9 Guardsmen (page 16)
Infantry Squad - 10 models (page 142)

So per the index, an Infantry Squad is 10 models. If you have 9 models, you technically have an understrength unit, and as such can only take it as part of an Auxiliary Support.

Of course we all know that this is NOT intended, and no one in their right mind would try to force someone to play it that way.

Anywho, back to the real topic at hand.

If you continue and read the rest of the datasheet, you will see that two of the Guardsmen can be replaced by a HWT. So obviously this is not an understrength unit, per the datasheet. There appears to be no case whatsoever that it is. it is not obvious that the unit size given in the point listing has any rules meaning at all, and certainly it is irrelevant for determining whether the unit is understrength.

As I've said, I think if you want to try to do some ridiculous RAW thing here, what appears to be the case is that you're trading 2 Guardsmen for 2 HWTs (by analogy to other entries in the Guard codex like the Special Weapons Squad).

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Soulless wrote:
I dunno, you tell me. Im only interested in how to calculate the points for a squad, and the rules state that points values are added up for all models in an army, which I read as all models present in the final army.

Well that's certainly a helpful attitude, thanks for the great conversation.

What did I do wrong now, ive tried nothing but be polite and ask for help to figure out how this should be ruled...Yet you find something wrong with my attitude?
You asking me a question I cannot answer so i wonder, can you and if so please tell me how you would rule this.

The squad is clearly consisting of 9 models, with one being a HWT. But we know that GW doesnt intend every infantry squad with a HWT to be considered understrength.
Points are calculated after a squad is completely configured which should mean it is based on a 9 model unit.

If there is something ive missed, in the rules or codex or erratas/faqs that clears this up then please tell me.

As I said above, it's essentially order of operations in a math problem. . .

You start with 10 guys, costing 40 points, you melt 2 of them together to create a 2 wound model, you're still at 40 points. Notice the block where it says you do the thing to take a heavy weapons team is in the upgrade box?? You've already paid your base points cost for them at that point.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Soulless wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Soulless wrote:
I dunno, you tell me. Im only interested in how to calculate the points for a squad, and the rules state that points values are added up for all models in an army, which I read as all models present in the final army.

Well that's certainly a helpful attitude, thanks for the great conversation.

What did I do wrong now, ive tried nothing but be polite and ask for help to figure out how this should be ruled...Yet you find something wrong with my attitude?
You asking me a question I cannot answer so i wonder, can you and if so please tell me how you would rule this.

The squad is clearly consisting of 9 models, with one being a HWT. But we know that GW doesnt intend every infantry squad with a HWT to be considered understrength.
Points are calculated after a squad is completely configured which should mean it is based on a 9 model unit.

If there is something ive missed, in the rules or codex or erratas/faqs that clears this up then please tell me.

As I said above, it's essentially order of operations in a math problem. . .

You start with 10 guys, costing 40 points, you melt 2 of them together to create a 2 wound model, you're still at 40 points. Notice the block where it says you do the thing to take a heavy weapons team is in the upgrade box?? You've already paid your base points cost for them at that point.

This doesn't appear to be how anything else in the game works. For example, the Leman Russ datasheet says that you start with a single tank equipped with a battle cannon and a heavy bolter. In "the upgrade box", there are some options. One of these allows you to replace the battle cannon with another weapon, such as a demolisher cannon. If you do this, you don't have to pay for the battle cannon. It's not the case that you've "already paid" for the battle cannon and now have to pay additionally for the demolisher. The "Points Values" page also doesn't seem to say anything about constructing a unit's cost progressively in this way. It just says to add together the cost of everything that's actually in your army. The various indices are actually even clearer about this.

There are 10 dudes. They're 4 points each. Two of them swap out for 1 HWT model instead of being two separate dudes. No nothing else works this way (paying for men not modes) but it's not insurmountable.

You may disagree this is how it works and want a big old RAW! RAW! fight about 4 points, but I'm happy with common sense.

The reason it may be RAI for the cost to go down is you are a taking a hit scoring objectives. A guard squad (with no HWT) In combat with a guard squad with a HWT over an objective will win the objective because it is 10 models to 9.

Similarly, 2 guardsmen beat 1 HWT on an objective.

Also, morale kills models not wounds so the whole HWT might flee even if the morale check was only failed by one, whereas another squad may have 1 guardsman remaining in the same situation.

Dionysodorus wrote:

This doesn't appear to be how anything else in the game works. For example, the Leman Russ datasheet says that you start with a single tank equipped with a battle cannon and a heavy bolter. In "the upgrade box", there are some options. One of these allows you to replace the battle cannon with another weapon, such as a demolisher cannon. If you do this, you don't have to pay for the battle cannon. It's not the case that you've "already paid" for the battle cannon and now have to pay additionally for the demolisher. The "Points Values" page also doesn't seem to say anything about constructing a unit's cost progressively in this way. It just says to add together the cost of everything that's actually in your army. The various indices are actually even clearer about this.

Keyword there is replace. . . . you're not "replacing" any guardsmen

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

This doesn't appear to be how anything else in the game works. For example, the Leman Russ datasheet says that you start with a single tank equipped with a battle cannon and a heavy bolter. In "the upgrade box", there are some options. One of these allows you to replace the battle cannon with another weapon, such as a demolisher cannon. If you do this, you don't have to pay for the battle cannon. It's not the case that you've "already paid" for the battle cannon and now have to pay additionally for the demolisher. The "Points Values" page also doesn't seem to say anything about constructing a unit's cost progressively in this way. It just says to add together the cost of everything that's actually in your army. The various indices are actually even clearer about this.

Keyword there is replace. . . . you're not "replacing" any guardsmen

So what? Why do you believe that this difference in wording is telling you to invent a totally new method for computing the point cost of a unit?

Like, surely you realize that you're not getting this out of the rules, right? You have this idea of how the game should work, and then you're latching on to something unique about the rules text in question so that you can hang everything on this minor distinction. This is just kind of pointless -- there's no way that anyone finds this to be the least bit convincing such that it makes them more confident that your overall interpretation is correct.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

This doesn't appear to be how anything else in the game works. For example, the Leman Russ datasheet says that you start with a single tank equipped with a battle cannon and a heavy bolter. In "the upgrade box", there are some options. One of these allows you to replace the battle cannon with another weapon, such as a demolisher cannon. If you do this, you don't have to pay for the battle cannon. It's not the case that you've "already paid" for the battle cannon and now have to pay additionally for the demolisher. The "Points Values" page also doesn't seem to say anything about constructing a unit's cost progressively in this way. It just says to add together the cost of everything that's actually in your army. The various indices are actually even clearer about this.

Keyword there is replace. . . . you're not "replacing" any guardsmen

So what? Why do you believe that this difference in wording is telling you to invent a totally new method for computing the point cost of a unit?

Like, surely you realize that you're not getting this out of the rules, right? You have this idea of how the game should work, and then you're latching on to something unique about the rules text in question so that you can hang everything on this minor distinction. This is just kind of pointless -- there's no way that anyone finds this to be the least bit convincing such that it makes them more confident that your overall interpretation is correct.

The specific wording of the entry (and it's sitting right in front of me) is "Two other guardsmen may form a heavy weapons team who must take an item from the Heavy weapons list. How then would you pay less for a squad, when you specifically with rules as written have to pay for 2 guardsmen??

This isn't inventing a new way of calculating points, its following the damn unit entry.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

The specific wording of the entry (and it's sitting right in front of me) is "Two other guardsmen may form a heavy weapons team who must take an item from the Heavy weapons list. How then would you pay less for a squad, when you specifically with rules as written have to pay for 2 guardsmen??

This isn't inventing a new way of calculating points, its following the damn unit entry.

What? Where on earth does that say that you have to pay for 2 guardsmen? This is what I mean about you seeing the word "form" and then suddenly deciding that this means you have to invent a new way to compute the point cost of an army. There's absolutely nothing like that in there. Why not just follow the normal procedure: take your finished army list and tot up the cost of everything in it? The only legitimately confusing thing about any of this is that the point listing gives a minimum unit size of 10 -- if it said "9-10" then no one would ever have doubted that you pay less for the 9 model unit than the 10 model unit. WIth the index, it was unclear how to resolve this. Do you pay more than the listed per-model cost for the 9 model squad? Fortunately, the codex addresses this issue specifically with a note that, no, you don't pay extra if two Guardsmen form a HWT.

Dionysodorus wrote:

What? Where on earth does that say that you have to pay for 2 guardsmen? This is what I mean about you seeing the word "form" and then suddenly deciding that this means you have to invent a new way to compute the point cost of an army. There's absolutely nothing like that in there. Why not just follow the normal procedure: take your finished army list and tot up the cost of everything in it? The only legitimately confusing thing about any of this is that the point listing gives a minimum unit size of 10 -- if it said "9-10" then no one would ever have doubted that you pay less for the 9 model unit than the 10 model unit. WIth the index, it was unclear how to resolve this. Do you pay more than the listed per-model cost for the 9 model squad? Fortunately, the codex addresses this issue specifically with a note that, no, you don't pay extra if two Guardsmen form a HWT.

"Form" has no clear rules meaning, it relies on the players' interpretation.

If the unit size said "9-10" then you could take 9 guardsmen and no HWT, or have two of them "form" a HWT for an 8 model squad. You're just moving the issue.

And the "no extra cost" note doesn't unambiguously say what you say it does. I'd argue it just says you're not paying any extra points for the upgrade of two guardsmen to a HWT.

In short, this is stupid and entirely GW's fault. These points cannot be accurately counted, either you're paying for a model that isn't there or you're fielding an understrength unit without having removed any models from a legit-size unit.

I'd say you should pay 40, but the RAW doesn't support that more than it does the other alternative.

 Cream Tea wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

What? Where on earth does that say that you have to pay for 2 guardsmen? This is what I mean about you seeing the word "form" and then suddenly deciding that this means you have to invent a new way to compute the point cost of an army. There's absolutely nothing like that in there. Why not just follow the normal procedure: take your finished army list and tot up the cost of everything in it? The only legitimately confusing thing about any of this is that the point listing gives a minimum unit size of 10 -- if it said "9-10" then no one would ever have doubted that you pay less for the 9 model unit than the 10 model unit. WIth the index, it was unclear how to resolve this. Do you pay more than the listed per-model cost for the 9 model squad? Fortunately, the codex addresses this issue specifically with a note that, no, you don't pay extra if two Guardsmen form a HWT.

"Form" has no clear rules meaning, it relies on the players' interpretation.

If the unit size said "9-10" then you could take 9 guardsmen and no HWT, or have two of them "form" a HWT for an 8 model squad. You're just moving the issue.

And the "no extra cost" note doesn't unambiguously say what you say it does. I'd argue it just says you're not paying any extra points for the upgrade of two guardsmen to a HWT.

In short, this is stupid and entirely GW's fault. These points cannot be accurately counted, either you're paying for a model that isn't there or you're fielding an understrength unit without having removed any models from a legit-size unit.

I'd say you should pay 40, but the RAW doesn't support that more than it does the other alternative.

I don't understand how a unit size of "9-10" in the point listing would let you end up with 8. You can't just ignore the datasheet. The whole problem here was that the datasheet appeared to conflict with the point listing, since the datasheet clearly allows a unit of 9 models (when and only when you take a HWT) but the point listing says the unit consists of 10 models. But yes, I suspect this sort of confusion is why they didn't just say "9-10", and instead handled the case of a 9 model unit with a note.

It still strikes me as absolutely bizarre to read that note as rejecting an interpretation that no one had even imagined before they needed to explain away said note.