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.

I am recently getting back into war-hammer 40K after a few years. And I'm a little confused as to how to calculate point values, for example lets say I'm adding a squad of 5 dire avengers I add 8 ppm but do I then have to add the additional 4 ppm for their avenger shuriken catapults even though they cant equip any other weapon?

Any advice for noobs is also welcome if you don't mind.

jj5437 wrote:
I am recently getting back into war-hammer 40K after a few years. And I'm a little confused as to how to calculate point values, for example lets say I'm adding a squad of 5 dire avengers I add 8 ppm but do I then have to add the additional 4 ppm for their avenger shuriken catapults even though they cant equip any other weapon?

Any advice for noobs is also welcome if you don't mind.

Yes, you add the total of the base model plus any and all wargear. You only pay for the final wargear you own though, so if you swap a gun out, you only pay for the final loadout.

Notice how the table says "Does not include wargear", while the named character list says "including wargear".

So in your example, each avenger would be a total of 8+4 ppm, for a total of 12ppm.

Thanks man, I just find it weird that you should have to add wargear separately to models who cant be equipped with anything else, Such as the dire avengers. I would be nice if they included it in the base model price.

It's to avoid having to deduct points for entries that can upgrade. And specifying which models have weapons included would be hasle

tneva82 wrote:
It's to avoid having to deduct points for entries that can upgrade. And specifying which models have weapons included would be hasle

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout. Or just let the subtraction be a thing. I mean doing subtraction a couple times per list seems waaay simpler than doing unnecessary addition dozens of times per list

The idea is that you write up your list, with each unit's wargear, and then count the points at the end.

Since all the weapons share the same points regardless of who takes them, in theory this makes things easier as instead of:

Counting how many Terminator Heavy Flamers you have and multiply by their points, then how many Tact Squad Heavy Flamers then multiply by their points, then count the HF on your dreadnoughts and multiply by their points, then add it all together.

You now:

Count how many heavy flamers you have in your army and multiply that by one point value.

In theory this is how it's suppose to work. In practice not really, since a lot of "standard" gear comes with points, and a lot more come without points, and it's very hard to tell what is suppose to be standard and what isn't (try and figure out which GK weapons have no cost and which ones do, especially cross-lists).

 Maloghurst wrote:

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout.

So guy A has a 4pt gun built in. You upgrade him to a 10pt gun so that gun is 6pts, right?

Now you want to upgrade guy B who has an 8pt gun built in to that same 10pt gun. His cost for that gun needs to be different.

Rubbish idea.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maloghurst wrote:

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout.

So guy A has a 4pt gun built in. You upgrade him to a 10pt gun so that gun is 6pts, right?

Now you want to upgrade guy B who has an 8pt gun built in to that same 10pt gun. His cost for that gun needs to be different.

Rubbish idea.

Did you play in 7th edition? There weren't points confusions then. There are now.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maloghurst wrote:

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout.

So guy A has a 4pt gun built in. You upgrade him to a 10pt gun so that gun is 6pts, right?

Now you want to upgrade guy B who has an 8pt gun built in to that same 10pt gun. His cost for that gun needs to be different.

Rubbish idea.

Did you play in 7th edition? There weren't points confusions then. There are now.

There's only confusion because of how points worked in 3rd through 7th edition and some players can't accept that how you calculate points has changed.

 Maloghurst wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
It's to avoid having to deduct points for entries that can upgrade. And specifying which models have weapons included would be hasle

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout. Or just let the subtraction be a thing. I mean doing subtraction a couple times per list seems waaay simpler than doing unnecessary addition dozens of times per list

Cheapest option is not same for different squads though.

Super simple example. Imagine two squads. One has 5 squad members with bolters. One has all with heavy bolters. Both can upgrade gun to lascannon.

You really think both should pay same for lascannon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maloghurst wrote:

Or GW could have just done the smart thing and made the cheapest option the default loadout.

So guy A has a 4pt gun built in. You upgrade him to a 10pt gun so that gun is 6pts, right?

Now you want to upgrade guy B who has an 8pt gun built in to that same 10pt gun. His cost for that gun needs to be different.

Rubbish idea.

Did you play in 7th edition? There weren't points confusions then. There are now.

Yes. Of course then upgrade point costs were in datasheets themselves. Of course this could work here but imagine GW decides weapon X is too cheap/expensive. Updating price of weapon would then neccessitate updating EVERY datasheet with that gun rather than just one page(the one having cost of weapon).

I agree that it's got a lot of positives, but it is easy to miss stuff. When I'm using a new unit it's dead easy to fail to spot a piece of wargear they have as default.

For example, I just submitted a tournament list including a lord commissar and forgot to include the power sword in the cost. It's easy to forget that commissars cost 31pts as well due to the additional bolt weapon.

I use a three column spreadsheet for listbuilding. Well, more than three because I have it broken up into FoC slots, but the foundation is a three column format. Unit, wargear, cost. Rows that have wargear have their unit entries blank and vice versa, so it can be implemented as two columns if you don't mind it being a solid wall of text. A unit's wargear immediately follows its unit entry to show who owns what, multiples of identical units are compressed as "X units" and "X wargear" to save space, and the top row contains column labels as well as a running point total (using the SUM() function).

It works pretty well with 8th.