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 what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2017 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?

Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?

Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points for 2017 CA. It is absent from 2018 CA.


To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Eldar Revenant 2017 CA is changed to 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.

So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???

 admironheart wrote:
so what is the thought or consensus on point changes that were in 2017 CA but the unit is omitted from 2018 CA?

Does it stay at the 2017 CA point cost or does it revert to its origingal?

Example the 90 point Malanthrope was changed to 140 points for 2017 CA. It is absent from 2018 CA.


To further clarify why this is being asked. Lets look at the Eldar Revenant 2017 CA is changed to 2000 points. They decided it was needed to reprint it in 2018 CA at 2000 points.

So are some units reversing back....or is this just more errata? And how do you play it till there may be a FAQ update....perhaps months or more.???

I was under the impression that CA18 contained all entries that have been changed from the codex, CA17's points values are, for all intents and purposes, redundant and not used. Are you sure it's missing because I distinctly remember the Warhammer Community saying that CA18 would have all the changed entries. If not then I guess you use the most recent values, whatever that might be.

The malanthrope is present in CA2018, in the FW section.

https://spikeybits.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Screenshot_192-1.jpg

Thanks for clearing that rumor up..!

One that needs errata is CSM Terminators that for some reason are 28 PPM while the exact same units/abilities SM Terminators are only 23 PPM

chaos45 wrote:
One that needs errata is CSM Terminators that for some reason are 28 PPM while the exact same units/abilities SM Terminators are only 23 PPM

IMO, not all army need to pay the same for the exact same statline. It's okay for an army to have underpriced units in certain role, if they then have overpriced units elsewhere, and all different kinds of unit if necessary to win. It contributes to faction identity. Warmachine understood that and did it very well. The problem is more that GW is not yet there in term of balacing different option, and so you can skew by going all in in one kind of ''rock'' and still win against every ''paper''.

VoidSempai wrote:

chaos45 wrote:
One that needs errata is CSM Terminators that for some reason are 28 PPM while the exact same units/abilities SM Terminators are only 23 PPM

IMO, not all army need to pay the same for the exact same statline. It's okay for an army to have underpriced units in certain role, if they then have overpriced units elsewhere, and all different kinds of unit if necessary to win. It contributes to faction identity. Warmachine understood that and did it very well. The problem is more that GW is not yet there in term of balacing different option, and so you can skew by going all in in one kind of ''rock'' and still win against every ''paper''.

And to add to this, Chaos Termies and Loyalist Termies did go down in points by the same amount = 3ppm. Chaos were 31ppm, while Loyalists were 26ppm.
So at least there was consistency in how much both units got decreased.

I do feel like Chaos remain 5ppm more simply because they have access to cheaper base wargear than the Loyalists. Wargear, which btw, also got cheaper
It seems clear that GW want Chaos Terminators and Loyalist to cost about the same AFTER wargear is added.

OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

-

Not to mention the very fact Chaos Termies get access to Combi Weapons instantly makes them better than loyalist ones. Even with a 5pt difference.

Not enough to elevate them to a 'good' unit, granted... But still.

For some reason CSM has the demonic icon and instrument listed, as the exact same cost listed in the codex...

Did CA 2017 change it or am I missing something?

 Galef wrote:
OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

That'd make sense as you wouldn't want to check all three books for point values. Let's hope GW was that smart.

There's no reason of keeping 10 points SS for TWC, it's the same cost that characters gets now. Maybe they should drop to 5 since 2pts look like a steal on a 40 ppm model?

I'm sure they're going to be fixed sooner or later.

nekooni wrote:

 Galef wrote:
OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

That'd make sense as you wouldn't want to check all three books for point values. Let's hope GW was that smart.

Yes, they should clarify this. But if something was changed from Codex to CA2017 and it is not listed in the 2018 I thing it probably stays at CA17 value.

Alex_85 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Galef wrote:
OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

That'd make sense as you wouldn't want to check all three books for point values. Let's hope GW was that smart.

Yes, they should clarify this. But if something was changed from Codex to CA2017 and it is not listed in the 2018 I thing it probably stays at CA17 value.

CA18 says if a points value does not appear in the tables, use the value "within the most recently published book for that Faction" and then gives exceptions for SOB and Renegade Knights. So if it's not in CA18, you use the codex value. CA17 points values are no longer relevant in any way, shape or form.

 Blackie wrote:
There's no reason of keeping 10 points SS for TWC, it's the same cost that characters gets now. Maybe they should drop to 5 since 2pts look like a steal on a 40 ppm model?

I'm sure they're going to be fixed sooner or later.

There is reason. A SS on TWC is much more valuable than on a crusader. Plasma guns are cheaper for BS 4+ AM models, and more expensive for 3+ AM models. Same reason.

Maybe but not 5x more expensive than the regular SS.

Plasma guns aren't 5x cheaper on BS4+ dudes.

The reason is that SW are too new and weren't really included in CA. Only SM weapons and those units that were identical to SM ones (like termies) weren't covered. But the tipycal SW entries that aren't shared with SM, like the TWC storm shields, are not included in CA anyway, it's not because TWC deserve so expensive SS because it's silly to let them pay as much as characters, which definitely doesn't cost only 40ppm and are way more killy.

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe but not 5x more expensive than the regular SS.

But they're probably worth 8 points more per model. Which sounds a bit more reasonable than "5 times more expensive".

And please show me the SM HQ that's 40ppm.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Alex_85 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Galef wrote:
OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

That'd make sense as you wouldn't want to check all three books for point values. Let's hope GW was that smart.

Yes, they should clarify this. But if something was changed from Codex to CA2017 and it is not listed in the 2018 I thing it probably stays at CA17 value.

CA18 says if a points value does not appear in the tables, use the value "within the most recently published book for that Faction" and then gives exceptions for SOB and Renegade Knights. So if it's not in CA18, you use the codex value. CA17 points values are no longer relevant in any way, shape or form.

CA isnt a book for a faction so wouldn't you go to the codex

U02dah4 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Alex_85 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Galef wrote:
OT, I do believe that CA2018 does note in the beginning that all points include previous changes and if not listed in CA2018, you are to assume they have been returned to the Codex price.

That'd make sense as you wouldn't want to check all three books for point values. Let's hope GW was that smart.

Yes, they should clarify this. But if something was changed from Codex to CA2017 and it is not listed in the 2018 I thing it probably stays at CA17 value.

CA18 says if a points value does not appear in the tables, use the value "within the most recently published book for that Faction" and then gives exceptions for SOB and Renegade Knights. So if it's not in CA18, you use the codex value. CA17 points values are no longer relevant in any way, shape or form.

CA isnt a book for a faction so wouldn't you go to the codex

Yes, that is what I said. "CA17 points values are no longer relevant in any way, shape or form."

What about the Malanthrope?

It was changed in CA17, it doesn't appear in CA18.

It did not appear in its factions most recently published book either though, as it's a Forgeworld unit from the Forgeworld Index Xenos.

 Stux wrote:
What about the Malanthrope?

It was changed in CA17, it doesn't appear in CA18.

It did not appear in its factions most recently published book either though, as it's a Forgeworld unit from the Forgeworld Index Xenos.

Gee, I dont know what we could do about the Malanthrope.



Maybe read the book.

Sorry I couldn't find it in a book that isn't released yet...

There's a lot of incomplete information out there and it's easy to miss these things, no need for the snark.

Also realise that's a post from above I missed. Again sorry, thanks for pointing it out.

 Stux wrote:
Sorry I couldn't find it in a book that isn't released yet...

There's a lot of incomplete information out there and it's easy to miss these things, no need for the snark.

This thread isn't that long though, and I'd assume you weren't just stating something as fact without having seen the book, or at least scans of it.

nekooni wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Sorry I couldn't find it in a book that isn't released yet...

There's a lot of incomplete information out there and it's easy to miss these things, no need for the snark.

This thread isn't that long though, and I'd assume you weren't just stating something as fact without having seen the book, or at least scans of it.

There was a lot of chat elsewhere about the Malanthrope not having points. Clearly that was false, but a lot of people HAD been stating it as fact.

It doesn't really matter, I made a mistake, I've got the answer, so let's move on.

nekooni wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe but not 5x more expensive than the regular SS.

But they're probably worth 8 points more per model. Which sounds a bit more reasonable than "5 times more expensive".

And please show me the SM HQ that's 40ppm.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant to say that TWC are 40ppm and their SS costs like a SM HQ, which is definitely more expensive and killy than a single TWC. That's why 10 points for a TWC is absurd. In the SW codex SS cost 15 points for characters, 10 for TWC and 5 for other dudes. TWC ones are the exact average between the characters' shields and regular dudes' ones so they should cost 5-6 points at most. I'm sure they'll get a significant price decrease in the next rounds of points adjustments.

 Blackie wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe but not 5x more expensive than the regular SS.

But they're probably worth 8 points more per model. Which sounds a bit more reasonable than "5 times more expensive".

And please show me the SM HQ that's 40ppm.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant to say that TWC are 40ppm and their SS costs like a SM HQ, which is definitely more expensive and killy than a single TWC. That's why 10 points for a TWC is absurd. In the SW codex SS cost 15 points for characters, 10 for TWC and 5 for other dudes. TWC ones are the exact average between the characters' shields and regular dudes' ones so they should cost 5-6 points at most. I'm sure they'll get a significant price decrease in the next rounds of points adjustments.

So Storm Shield costs for Space Wolves have two entries in my CA2018:
* for Characters
* other models

They also have an extensive list of which units are updated, including the chapter unique ones.
I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't that mean that you pay TWC Stormshields just like any other model that's not a Character? I'd honestly read it that way, but if there's another entry "for TWC" in the codex, I'd say we need a clarification from GW on that (but I'd go with the reduced cost for your TWCs in the mean time).

Are TWC characters ? If the answer is yes, its 10 points for SS. If the answer is no, its 2 points.

In the SW codex there are 3 different entries for storm shields: Characters, TWC, other dudes. But in CA only two of them are listed in the SW section.

So they aren't characters but CA only replaces entries that were listed in the codex, it doesn't merge two entries into a single one. RAW TWC shields are still 10 points like characters' ones but it's only because SW are actually out of CA and got a few changes only for stuff that is in common with SM.

The entry "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" is listed only in the SW codex, it's not in common with SM, that's why it's out of CA. But it doesn't make any sense to let them cost as much as characters' shields, that's why they could get an errata or just a new points value in the next round of FAQs.

 Blackie wrote:
In the SW codex there are 3 different entries for storm shields: Characters, TWC, other dudes. But in CA only two of them are listed in the SW section.

So they aren't characters but CA only replaces entries that were listed in the codex, it doesn't merge two entries into a single one. RAW TWC shields are still 10 points like characters' ones but it's only because SW are actually out of CA and got a few changes only for stuff that is in common with SM.

Ok, so anything that isnt updated by CA, remains the same as it was before. TWC pay 10 for SS.

 Blackie wrote:

The entry "Storm Shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)" is listed only in the SW codex, it's not in common with SM, that's why it's out of CA. But it doesn't make any sense to let them cost as much as characters' shields, that's why they could get an errata or just a new points value in the next round of FAQs.

It does make sense. As i already said, some war gear is better on some models, thus it should cost more points.

CA18 FAQ has spoken: TWC pay 10 points for Storm Shields.

Q: The points cost for a ‘Storm shield (Thunderwolf Cavalry)’
does not appear in the Space Wolves section of the updated
points values in Chapter Approved: 2018 Edition, but there
is an entry for ‘Storm shield (other models)’. What points value
should I use for my Thunderwolf Cavalry models?
A: Use the value in Codex: Space Wolves: 10 points
per model.

Nightlord1987 wrote:For some reason CSM has the demonic icon and instrument listed, as the exact same cost listed in the codex...

Did CA 2017 change it or am I missing something?

Nope. They're 25pts combined in both C:CSM and C:CD and CA:2017 is silent on the issue, except for a Children of the Warp Daemonic Icon entry.

I do have a dim memory of Daemonic Icons being 25pts each at some point in 8th Ed., but it doesn't seem to shed any light on the CA:2018 entry.