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.

So guys battlescribe has been updated with the new eldar codex. the hemlock is considered 210 pts, the autarch with wings 104...why? the situation is simple...the datasheets have an equipement list and an ability list, you pay what's on the first, what's on the second doesn't have any relation with points value...Till a faq says the opposite (and I doubt cause doesn't seem a mistake but something made for porpous) I will pay 200 for the hemlock and 98 for the winged autarch.

The argument that you have to pay is that the Index Imperium 1 FAQ addresses a similar situation and says you pay. But, yeah, I would expect that most people aren't paying for the stones or the force shield, since most people aren't even going to realize there's a potential issue here and few people have any reason to read the Imperium 1 FAQ anymore. Hopefully the upcoming FAQ addresses this, along with other Autarch questions.

or is it?

The imperial faq is for imperials....not other armies.

The failsafe has been to use precedence for most rules so what you say seems correct.

Then you look at all the autarch entries from the index and codex and they all have the ability of a 4+ invulnerable save...except the new skyrunner has a different name..peerless ability INSTEAD of ForceField.

It is OBVIOUS that all the autarchs have the same 4++ ability but now they are named different.

So you want to tell me the RAI was that one would get a freebie cause of a different named ability but really not much change in the points from index to codex comparatively?

So to counter your PRECENDECE argument the others side can point to this precendence and now its tit for tat.

So until there is a FAQ almost everyone has decided not to pay for it

 admironheart wrote:
or is it?

The imperial faq is for imperials....not other armies.

The failsafe has been to use precedence for most rules so what you say seems correct.

Then you look at all the autarch entries from the index and codex and they all have the ability of a 4+ invulnerable save...except the new skyrunner has a different name..peerless ability INSTEAD of ForceField.

It is OBVIOUS that all the autarchs have the same 4++ ability but now they are named different.

So you want to tell me the RAI was that one would get a freebie cause of a different named ability but really not much change in the points from index to codex comparatively?

would not be the first time GW has done something like that. We've had countless such examples where often even literally the exact same thing in different books had different rules and costs, or where similar abilities in similar situations or different iterations of the same unit get treated wildly differently for no reason

Yes, they have to pay.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, they have to pay.

Technically no, don’t have to pay.

As has been said before, until there is an FAQ for Codex Craftworlds or a generic ruling across all armies, and not somesomewhat similar query related to an Index that is completely unrelated to Eldar, no-one is going to pay extra points for something they don’t have to.

For now they don’t have to as it is not clear.

That's rather disingenuous.

The Autarch has a Force Shield. Force Shields cost points.

The SM FAQ, whilst for a different faction, sets a clear precedent on this - you have to pay for gear even if it's listed under Abilities instead of Wargear.


It's possible that GW will change their minds or rule differently when the Eldar get their own FAQ (assuming this issue even comes up). However, until that time, it seems rather underhanded to be aware of this precedent but then actively ignore it because it advantages you to do so.


Argue all you want that it's from a different book, but I strongly suspect that if the SM FAQ had ruled the other way (that you don't have to pay for wargear listed under Abilities), then you would be eagerly take that as a precedent for Eldar not having to pay either.

 vipoid wrote:
That's rather disingenuous.

The Autarch has a Force Shield. Force Shields cost points.

The SM FAQ, whilst for a different faction, sets a clear precedent on this - you have to pay for gear even if it's listed under Abilities instead of Wargear.


It's possible that GW will change their minds or rule differently when the Eldar get their own FAQ (assuming this issue even comes up). However, until that time, it seems rather underhanded to be aware of this precedent but then actively ignore it because it advantages you to do so.


Argue all you want that it's from a different book, but I strongly suspect that if the SM FAQ had ruled the other way (that you don't have to pay for wargear listed under Abilities), then you would be eagerly take that as a precedent for Eldar not having to pay either.

Yep - pretty hard to to argue against that.

 vipoid wrote:
That's rather disingenuous.

The Autarch has a Force Shield. Force Shields cost points.

The SM FAQ, whilst for a different faction, sets a clear precedent on this - you have to pay for gear even if it's listed under Abilities instead of Wargear.


It's possible that GW will change their minds or rule differently when the Eldar get their own FAQ (assuming this issue even comes up). However, until that time, it seems rather underhanded to be aware of this precedent but then actively ignore it because it advantages you to do so.


Argue all you want that it's from a different book, but I strongly suspect that if the SM FAQ had ruled the other way (that you don't have to pay for wargear listed under Abilities), then you would be eagerly take that as a precedent for Eldar not having to pay either.

The Autarch on a bike....from index to codex dropped 6 points had his 'forcefield' ability changed to 'peerless ability' weapons go cut by 5 points and DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY for his ability
the foot autarch got a +6 point hike and you say he needs to pay for his ability.
The other autarch remained pretty much the same....

It seems very very odd that those numbers would indicate an additional 6 point charge considering there were minimal other changes. It would seem a penalty to pay for something that is free on other units. It isn't like a forcefield is a specific name to the game or the army even. A storm Shield is obviously intellectual property, much as refractor field etc. Here it just seems poor use of terminology to describe an general ability.

Have to see if a FAQ addresses this. If it is abuse then it will go in....if not then its probably not considered an abuse.

Clearly debatable (perhaps a YMDC thread might help).

The community, so far, seems to have agreed to add the points. Some areas/groups might not, that's up to them.

That said, it's the new CWE book. Until more books come out, at least, perhaps just eat some pie and pay the points? My 1500 pt list from the Index now needs stuff *added* to fit a 1250 pt game. The Hemlock was OP then got better. Autarchs have a lot of uses and dont cost many points. Noone will hate you for paying the points. Some people will hate you for not paying.

If it's casual, keep your opponent happy. If it's competitive, as the Organizer for a ruling.

It's not a defect in Battlescribe. It's a known grey area that was documented and debated, and a side was picked.

(I think they are correct, but I think GW also accidentally added those points to the Autarch but not the Hemlock.)

 admironheart wrote:

The Autarch on a bike....from index to codex dropped 6 points had his 'forcefield' ability changed to 'peerless ability' weapons go cut by 5 points and DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY for his ability

I didn't say he did.

 admironheart wrote:
the foot autarch got a +6 point hike and you say he needs to pay for his ability.

So, if my models go up in price, I can just stop paying for their upgrades? Sweet.

 admironheart wrote:

It seems very very odd that those numbers would indicate an additional 6 point charge considering there were minimal other changes.

Maybe it's for his new CP-generation ability?

We know it's not for an increase in options.

 admironheart wrote:

It seems very very odd that those numbers would indicate an additional 6 point charge considering there were minimal other changes. It would seem a penalty to pay for something that is free on other units. It isn't like a forcefield is a specific name to the game or the army even. A storm Shield is obviously intellectual property, much as refractor field etc. Here it just seems poor use of terminology to describe an general ability.

I thought Force Shield was a game term (though obviously not a unique one)? As in, I thought it referred consistently to wargear that granted a 4++.


Regardless, bear in mind that I'm not saying the Autarch's price is reasonable (with or without the Force Shield). All I'm saying is that, until it is addressed in an Eldar FAQ, the SM FAQ is the only precedent we have for this sort of thing.

At the very least, biting the bullet and paying a little extra (until you know for sure one way or the other) seems like the gentlemanly thing to do.

I dunno. I don’t mind paying points to get what I want in my list, just seems very odd to have to pay points for an ability.

Codex states you pay for Wargear. No mention anywhere that you pay for abilities as and cost for these are already subsumed within the models base cost. This applies to everything, such as combat drugs or Synapse etc. Seems odd that you have to pay for some abilities separately and not others, especially when at no part in the Codex does it mention have to pay for abilities.

That SM FAQ was not a well worded question or answer, and just creates more confusion and contradiction to the rest of the army building process as written in the Indexes and Codexes.

So I think it is fair to follow the rules for creating a battle forged army as per the latest Codex and pay for Wargear. Abilities are not Wargear and Codex does not say otherwise.

Remains to be seen whether the FAQ in due course will change that..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and to be perfectly frank if I didn’t read this forum I would never have even known there was any doubt on this. So to assume I have read every FAQ and applied sweeping assumptions is not fair as I should by all rights not even be aware of this query and just not be paying for the abilities, as per the Codex rules

Drake003 wrote:

Oh and to be perfectly frank if I didn’t read this forum I would never have even known there was any doubt on this. So to assume I have read every FAQ and applied sweeping assumptions is not fair as I should by all rights not even be aware of this query and just not be paying for the abilities, as per the Codex rules

This has been stated several times and for the average gamer or even tournament player you don't read all the faq on other armies. For a player to call foul on someone NOT paying is not very gentlemanly thing to do and in the old days would have cost you sportsmanship points for being that guy

 admironheart wrote:


This has been stated several times and for the average gamer or even tournament player you don't read all the faq on other armies. For a player to call foul on someone NOT paying is not very gentlemanly thing to do and in the old days would have cost you sportsmanship points for being that guy

Sure it is, if it's a honest mistake it's very easy to fix. (just drop 1-2 models from a random unit and move on) If it's a rules disputed about Whether or not you should be paying at all find the TO and ask. Then either keep playing as normal or fix your list and keep playing as normal. Hell it's much worse if no one calls it, the guy wins and ends up getting called on it afterwards.

Go ahead. Don't pay points for something you dont "feel" you should have to. However, don't be mad when the community calls you out on it. There was a recent large tournament where a chaos player got all the way to the final table and the stream watchers added up his points and he was over. DQ'd immediatley. From top table and prizes to eliminated. Why? He used battlescribe and apparently it did not add the cost for his icons.

Just dont be upset when someone equally as passionate about paying for every little thing says you are doing it wrong. And I would not try this "reasoning" at an event you may regret it.

Drake003 wrote:
Codex states you pay for Wargear. No mention anywhere that you pay for abilities as and cost for these are already subsumed within the models base cost.

As I said, the SM codex clearly sets a different precedent for this.

Is it intuitive? No.

But it's the only precedent we have, so until you get a different answer it seems reasonable to follow it for the time being.

Drake003 wrote:
Oh and to be perfectly frank if I didn’t read this forum I would never have even known there was any doubt on this. So to assume I have read every FAQ and applied sweeping assumptions is not fair as I should by all rights not even be aware of this query and just not be paying for the abilities, as per the Codex rules

If you're referring to me, you clearly *are* aware of the debate and the SM faq, otherwise you wouldn't even be here.

If I came across someone who'd never read the SM FAQ then, no, I wouldn't blame them for not paying for Force Shields or such.

My issue is with people who are fully aware of this debate and who have read the FAQ in question, but are deciding 'Well I don't think I should pay for this so I'm just going to pretend that FAQ doesn't exist'.

To me that just smacks of being disingenuous. And as I said before, I suspect you'd be more than happy to use the result of a SM faq if it set the opposite precedent.

 Orock wrote:
Go ahead. Don't pay points for something you dont "feel" you should have to. However, don't be mad when the community calls you out on it. There was a recent large tournament where a chaos player got all the way to the final table and the stream watchers added up his points and he was over. DQ'd immediatley. From top table and prizes to eliminated. Why? He used battlescribe and apparently it did not add the cost for his icons.

Just dont be upset when someone equally as passionate about paying for every little thing says you are doing it wrong. And I would not try this "reasoning" at an event you may regret it.

Well I remember that everyone cried the sky is falling when we talked about understrength units.

If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment

All the boo hooers said that no way that was going to fly and that no tournament would ever ever permit it.

Talk about getting shut down by GW

There may be a ruling one way or another but when you start using your own personal preferences when it 'could' go either way and try to 'shame' people....well precedence on this forum shows you may be humbled later on.
I am confident in my opinion getting carried to a reasonable faq by GW just as I was on the understrength units.

Rules as Written, you do not pay for spirit stones on a Hemlock. The rules specifically state that the points costs are without wargear, not abilities, and Spirit Stones are not listed as a Wargear item.

Whether is this how it is intended or not, you would have to ask GW. I know lots of us have asked them, but have recieved no response.

There are cases in the Imperial books where items of wargear are listed only in the ability sections, but you are still meant to pay for them (most of the shields, for example). However GW did put an FAQ for the Imperium saying that all items like this should be paid for.

However, it's only in the Imperium errata (and actually it's only in the Index errata, not for the Codex releases, so it's not even fixed properly for imperials at the moment). Eldar players have no reason to even read the imperium FAQ, let alone follow anything inside it as relevant.

Until GW either add this FAQ to the Eldar FAQ, or (a better idea) add it to a general 8th Edition FAQ so that it applies to same to all armies, then Hemlocks don't pay for stones.

Personally though I tend to still add the 10 points onto my lists, just so I know I have a buffer when planning armies. I completely expect GW to get around to fixing this eventually. I also suspect that tournaments will make their own rules regarding this in the meantime, and even though these aren't "official" rules, tournaments can make whatever rules they want.

Spirit Stones are referred to as Wargear in more places than they are referred to as Abilities.

It is possible, but unlikely, that Spirit Stones aren't Spirit Stones. So, unlike all other mentions of Spirit Stones, are not wargear. But that's a stretch.

It could be argued, but it seems hard to claim the RAW is clear.

Bharring wrote:
Spirit Stones are referred to as Wargear in more places than they are referred to as Abilities.

It is possible, but unlikely, that Spirit Stones aren't Spirit Stones. So, unlike all other mentions of Spirit Stones, are not wargear. But that's a stretch.

It could be argued, but it seems hard to claim the RAW is clear.

Thing is, doesn't matter if Spirit Stones are listed as wargear in every other datasheet in the whole codex, it only matters what they are listed as on the Hemlock.

What GW should have done, was made them optional (same as pretty much every other vehicle upgrade in the codex), and said that "You may add spirit stones from the vehicle equipment list". Or even put "You MUST add spirit stones from the vehicle equipment list". Instead they just list an ability called spirit stones, which may or may not be referring to a piece of equipment with the same name.

Sure, the assumption is that it IS the piece of equipment, but an assumption isn't a rule. It's basically the very definition of RAI vs RAW.


Edit: Though I'll add that this is a really inconsistently written area, and it's far from clear. But it's how the rules are written. I still pay for the stones myself though, because I like to err on the generous side. It's only 10 points at the end of the day.

Niiru wrote:
Thing is, doesn't matter if Spirit Stones are listed as wargear in every other datasheet in the whole codex, it only matters what they are listed as on the Hemlock.

Except that the SM FAQ set a clear precedent that this isn't the case.

If a unit has an item with a listed cost, you pay that cost even if the item in question is listed under Abilities.

Under that argument, RAW, what do Spirit Stones do?

I know what the Spirit Stones wargear option does, but what does the ability do?

(Rhetorical, but not sarcastic)

 vipoid wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Thing is, doesn't matter if Spirit Stones are listed as wargear in every other datasheet in the whole codex, it only matters what they are listed as on the Hemlock.

Except that the SM FAQ set a clear precedent that this isn't the case.

If a unit has an item with a listed cost, you pay that cost even if the item in question is listed under Abilities.

I completely 100% percent agree, it does set a precedent. For Imperials. Absolutely zero reason for this to apply to any other army though. There isn't even any reason for an Eldar player to ever read the imperial FAQ's, I only do it because I have no life. 95% of players would only look at the current faqs for their own armies.

And 95% of the time, no-one would care.

I'm glad BattleScribe defaulted to paying. I'd rather shortchange myself than my opponent.

Bharring wrote:
Under that argument, RAW, what do Spirit Stones do?

I know what the Spirit Stones wargear option does, but what does the ability do?

(Rhetorical, but not sarcastic)

The "ability" lists what it does in the datasheet. Just so happens to be identical to the wargear option.

I *know* this is stupid, but hey it's not the first time GW have made an ability with the same rule as an item. Usually they give them different names though. But can you be 100% sure that they didn't do this by mistake, due to their awful proofreading? No, you can't.

Like I said, I *play it* that you pay the 10 points, but I'm just saying that theres no actual reason to. Other than fair play.

Oh, I think you and I are on the same page for sportsmanship. I think you're "doing things right". I'm just trying to push the edges where we don't agree, in hopes of clearing things up for one or both of us.

For instance, I missed that the rules were directly on the Hemlock's profile. They do that for wargear too, but it makes it about 50/50 whether the mistake was listing it as an ability or not renaming it when they made it an ability.

I can see the point, now. Sorry. Disagree, but I don't think it's clear enough to be 100% which one was the mistake.

Bharring wrote:
Oh, I think you and I are on the same page for sportsmanship. I think you're "doing things right". I'm just trying to push the edges where we don't agree, in hopes of clearing things up for one or both of us.

For instance, I missed that the rules were directly on the Hemlock's profile. They do that for wargear too, but it makes it about 50/50 whether the mistake was listing it as an ability or not renaming it when they made it an ability.

I can see the point, now. Sorry. Disagree, but I don't think it's clear enough to be 100% which one was the mistake.

Oh that's perfectly fine, to be honest I don't agree with it either, in so far as GW do seem to be saying that they don't need to list all of a unit's items in the wargear section for it to still be counted as wargear. But typical for GW, they specify in one section how points are meant to be added up, and then in another section they lay out the gear in a way that doesn't actually mesh with their other rule.

I'm sure they have different teams for different sections of a codex, and they just don't talk to each other much. GW need to hire a proofreading team that goes over the codex as a whole after it's been assembled.

This issue has been added to the FAQ questions by GW - so they should be answering it within the next week or so.

 admironheart wrote:


So until there is a FAQ almost everyone has decided not to pay for it

Quite the opposite. Failing to interpret the almost certain oversight on the Hemlock and not paying for Spirit Stones is a clear RAW-violation of "The Most Important Rule", failing to interpret ambiguities in light of the most likely intention, especially with precedent, and thus a clear cause of disqualification from any tournament I've ever seen. "Spirit Stones" being possibly an identical named ability and wargear is ambiguous due to the naming, thus the Most Important Rule kicks and forces you (!), RAW, to consider the Imperial Guard FAQ precedent.

Until explicitly FAQ'd, you got to pay for it.

Out of curiosity but where does it actually say you have to pay points for wargear? I can only find ".Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army." under choose armies.

Also who apart from Jain zar/Howling banshees can take banshee masks? (listed as abilities under their entries but as wargear in the back granted at 0 points but still)