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'm a little unclear on what takes precedence for the Big Mek with Kustom Force Field that was reintroduced in Saga of the Beast.

The FAQ/Errata for SotB says "change his points to 75".

The Munitorum Field Manual says he's 60 points and that the KFF wargear is 20 points, and neither seems to be updated in the Field Manual FAQ/Errata.

So is he 75, 95, 60, or 80?

The field manual is the latest release and is designed to update the points for all units for 9th edition - those are the points to use.

SotB is an 8th edition book and the points in it were correct for 8th edition, these have now been changed for 9th edition in the field manual.

Hmmm... the answer isn't always that clear-cut, you have to check the FAQ dates as well, since all of them (even SotB) were updated when 9th ed dropped, and some have been updated since the field manual. Heck, the field manual itself has had changes already.

Looking at the SotB FAQ, while it was last updated 12/8, we can tell the Big Mek points change to 75 is an old entry since it's in black text rather than blue or magenta. So in this case, yes, the field manual is the most up-to-date for ordinary points.
However, the power level for it did also change to 5, per the Power Rating update on 10/8 (this just doesn't affect the other points value).

...and some people wonder why other people get FAQ fatigue.

Its 60+20, as listed in the MFM 2020, which is the latest points release.

It's 100% 75 points. That FAQ is more recent than MFM 2020.

The KFF is not additional wargear for the big mek like you see in the Morkanaut, Wazbom or Megarmored Mek's datasheets.

Simply the effect of the KFF is included in the big mek's datasheet.

The 60+20 argument is nonsense. The model has only his basic points cost plus 0 points weapons (slugga, choppa, bombs). No other upgrades possible, including paying 20 points for a KFF, which is already included in model's profile. If the MFM 2020 was the legit source to consider the model's cost then it would be 60, not 80.

Agreed, its 75.

I don't know anything about the wargear included or not included argument but in 9th edition there is no other source for points costs other than the munitorum field guide.

That was the whole point of it, while I'm sure there are things missing and misprinted if there are points listed in it, those are the points you should be using. I can't see an update to an out of date book taking presidence.

Unfortunately the only way of really knowing (all of our opinions are just that) is to wait and see what is in the GW app when the army builder goes live.

Until then speak to your opponent or the TO of any events and come to an agreement with them :-)

The points for the big mek with kff were changed in the SotB FAQ on 12/08/20, which is newer than the MFM 2020. Its very unusual, thats why i also thought that MFM 2020 was the latest release. This point change should be in the MFM 2020 update.

The problem here is that the 75 points in the FAQ predates the field manual, everything that was added for 9th edition is in blue or magenta text. Therefore the 75 points cost FAQ predates 9th edition, never mind the field manual. It should have been removed.

 Blackie wrote:
The 60+20 argument is nonsense. The model has only his basic points cost plus 0 points weapons (slugga, choppa, bombs). No other upgrades possible, including paying 20 points for a KFF, which is already included in model's profile. If the MFM 2020 was the legit source to consider the model's cost then it would be 60, not 80.

I've not got the field manual to hand, but if that says the KFF is 20 points and it's not FAQ'ed elsewhere, it's still 20 points extra. Otherwise why is "other wargear" even listed? (Unless it's double-asterisked as one of those entries that says it includes wargear in the points cost?)

That doesn't really mean alot though.

Updating the points listed in an 8th edition rulebook that has specifically been superseded (like all 8th edition books) by the MFM only means that if your still playing 8th edition that you should use those points.

9th edition points have never been in the SotB.

Just my opinion, its clear others have other opinions thus only an official GW answer will clear it up. Unfortunatly I suspect they think they have already given the answer (either in the SotB FAQ or the MFM) we just don't know which is correct ;-)

 Super Ready wrote:


I've not got the field manual to hand, but if that says the KFF is 20 points and it's not FAQ'ed elsewhere, it's still 20 points extra. Otherwise why is "other wargear" even listed? (Unless it's double-asterisked as one of those entries that says it includes wargear in the points cost?)

The point is that big mek isn't just a mek with a 20ppm KFF, it's a model with KFF rule in its datasheet WITHOUT the KFF as part of his wargear. It doesn't have or can take an actual KFF, that's why he doesn't have to pay 20 points like other units that can have a KFF.

In the "other wargear" section he can take a Grot Oiler, as his datasheet also says. It's the only possible upgrade/different wargear that model can take.

 Super Ready wrote:
The problem here is that the 75 points in the FAQ predates the field manual, everything that was added for 9th edition is in blue or magenta text. Therefore the 75 points cost FAQ predates 9th edition, never mind the field manual. It should have been removed.

 Blackie wrote:
The 60+20 argument is nonsense. The model has only his basic points cost plus 0 points weapons (slugga, choppa, bombs). No other upgrades possible, including paying 20 points for a KFF, which is already included in model's profile. If the MFM 2020 was the legit source to consider the model's cost then it would be 60, not 80.

I've not got the field manual to hand, but if that says the KFF is 20 points and it's not FAQ'ed elsewhere, it's still 20 points extra. Otherwise why is "other wargear" even listed? (Unless it's double-asterisked as one of those entries that says it includes wargear in the points cost?)

The entry in 'Other Wargear' is required for the Big Mek in Mega Armour, which has the option to take it.

Whilst a 'Big Mek with Kustom Force Field' has an ability entitled 'Kustom Force Field' a Kustom Force Field isn't listed as part of thier wargear.

So whilst descriptively the model is equiped with a 'Kustom Force Field' as indicated by the ability mechanically the model isn't equiped is an item of wargear called Kustom Force Field.

Thus the cost would be 60pts (for a 'Big Mek with Kustom Force Field') + 0 Pts (slugga, choppa, stikkbombz).

As a processes 9E points are (currently) detailed in the Munitorium Field Manual which replace all earlier points listings. So whilst new errata, the errated value provided for Saga of the Beast is itself overwritten by the value in the field manual. I can easily see their being a call the RAI they should be 75pts.

Cornishman wrote:


As a processes 9E points are (currently) detailed in the Munitorium Field Manual which replace all earlier points listings. So whilst new errata, the errated value provided for Saga of the Beast is itself overwritten by the value in the field manual. I can easily see their being a call the RAI they should be 75pts.

But why should a FAQ that was released after MFM be ignored? Everything included in that FAQ is assumed to be valid but not the points changes on the Big mek with KFF?

I also don't think it was a fix for 8th edition as that model was definitely worth 55 points, 60 at most, but not 75. 62 was the cost of a weirdboy and 78 was the warboss with PK, SAG was 80. It's very unlikely that GW thought that Big mek should have been that expensive in 8th.

Gotcha - thanks Blackie/Cornishman, that makes more sense. Agreed then that the non-mega-armoured Big Mek gets it for "free".

To those still saying it should be 75 points - given that point value was there before the end of 8th, why was that not reflected:
- in the field manual on release
- in the field manual's FAQ update?
Even if you consider it an oversight from whoever updated the cost for the field manual, the fact remains that the judgement call to give it a 60-point update (with 9th ed rules in place) came after the 75-point one (with 8th ed rules in effect, and 9th ed rules "in mind" at most).

The part you are missing is that there was no 8th edition FAQ for Saga of the Beast. The point value in the book itself is 55 points, and despite some major issues there never was a FAQ.

The FAQ was first released the week after MFM and 9th were released, and therefore is the newest source. All the blue and magenta changes are quick responses from GW to major feth-ups in the first version of the FAQ that caused huge backlashes, like making the mek workshop mandatory for kustom jobs despite promising the opposite multiple times.

The chronological order of the changes for the Big Mek with Kustom Force Field is this:
SotB: 55
MFM: 60
SotB-FAQ: 75

The FAQ that states that the model costs 75 points came after MFM, it's actually the latest official document for orks.

If they meant the SotB FAQ to override the point cost in the Munitorium Field Manual, wouldn't they have also put out a FAQ for the MFM also adjusting the points there?

 doctortom wrote:
If they meant the SotB FAQ to override the point cost in the Munitorium Field Manual, wouldn't they have also put out a FAQ for the MFM also adjusting the points there?

If GW were competent and conscientious enough for us to confidently assume that, then they would be competent and conscientious enough for us to assume that if they had meant the MFM to reign, they would not have subsequently published a FAQ that contradicted it (even if only by virtue of carrying over a value from a previous version)

I'm both mistaken, AND put too much faith into the FAQ updating process. My bad!!

GW's official app lists it at 75 as well.

It's rather confusing, but I'd say just go with what their app says.

Here's some food for thought:

Big Mek with Kustom Force Field is PL 5 in the Power Level document.
1 Power Level is generally considered to be approximately 20 points, based on the average value of the unit.
BMwKFF is 75 points per Saga of the Wolf FAQ
KFF is 20 points per MFM
75 + 20 = 95
95/20 = 4.8 = 5 PL

Things to make you go hmmm....

I guess we won't know the correct answer until the Matched Play function in the 40K app is launched.

Nah. With their recent track record, that'll just result in yet another entirely different points value. With no explanation or clarification.

There are enough other examples that we can safely say the 1PL = 20 points comparison is not to be taken as gospel.

Well, it's good to know that I'm not just an idiot who can't see a clear correct answer.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's some food for thought:

Big Mek with Kustom Force Field is PL 5 in the Power Level document.
1 Power Level is generally considered to be approximately 20 points, based on the average value of the unit.
BMwKFF is 75 points per Saga of the Wolf FAQ
KFF is 20 points per MFM
75 + 20 = 95
95/20 = 4.8 = 5 PL

Things to make you go hmmm....

I guess we won't know the correct answer until the Matched Play function in the 40K app is launched.

As explained before, the Big Mek with Kustom Force Field does not have the Kustom Force Field wargear item and therefore does not need to pay 20 points for it.
Considering how they FAQed the entire rule and explicitly did not link it to having the wargear item, like it does for other models with a KFF, it's very much to be assumed that this was indeed an intentional change.

Even when that function in the app comes out, you won't necessarily know if the app is right.

 Blackie wrote:

Cornishman wrote:


As a processes 9E points are (currently) detailed in the Munitorium Field Manual which replace all earlier points listings. So whilst new errata, the errated value provided for Saga of the Beast is itself overwritten by the value in the field manual. I can easily see their being a call the RAI they should be 75pts.

But why should a FAQ that was released after MFM be ignored? Everything included in that FAQ is assumed to be valid but not the points changes on the Big mek with KFF?

I also don't think it was a fix for 8th edition as that model was definitely worth 55 points, 60 at most, but not 75. 62 was the cost of a weirdboy and 78 was the warboss with PK, SAG was 80. It's very unlikely that GW thought that Big mek should have been that expensive in 8th.

Write down physically all errata fixes to relevant book.

Then take up most recent book with points.

You'll see errata 75 ended up in book that's not got most relevant data.

RAI it would be 80. 60+20 like the 8e points was 55(mek then)+20. Why would 9e mek get random 5 point discount by fielding KFF?

Also fun fact. The 75 pts entry in FAQ is actually pre-9e entry as it's there as old data rather than updated when 9e FAQ's were released. This was added to FAQ during 8e and then corona delayed.

tneva82 wrote:


RAI it would be 80. 60+20 like the 8e points was 55(mek then)+20. Why would 9e mek get random 5 point discount by fielding KFF?

If RAI big mek was basic price+20ppm KFF why didn't GW change it with the FAQ? They did change the fact that invuln worked in combat and was klan racist, but didn't add the KFF in the model's wargear.

So it pretty safe to assume that RAI GW doesn't want to count the KFF as a 20ppm wargear but considers the big mek to have an inner special ability that has the same effect of the KFF added as wargear. In fact he's the only ork model with mandatory KFF, all the other models with that ability (which have to pay those 20 points) don't come with a KFF, they can only take it as a possible upgrade. So by your logic about what document is the legit one the model is both RAW and RAI 60 points, not 80.

In 8th RAW it was 55 points. RAI we'll never know as the FAQ that puts him at 75 was released during 9th. And comes with 9th rules in mind. Why changing Da Pincha with Bs2+ instead of +3 to hit if the document was referred to 8th?

tneva82 wrote:
Write down physically all errata fixes to relevant book.

Then take up most recent book with points.

You'll see errata 75 ended up in book that's not got most relevant data.

This is a made up workflow to determine the current costs that is not supported by anything GW has ever released. Please stop confusing players asking honest questions with this.

RAI it would be 80. 60+20 like the 8e points was 55(mek then)+20. Why would 9e mek get random 5 point discount by fielding KFF?

The cost of the big mek with KFF actually received a 15 point increase because it does not have a wargear item that costs 20 points and never had it ever since the datasheet existed. The rule that caused this was completely re-written by GW and it still does not require the wargear item. There is absolutely no reason to assume that RAI it is supposed to pay extra for the KFF.

Also fun fact. The 75 pts entry in FAQ is actually pre-9e entry as it's there as old data rather than updated when 9e FAQ's were released.

This was added to FAQ during 8e and then corona delayed.

There is no proof of that. Therefor it's a "fun assumption" at best. Please provide proof before claiming "alternative facts".

As for the inventing the process of the Field Manual superceding any and all previous points values....

Munitorium Field Manual pg 3

The points values listed in this book replace any published previously...

Whilst the Saga of the Beast errata is has only recently come out, that doesn't alter the way that errata, and thus the 'corrections' applies to points as listed in Saga of the Beast. All the points in Saga of the Beast are superceaded by those in the field manual by virtue of Saga of the Beast pre-dating the Field Manual (corrections to the book doesn't change when the book was published).

I can see a logic behind the FAQ taking precedence.

If 75 pts is the intended points cost then this would be entirely unambigious if this was included in the Field Manual Errata. Guess we'll just have to ping GW...