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.

Hi is it me or did GW just pull a looted wagon again by creating a formation that costs 600 points on top of the modes in it.



Just compare it with a regular formation.
Both don't mention that you get the models for free with the formation.

It would appear so. Maybe this is a return to the old system where formations cost points again.

The first army that they decide to test this design philosophy on is Tyranids (well. . . a Tyranid sub-faction) because they needed the nerf.

If you add up all of the units that make up the Ghosar Quintus Broodkin Formation it comes out to 600 points...

It's obviously a mistake, but that reading is technically correct.

Its just easy to assign the point value because there's no wargear options or squad size options to take for the formation. Lets not over think it.

Unfortunately, Games Workshop neglected to include a line that states that the units taken as part of the formation do not cost any points. Rules as written, taking the formation costs an additional 600 points.

Yes, from a technical rules as written standpoint, this Formation costs 1200 points. However, this is almost certainly an error. HIWPI and how I expect GW would FAQ/Errata it, assuming they still did such things in a timely fashion, is to say the Formation (including models) costs 600. Requiring someone to pay 1200 is poor sportsmanship and is exploiting what is very obviously a template error. Formation datasheets don't normally have a spot for points.

Just a theory here: maybe GW is expecting you to use your brain to figure out that 600 points is the total cost of the units in the formation. This falls under the same umbrella as the people claiming GSC can't ally with Tyranids as BB since the rule doesn't specifically state the Tyranids and GSC are Battle Brothers. GW's mistake is assuming their player base understands basic logic. Sorry for being rude here, but I'm getting sick of all of the "GW so bad at making rules, LOL" threads that can be solved by even the most basic application of logic.

It's because there is no way of changing that 600 point total.

No wargear, options or additional models or units to add.
So I'd say they have done it as its a fixed and specific cost.

The marine one has variables that alter the cost so naturally they couldn't set a price on it.

 EnTyme wrote:
Just a theory here: maybe GW is expecting you to use your brain to figure out that 600 points is the total cost of the units in the formation. This falls under the same umbrella as the people claiming GSC can't ally with Tyranids as BB since the rule doesn't specifically state the Tyranids and GSC are Battle Brothers. GW's mistake is assuming their player base understands basic logic. Sorry for being rude here, but I'm getting sick of all of the "GW so bad at making rules, LOL" threads that can be solved by even the most basic application of logic.

Nobody is arguing that we should actually charge 1200 points. We are arguing that GW screwed up when laying out this datasheet. Very obviously, the Formation is supposed to cost 600 points total. What they ACTUALLY WROTE is that the Formation costs 600, plus the cost of the Formation's required Units, as per normal for Formations. That comes to 1200. You see lots of "GW so bad at making rules, LOL" because GW is bad at writing internally consistent and unambiguous rules. The various rules publications are riddled with inconsistencies, impossible situations and what appear to be obvious typos and other mistakes.

The whole GSC/Tyranid alliance question is another good example. It's ambiguous. We all know what they PROBABLY meant, but we only have what they actually wrote to go by. If it were as straightforward as you seem to think, you wouldn't see people everywhere questioning it. The fluff doesn't even help us out. I can't think of many instances in the lore where Hive Tyrants are fighting side by side with First Generation Hybrids. The Tyrant would simply tear the Hybrid apart and eat him. That's not a Battle Brothers relationship.

And yeah, you came off as a little rude. Maybe instead of being rude and then immediately apologizing... don't be rude in the first place? Just a thought.

The current data sheets indicate what "allegiance" a unit has. the symbol on the center top of each data sheet has an official meaning. The in GS Cults case, its Tyranids. They ally just as Tyranids. What's so difficult about this?

 Byte wrote:
The current data sheets indicate what "allegiance" a unit has. the symbol on the center top of each data sheet has an official meaning. The in GS Cults case, its Tyranids. They ally just as Tyranids. What's so difficult about this?

The Genestealer Cult Datasheets don't have a Tyranid Faction Logo. Go back and look again. The Tyranid logo is two gribblies facing in opposite directions. The GSC sheets have an entirely new Faction Logo. We're told explicitly that these Datasheets have the Genestealer Cult Faction, so we can infer that the new logo is the Faction logo of the Genestealer Cult Faction.

I will grant that it looks somewhat similar to the Tyranid logo, so I do understand how you made the mistake.

It's absurd to think they put 600 pts there for any reason other than to allow players to quickly and painlessly add the formation to their list. There's no upgrades so it's always gonna be that cost. Why not just put it there for ease of reference and inclusion.

It's just telling you how many points it's gonna be. It's not a mistake at all.

Honestly.. you guys are desperately looking for something to justify saying LOLZGW!

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's absurd to think they put 600 pts there for any reason other than to allow players to quickly and painlessly add the formation to their list. There's no upgrades so it's always gonna be that cost. Why not just put it there for ease of reference and inclusion.

It's just telling you how many points it's gonna be. It's not a mistake at all.

Honestly.. you guys are desperately looking for something to justify saying LOLZGW!

You do realize that the various parts of a Datasheet are defined elements? I'm not desperately looking to justify anything. As has been said multiple times, we all agree on the probably author's intent. Some of us just happen to be a little more technical in our thinking and realize that adding a 600 point cost to a Formation Datasheet means that the Formation costs 600 points plus the cost of the models/units required. Typically, there is no point cost listed, so the Formation effectively costs zero plus the cost of the models/units.

In essence, GW is being inconsistent AGAIN. They normally don't include a points cost, so you just pay for the required units. This time, they included a points cost. Presumably, and per normal practice, you're still required to pay for the required units and any upgrades they can take. End result... they should not have included a points cost. Somebody probably thought they were making things convenient, but actually introduced an error.

Yeah. I shouldn't have put words in anyone's mouth, apologies for that.

I just think it's so painfully, abundantly clear what was done, to the point where confusion should be nonexistent...

In short I personally would consider it helpful, if anything, to place the points cost there so I immediately know it costs that to run that formation. Also, people who don't play the army can now easily know and reference the points cost of a formation to verify their game is fair points - wise. Usually it can't be done, because upgrades.

In short, this really doesn't reflect poorly on gw to me at all. The formation ends up costing 600, they put 600 on the page, big deal really. Everyone knows what was intended, or at least should know, or at the very least if you really need help there's always an opponent to check with. But I doubt it would reach that point.

Does it say in the BRB that a formation sheet with a points cost is added to the point cost of the units that make it up when included in a list? If not, then there's not even a RAW problem, and really just seems to me like optional data they included for the customer's ease of use.

 Kriswall wrote:
You do realize that the various parts of a Datasheet are defined elements? I'm not desperately looking to justify anything. As has been said multiple times, we all agree on the probably author's intent. Some of us just happen to be a little more technical in our thinking and realize that adding a 600 point cost to a Formation Datasheet means that the Formation costs 600 points plus the cost of the models/units required. Typically, there is no point cost listed, so the Formation effectively costs zero plus the cost of the models/units.

In essence, GW is being inconsistent AGAIN. They normally don't include a points cost, so you just pay for the required units. This time, they included a points cost. Presumably, and per normal practice, you're still required to pay for the required units and any upgrades they can take. End result... they should not have included a points cost. Somebody probably thought they were making things convenient, but actually introduced an error.

The codices that I've checked say the following of the points cost presented in the upper right corner of the datasheets:

Points Cost: This is the points cost of the unit without any upgrades, used if you are choosing an army to a points value.

Can you please point to a non-Apocalypse rules source that says that you add this points cost to the cost of the units in a Formation in a non-Apocalypse game? I see nothing that indicates how this value applies to a Formation at all.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Byte wrote:
The current data sheets indicate what "allegiance" a unit has. the symbol on the center top of each data sheet has an official meaning. The in GS Cults case, its Tyranids. They ally just as Tyranids. What's so difficult about this?

The Genestealer Cult Datasheets don't have a Tyranid Faction Logo. Go back and look again. The Tyranid logo is two gribblies facing in opposite directions. The GSC sheets have an entirely new Faction Logo. We're told explicitly that these Datasheets have the Genestealer Cult Faction, so we can infer that the new logo is the Faction logo of the Genestealer Cult Faction.

I will grant that it looks somewhat similar to the Tyranid logo, so I do understand how you made the mistake.

Huh, guess I just got used to looking at my bug dice that came out.

As a point of interest: the assassin execution force formation has no point cost shown, even though it will always ever be 570 points since you can't alter any of the assassins in any way.

So yeah it looks like they told writer A to not list a formation point cost, and then when writer B was doing this one and asked, they were like "uhhhh I don't remember. Go ahead and put it in."

Just GW being GW.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
You do realize that the various parts of a Datasheet are defined elements? I'm not desperately looking to justify anything. As has been said multiple times, we all agree on the probably author's intent. Some of us just happen to be a little more technical in our thinking and realize that adding a 600 point cost to a Formation Datasheet means that the Formation costs 600 points plus the cost of the models/units required. Typically, there is no point cost listed, so the Formation effectively costs zero plus the cost of the models/units.

In essence, GW is being inconsistent AGAIN. They normally don't include a points cost, so you just pay for the required units. This time, they included a points cost. Presumably, and per normal practice, you're still required to pay for the required units and any upgrades they can take. End result... they should not have included a points cost. Somebody probably thought they were making things convenient, but actually introduced an error.

The codices that I've checked say the following of the points cost presented in the upper right corner of the datasheets:

Points Cost: This is the points cost of the unit without any upgrades, used if you are choosing an army to a points value.

Can you please point to a non-Apocalypse rules source that says that you add this points cost to the cost of the units in a Formation in a non-Apocalypse game? I see nothing that indicates how this value applies to a Formation at all.

That's kind of the whole point. The points cost simply shouldn't be there on a Formation Datasheet. It has obviously created confusion or we wouldn't be talking about it and you wouldn't be seeing articles on blogs like Spikey Bits and Bell of Lost Souls. Yes, we all know what the intention was. No, GW shouldn't have listed a points cost.

The point being that those claiming that the formation cost 600 points on top of the cost of the models RAW don't actually have RAW to support their claims because outside of Apocalypse there is no RAW explanation of what the points value means when given for a Formation.

In agreement with Ghaz. What do I get when I pay the points required for e.g. a tactical squad? Why would it be any different with this formation?

Naw wrote:
In agreement with Ghaz. What do I get when I pay the points required for e.g. a tactical squad? Why would it be any different with this formation?

Such as paying for the Squad, then paying for 1 Sergeant and 4 Marines before adding additional Marines?

Yeah, I thought about that, too.

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
In agreement with Ghaz. What do I get when I pay the points required for e.g. a tactical squad? Why would it be any different with this formation?

Such as paying for the Squad, then paying for 1 Sergeant and 4 Marines before adding additional Marines?

Is that what your codex says?

Yeah, I thought about that, too.

Feel free to do it your way.

Naw wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:
In agreement with Ghaz. What do I get when I pay the points required for e.g. a tactical squad? Why would it be any different with this formation?

Such as paying for the Squad, then paying for 1 Sergeant and 4 Marines before adding additional Marines?

Is that what your codex says?

Yeah, I thought about that, too.

Feel free to do it your way.

No, I was saying that paying 600 points THEN paying the individual units inside would be like paying the base Datasheet point list and THEN paying for the individual models listed in Composition.

As I said, I though about it this case from that perspective.

And no, I do not set up that way.

I just found this while I was browsing trough some of my other formations

Tyrannic War Veterans Dataslate wrote:Formation Point values

Formations do not usually include a point valuel just add up the point value of the individual units and options to find out the total point value of the formation. Occasionally a formation will require that you pay extra points in order to use it. In this case the cost of the formationis the total cost of the units plus any extra points the datasheet specifies you have to pay.

Can anyone remember a single formation where you pay extra for the special rules? Nothing comes to my mind with the post 7.5 codexes (BA & others included).

I will gladly pay 1200 points for this formation if my opponent requires it; however, they will also have to accept one swift kick to the junk as payment for being that dumb. Some people who play this game and specifically look for the most rule bending, horrible interpretation of ANYTHING are part of what is wrong with the game.

 oldzoggy wrote:
I just found this while I was browsing trough some of my other formations

Tyrannic War Veterans Dataslate wrote:Formation Point values

Formations do not usually include a point valuel just add up the point value of the individual units and options to find out the total point value of the formation. Occasionally a formation will require that you pay extra points in order to use it. In this case the cost of the formationis the total cost of the units plus any extra points the datasheet specifies you have to pay.

That exact blurb is also in the brb.

I am not arguing the formation should actually cost double.

GW poorly wrote a rule(well datasheet); big surprise.

By RAW the formation costs 1200pts, there is no argument to that.

It is clearly not intended to cost that much and the formation cost should be ignored.

oldzoggy wrote:I just found this while I was browsing trough some of my other formations

Tyrannic War Veterans Dataslate wrote:Formation Point values

Formations do not usually include a point valuel just add up the point value of the individual units and options to find out the total point value of the formation. Occasionally a formation will require that you pay extra points in order to use it. In this case the cost of the formationis the total cost of the units plus any extra points the datasheet specifies you have to pay.

That would be great if this Formation in question was saying to pay extra, but it is just listing a flat amount, nothing extra that has been posted.

Naw wrote:Can anyone remember a single formation where you pay extra for the special rules? Nothing comes to my mind with the post 7.5 codexes (BA & others included).

The previous Reclusiam Command Squad added something like 25 points to the cost of the units. The recent codex removed it.