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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That doesn't say whether or not you pay for something that a unit is said to be equipped with at the start and then gets replaced.

Why would you pay? They're no longer equipped with it. This rule is perfectly clear, you're just confused.

I might be confused but I also want a damned definitive answer to shut some people up locally.

Out of interest, Kan, which way are your local RAW-lords arguing?

That you have to pay for the initial bits.

It's why most people have just been playing Power instead so joke's on them...

If you replace an item of wargear that costs points, with another item of wargear (or even nothing in some cases) you only pay for the "end" product.

For example, a basic Tau Coldstar commander costs 134 points.

You can then replace its basic weapons with a whole range of other options, giving it a points cost range of 108 right up to 186. As soon as you replace the burst cannon with a fusion, you simply take the base cost and add on the cost of the fusion. You don't need to pay for the burst cannon anymore, as you no longer have it.

You don't pay for the initial bits though.. you pay for what you are equipped with.. that's present tense, not past or future. If you trade your bolter for a plasma gun you are now equipped with the plasma gun, not the bolter. To twist this Rules Lawyering another way, if i'm paying to be equipped with the gear I initially had, then I still get to also use that gear since if i'm not equipped with it anymore, how can I pay for it, and if I am equipped with it, I can then therefore still use it because my model can attack/use whatever wargear it is equipped with etc etc.

Silly question, as I'm nowhere near my copies - any WD battle reports with points that people can double-check?

It'd be a reasonable check of how GW expect it to be played, at least.

The wording is REPLACE.

So.

I purchase Bob the Space Marine. He is armed with a doomsday gun, 90 pts, and a fluff cannon 20pts.

I may replace Bob's Doomsday gun with a plothole blaster, for 100pts.
I can exchange a plothole blaster with bad writing.

Bob himself is worth 1 point, because he's a competative MEQ choice.

Therefore, bob costs 111pts.
I replace his doomsday gun with a plothole blaster.
Now he is worth 121pts. [I paid for the Doomsday gun, but now I have replaced it, which means also replacing it's cost.]
I then exchange the Plothole blaster for bad writing - He still costs 121pts.

Clear?

GenRifDrake wrote:
You don't pay for the initial bits though.. you pay for what you are equipped with.. that's present tense, not past or future. If you trade your bolter for a plasma gun you are now equipped with the plasma gun, not the bolter. To twist this Rules Lawyering another way, if i'm paying to be equipped with the gear I initially had, then I still get to also use that gear since if i'm not equipped with it anymore, how can I pay for it, and if I am equipped with it, I can then therefore still use it because my model can attack/use whatever wargear it is equipped with etc etc.

Which is why i said, if you pay take just the basic Coldstar it costs 134 points - but, if you decide to change what it is equipped with, the cost then changes. You pay for the "end" product. A stock/basic/standard Coldstar has 2 weapons and no support systems. A stock/basic/standard Coldstar isn't just the cost of the platform.

When comparing basic units vs each other, their equipment still has to taken into account, unless you are deliberately stating that you're ignoring the weapons - but then it becomes half a comparison. You could argue that Dark Reapers cost 5 points each, and then say, "well they are way better than Guardsmen but only cost 1 point more"... But you are then ignoring the "tax" of their 22 point weapons. But people seem to think that the 5 points a model is the comparison cost and then get upset that the special rule "only costs 1 point per model". It's simply a flaw in how GW cost things out. Maybe instead, the cost of the Reaper should be 27 points, and the cost of the weapon 0 - but then you come into issue like the Autarch then taking the weapon for 0 points.

Maybe we're just talking about 2 completely different points, but i was under the impression that this started as a discussion on trying to compare units vs each other - i.e the Space Marine named Chapter Masters vs a Coldstar, and people were only looking at the cost before weapons.

Not at all, Admiral - the exchange/replace bit seems to be the grey area.

I'm away from my books at present, but I'd lean towards "tot up costs of final gear & original body" as how this works.

Again, if anyone ever tried to argue this with me, i'd just cite back at them that I can get to use both weapons in the battle, as the rules say a model can use whatever weapons/gear it is equipped with etc, and since i'm paying to be equipped with it I clearly must have it and can therefore use it.

So if someone wants to argue my HPI Hellblaster must pay for both regular PI in it's equipment and the HPI, I can clearly use both the PI and HPI in combat as I only pay for what he's equipped with, and in-game I can use whatever he is equipped with, so choose, am I equipped with both or one, because can't have it both ways if you are going to rules argue that.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
The wording is REPLACE.

So.

I purchase Bob the Space Marine. He is armed with a doomsday gun, 90 pts, and a fluff cannon 20pts.

I may replace Bob's Doomsday gun with a plothole blaster, for 100pts.
I can exchange a plothole blaster with bad writing.

Bob himself is worth 1 point, because he's a competative MEQ choice.

Therefore, bob costs 111pts.
I replace his doomsday gun with a plothole blaster.
Now he is worth 121pts. [I paid for the Doomsday gun, but now I have replaced it, which means also replacing it's cost.]
I then exchange the Plothole blaster for bad writing - He still costs 121pts.

Clear?

Certainly a more elegant and amusing way to put it than what i referred to as the "end product". /nowifonlymeqscost1point/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Not at all, Admiral - the exchange/replace bit seems to be the grey area.

I'm away from my books at present, but I'd lean towards "tot up costs of final gear & original body" as how this works.

So, in that case you'd pay for the points cost of the body (which is costed different and stated to not include wargear - apart from special characters) plus the cost of the "final gear". The things you replace/exchange are no longer part of the "final gear" so you wouldn't add in those points costs as they are listed separately.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or just fix commanders so that they aren't too good for points. Too hard for gw alas.

By doing what? Giving them a gigantic points increase? A quad Fusion Blaster Coldstar costs 174 pts. That is only four points more than Pedro Kantor for an effective range of 58" Melta x4.

Like I said, there is literally no other HQ unit in the game that can mimic the output of a Commander other than a Flying Hive Tyrant.

It sucks for the people that were running five or six of them, but it is a little hard to have sympathy for them. Spam armies deserve to get the hammer dropped on them. And anyone that is running one that doesn't see that happening is delusional. And painting something doesn't really change that.

Well points do kinda play part in determining how good model is for it's points...would everybody be spamming it if it was 500 pts model? Obviouly not. Now that is too high so proper is somewhere in middle

Kdash wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Not at all, Admiral - the exchange/replace bit seems to be the grey area.

I'm away from my books at present, but I'd lean towards "tot up costs of final gear & original body" as how this works.

So, in that case you'd pay for the points cost of the body (which is costed different and stated to not include wargear - apart from special characters) plus the cost of the "final gear". The things you replace/exchange are no longer part of the "final gear" so you wouldn't add in those points costs as they are listed separately.

Yeah, I suspect my issue with the Admiral's example is the lack of a listed cost for bad writing - though I imagine most people would think it came for free in a GW book

They really need to get a technical writer in to tighten some of their wording up.

 Dysartes wrote:
Silly question, as I'm nowhere near my copies - any WD battle reports with points that people can double-check?

It'd be a reasonable check of how GW expect it to be played, at least.

WD batreps have only used power level so far afaik. I'll have a flick through in a bit.

I dunno... replace seems to imply that you have to have it first. Otherwise how can you replace it?

That would mean buying item A first then replacing it with item B.

All Tactial Marines are equipped with a Bolter and a Bolt Pistol as standard equipment. You must replace the Bolter with a Special or Heavy Weapon as opposed to adding one. It is not about cost, it is about allowable weapon configurations.

Cost is determined by looking at the finished model and totaling up the cost of the model and it's wargear as instructed in the Codexes and Indexes. Why would you add the cost of wargear the model doesn't have?

I can't believe I actually created a profile just to end this terrible ignorance....

We don't live in 7th edition anymore guys! This is 8th, you don't pay points to exchange wargear anymore and you don't pay points until you are finished with your list. The list building process goes as follows:

You take a unit out an entry and modify it by changing its size and/or equipment as stated in their entry.

Repeat and create detachments. You end with a list of units that way, your army list.

Then you flip back to the last pages and add the costs of models and the cost of their equipment that they are equipped with as stated in their tables.

That's the reason why those tables are at the end of the book and the point costs no longer in their entries.

GiToRaZor wrote:
I can't believe I actually created a profile just to end this terrible ignorance....

We don't live in 7th edition anymore guys! This is 8th, you don't pay points to exchange wargear anymore and you don't pay points until you are finished with your list. The list building process goes as follows:

You take a unit out an entry and modify it by changing its size and/or equipment as stated in their entry.

Repeat and create detachments. You end with a list of units that way, your army list.

Then you flip back to the last pages and add the costs of models and the cost of their equipment that they are equipped with as stated in their tables.

That's the reason why those tables are at the end of the book and the point costs no longer in their entries.

w

Correct!

If you've _replaced_ an item, you've replaced it's price, so you only pay it, you pay the price you paid for the other thing!

Bad Writing = 50 points
Ultra Smurf - 10 points
Plot Hole Blaster - 10 points.

Ultra Smurf with Bad Writing - 60 points.
Replace Bad Writing with Plot Hole Blaster - Now, 20 points. [10 + 50 [Replaced with 10] = 10 + 10.]

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Silly question, as I'm nowhere near my copies - any WD battle reports with points that people can double-check?

It'd be a reasonable check of how GW expect it to be played, at least.

WD batreps have only used power level so far afaik. I'll have a flick through in a bit.

Warhammer Live however tends to use points.

The distinction that's being missed by people who want me to pay for a burst cannon and missile pod I'm not using is that the word 'replace' is being used because there's a prescribed default equipment load-out, not because of some imaginary need to add a thing before replacing it. The implication people keep citing is arguable, but implications are not rules regardless.

Imagine your codex as a burger or pizza menu where toppings are never included in the base price of an item, even if they're the default for what you're ordering. If your burger ($3), by default, comes with tomatoes ($1) and onions ($1), but you want to replace the tomatoes with pickles ($2), you'd recognize an error had been made when your burger with onions and pickles cost you $7 instead of $6.

(I also fully concede that 'replace' is not the best word they could have chosen, though it is adequate from a rules perspective, and I'm frankly shocked anyone is interpreting it the way that makes everything more expensive. I guess 'substitute' would have been clearer.)

To those saying that you pay for initial weapons, that would mean that chaos terminator, that comes stock with combi-bolter(2p) and power axes (5p), would end up costing more if they wanted to change the axe to a power maul (4) because you would have to count (5+4p), for an inferior weapon (this is inferred from the fact that on any csm model, the power maul is going to be 4 points and the axe is 5, so the axe should be slightly better). That sounds hard to defend to me, but maybe thats just me.
That would also mean that my combi-plasma + power maul termi would be worth 7 points morth each, or that power fist termi from C:SM would have to pay powerfist (stock equipement) + thunderhammer price, when they decide to upgrade to a thunder hammer?

The cost if an unit is the cost of the model(s) plus the weapons and wargear it/they will have during the game.

Benn Roe wrote:
The distinction that's being missed by people who want me to pay for a burst cannon and missile pod I'm not using is that the word 'replace' is being used because there's a prescribed default equipment load-out, not because of some imaginary need to add a thing before replacing it. The implication people keep citing is arguable, but implications are not rules regardless.

Imagine your codex as a burger or pizza menu where toppings are never included in the base price of an item, even if they're the default for what you're ordering. If your burger ($3), by default, comes with tomatoes ($1) and onions ($1), but you want to replace the tomatoes with pickles ($2), you'd recognize an error had been made when your burger with onions and pickles cost you $7 instead of $6.

(I also fully concede that 'replace' is not the best word they could have chosen, though it is adequate from a rules perspective, and I'm frankly shocked anyone is interpreting it the way that makes everything more expensive. I guess 'substitute' would have been clearer.)

Just to elucidate, there are 4 'main' definitions of the word replace, 2 of which are strongly synonymous with substitute.

Take the place of.
Provide a substitute for.
Fill the role of (someone or something) with a substitute.
Put (something) back in a previous place or position.


Regarding the points argument, there are 5 stages of army selection- initial game parameters, informal/optional calculations, selecting the army/force, detachment organization and calculating your army’s total points value. The reason why the 2nd point is optional is that there is no jussive/ imperative (ie it doesnt say you ought to or must do calculations at the 2nd point). This is important because if selecting/replacing equipment happens first, it has no initial cost until the final calculation stage.

"Firstly, it involves a conversation between you and your opponent in which you decide on the parameters of the battle.Whatever your chosen method of army selection, there will be some calculations to make as you select your forces to your agreed limits.Finally, you will need to organise your army into detachments, as all matched play games use the Battleforged army rules(pg240)."

GiToRaZor wrote:
I can't believe I actually created a profile just to end this terrible ignorance....

We don't live in 7th edition anymore guys! This is 8th, you don't pay points to exchange wargear anymore and you don't pay points until you are finished with your list. The list building process goes as follows:

You take a unit out an entry and modify it by changing its size and/or equipment as stated in their entry.

Repeat and create detachments. You end with a list of units that way, your army list.

Then you flip back to the last pages and add the costs of models and the cost of their equipment that they are equipped with as stated in their tables.

That's the reason why those tables are at the end of the book and the point costs no longer in their entries.

Yeah too bad this isn't 7th edition anymore. It was much clearer then and also had bonus that system would have worked well for different units with same wargear(ie tactical sergeant pays different price for powerfist than say death company marine or captain because logically enough power fist is worth more on captain than lowly sergeant!).

tneva82 wrote:

GiToRaZor wrote:
I can't believe I actually created a profile just to end this terrible ignorance....

We don't live in 7th edition anymore guys! This is 8th, you don't pay points to exchange wargear anymore and you don't pay points until you are finished with your list. The list building process goes as follows:

You take a unit out an entry and modify it by changing its size and/or equipment as stated in their entry.

Repeat and create detachments. You end with a list of units that way, your army list.

Then you flip back to the last pages and add the costs of models and the cost of their equipment that they are equipped with as stated in their tables.

That's the reason why those tables are at the end of the book and the point costs no longer in their entries.

Yeah too bad this isn't 7th edition anymore. It was much clearer then and also had bonus that system would have worked well for different units with same wargear(ie tactical sergeant pays different price for powerfist than say death company marine or captain because logically enough power fist is worth more on captain than lowly sergeant!).

It was only simpler because there were only four lists and you just chose one and played it

The Tau FAQ shoukd be dropping soon right?

I was kinda hoping the Big one would drop the same time.

Well, again rumors, that the hive tyrant is going up 20 points and will be 1 per detachment. (And yes it it was from nafka)

I thought the March/Sept FAQs only addressed rules, like the Commissar or Smite nerfs?

The article GW posted a few months ago implied that point changes would only be in Chapter Approved.

 xttz wrote:
I thought the March/Sept FAQs only addressed rules, like the Commissar or Smite nerfs?

The article GW posted a few months ago implied that point changes would only be in Chapter Approved.

It also implied that there will be a fixed release date.
Things can change.

 xttz wrote:
I thought the March/Sept FAQs only addressed rules, like the Commissar or Smite nerfs?

The article GW posted a few months ago implied that point changes would only be in Chapter Approved.

Even the best laid plans don't survive contact with the Games Workshop design team. This whole edition has felt like one knee jerk response after another, so I doubt that'll change just because of their statements.

I really hope that limit just applies to Flyrants... could actually get people to use non-flying varieties. But judging by the Tau limit, I wont get my hopes up...

 xttz wrote:
I thought the March/Sept FAQs only addressed rules, like the Commissar or Smite nerfs?

The article GW posted a few months ago implied that point changes would only be in Chapter Approved.

The question is whether points are rules...