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.

Dionysodorus wrote:

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.

Because if you can take a 9 man squad and it doesn't specify that this is an exception for when, and only when, you're taking a HWT as part of the unit, then you can take a unit of 9 guardsmen, no HWT. If you can do that, you can form a HWT from that unit, ending up with 8 models.

However you bend it, with the current wording, you'll end up with a unit with fewer models than the minimum size. Change the minimum size and that's still true (as long as you don't make the minimum 2 or less).

 Cream Tea wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

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.

Because if you can take a 9 man squad and it doesn't specify that this is an exception for when, and only when, you're taking a HWT as part of the unit, then you can take a unit of 9 guardsmen, no HWT. If you can do that, you can form a HWT from that unit, ending up with 8 models.

However you bend it, with the current wording, you'll end up with a unit with fewer models than the minimum size. Change the minimum size and that's still true (as long as you don't make the minimum 2 or less).

I still don't understand why you think you could ignore the datasheet, which clearly doesn't allow you to take just 9 Guardsmen and then form a HWT from 2 of them. Why does the unit size in the point listing override what the datasheet says about what kinds of models can be in the unit? Presumably you agree that, as-is, you're not allowed to take a unit consisting of 10 Sergeants. Why not? The datasheet says 10 models. There is exactly one legal way to field an Infantry Squad of 9 models, per the datasheet -- it's 1 Sergeant, 7 Guardsmen, and 1 HWT. Not 9 Guardsmen, not 9 HWTs, not 9 Sergeants, not 8 Guardsmen and 1 HWT, and so on. I don't understand why you think the point listing saying "9-10" would change that. But yes, sure, like I said I can sort of see where this confusion is coming from -- people are used to looking at the point listing as a quick reference for what's allowed in a variable-size unit. So you've convinced me that it was smart of the author to put in a little note to make clear that you don't pay for 10 models when you bring a HWT rather than just making the unit size "9-10"; I had thought that was a little weird at first.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 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.

Again, you pay 40 points base for the squad, because you're paying for 2 guardsmen

You don't get to reduce the base cost of the unit because you upgrade it to 1 less model. It's still 40pts + weapon cost for 9 models. It's weird that anyone would even interpret it that way.

 deviantduck wrote:
You don't get to reduce the base cost of the unit because you upgrade it to 1 less model. It's still 40pts + weapon cost for 9 models. It's weird that anyone would even interpret it that way.

Actually it's 32 points plus N, where N is undefined.

 deviantduck wrote:
You don't get to reduce the base cost of the unit because you upgrade it to 1 less model. It's still 40pts + weapon cost for 9 models. It's weird that anyone would even interpret it that way.

Welcome to YMDC, where even the most tenuous 'interpretation' warrants 19 pages of impassioned discourse.

10 men make the squad of IG units/infantry.

You can use two as a HWT. Which has 2 wounds, 1 lasgun, and 1 heavy weapon.

The unit still has 10 total wounds. !0 shots so on so forth.

10 Guys 4 points a model is 40 points.
Take 2 of the 10 form a heavy weapons team, which is now a two wound model @ 8 points. 2x4=8. Add in a LAscannon (example) 20 points. The unit of 10 wounds plus 1 lascannon is 60 points.

Yes battle scribe has a 4 point error in its calculation. You can use the editor to fix it. its still a 10 man unit @ 4 points each so 40 points.

Battlescribe fixed this yesterday btw.

Lungpickle wrote:


You can use two as a HWT. Which has 2 wounds, 1 lasgun, and 1 heavy weapon.

Ooh, has the loader got his lasgun back again? (also frag grenades?)

AutocannonSidearm wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:


You can use two as a HWT. Which has 2 wounds, 1 lasgun, and 1 heavy weapon.

Ooh, has the loader got his lasgun back again? (also frag grenades?)

Throwing a grenade would not let you fire the Heavy weapon, as HWT team is one model.

HELPFULLY, the Codex still omits a loadout for Infantry Squad HWTs. You could infer it's the same as the HWTs from a Heavy Weapons Squad, or rationalise that they don't lose their armament when merging, but until an FAQ it's a teeny bit unclear. HIWPI is that the HWT has a lasgun and frag grenades in addition to the Heavy weapon chosen.