dswanick Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 This topic came up in an Army List thread. Codex: Space Wolves states: Grey Hunter pack options* One Grey Hunter may replace his bolter with one of the following: - Flamer - free - Meltagun - 5 points - Plasma gun - 10 points * If the squad numbers ten models, a second Grey Hunter may replace his bolter with a weapon from the above list at no additional cost. The FAQ states: Q. Must a Grey Hunter unit that consists of ten models take the first special weapon at normal points cost in order to take the second free one? (p26)A. Yes. The question is: If my 10-man Grey Hunter pack takes a Flamer for free, can they then also take the second special weapon for free also? I say yes, that so long as the pack is 10 strong, and so long as you pay the "normal cost" for the first weapon (in this case free for the Flamer) you can take any second special weapon you want for free (wether it be another Flamer or a Melta/Plasma) without additional restrictions.. Thanks for your input guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 I agree, the 'normal' cost of a flamer is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 I agree. A cost can be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 i wouldnt even argue whether a cost can be free tbh.. its a simple matter of following whats written Grey Hunter pack options* One Grey Hunter may replace his bolter with one of the following: - Flamer - free - Meltagun - 5 points - Plasma gun - 10 points * If the squad numbers ten models, a second Grey Hunter may replace his bolter with a weapon from the above list at no additional cost. the first model has an upgrade.. reagrdless of what it costs, the last line reads a second model may take one of the above for free.. so aslong as thier is a 'first' then it doesnt matter how much his upgrade costs, aslong as he has an upgrade.. simples :lol: edit: in terms of list building id make a note to write down which upgrade is the first and which is the second.. example: 10 GH; flamer; plasma if the plasma was the first upgrade the unit would be ten points more expensive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 On second look, the phrasing of the FAQ entry really is poor. If something is free, it has no cost (I know, that is not what I said above :lol: ). That said, I do not claim to know what the designers intended to say, especially since we're discussing their House Rules and not the hard rules, but inferring additional meaning from a FAQ that contradicts the codex seems silly to me. If we are inferring meaning from literal definitions rather than contextual definitions, a squad of Grey Hunters must pay for the second weapon just like the first weapon, because 'additional' presupposes an existing cost; the codex literally states that the second weapon is taken from the same list as the first and the cost is identical. :lol: Like GC08 said, the codex states that if the squad numbers ten then one member may take a weapon from the list at no cost. The FAQ states that a squad must number ten and have already taken a weapon from the list to be eligible for the aforementioned second weapon at no cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Wilhelm Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 It seems a little cheeky to grab the first one for free and then get the second [and more expensive] one for free. Can you imagine a Ferrari deal; buy a Ferrari jacket and get a Ferrari car for free? I can believe; buy the car, get the jacket free. Ah well, loose writing once again :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Ah well, loose writing once again :) yeah definately loose writing, although in thios case its relatively clear, becuase there is a fixed 'procedure' for working it out. simplified 1st marine gets upgrade from the list if the unit numbers ten men a second marine gets one upgrade for free. there is no caveat for how to approach upgrades of different costings, as i said if anyone complains it might be wise to start writing your lists to show the logic of your builds eg... 10 grey hunters 1: flamer +0 pts 2: plasmagun +0 pts personally i think its alot like the whole command squad champ issue, can you give him alternate wargear? although in that case its much more of a grey area due to the fact thier is no set progression in the taking of upgrades as there is in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chromedog Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 On second look, the phrasing of the FAQ entry really is poor. Sadly, not uncommon with GW writing the rules. A lot of their phrasing shows poor grasp of the King's English, let alone arithmetic skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Somebody in the Fang's Armoury is going to be getting a stern talking to from Logan about giving away free wargear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Price of the first item: free. Price of the second item: free. It works. Yes, its in the SW players favor... but I cant think of a RAW argument for why it doesnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I hate situations where the order you buy something matters. Its stupid that if you buy the melta first then the flamer it costs more than the flamer then the melta. But by RAW, that's the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awfulawful Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This is probably just too many years of economics classes showing through, but flamers are not actually free. They cost one bolter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 On second look, the phrasing of the FAQ entry really is poor. Sadly, not uncommon with GW writing the rules. A lot of their phrasing shows poor grasp of the King's English, let alone arithmetic skills. I know. It is becoming increasingly painful with each new codex. :RTBBB: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This is probably just too many years of economics classes showing through, but flamers are not actually free. They cost one bolter. This. More pedantically, they are built into the cost of the marine...along with the stat line and other wargear, as well as the benefit of being buried in a unit with nine other models. A unit that can opt to be perma-attached to a Wolf Guard and can otherwise be alongside some other kick ass Space Wolf units. What does this rule really allow? Flamers are always free. Two plasma guns for the cost of one plasma gun. One plasma and one melta for the price of the cheaper of the two. Two melta guns for the price of one melta gun. What's the cost? Well, this unit costs roughly the same amount as a Tactical squad (same cost, right? is it a bit more? wolf dex is at home) but gets no sergeant. It can get a Wolfguard, which fulfills the same role (a higher Ld, good melee option with two attacks instead of one as a base, so two swings with a S8 weapon) but when he's there you're restricted to nine models in the unit if you want them in an economically-priced Rhino. And that restriction means you can't get the two plasmas for the price of one and also have a Ld 9 model with a 2-swing power fist if you want them to squeeze into a ride together. So you choose: two plasma guns for the price of one, or a Ld 9 sergeant and only one plasma gun in the squad. Keep in mind that Ld 9 here isn't only for Morale checks, but for the fundamental-to-Space-Puppies Counter Attack roll. Very, very, very often I see people make this very simple mistake: "This makes no sense to me in the context of just this unit." Consider that no unit is an island; it's a part of a whole. Each unit in a codex is designed and built with the other units it may be in a list with, so armies don't get too broken. It's why Blood Angels get no Relic Blades, as a S7 I5 weapon in the hands of a squad sergeant (let alone an entire Honor Guard carrying them) when in the presence of a Blood Chalice seemed broken to them. Balance isn't model to model or unit to unit. Balance is whole codex to whole codex. <3 EDIT: Clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimtooth Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Since I was part of the original post in the army list thread, the title of thos thread is skewed. It is normal POINTS cost which the FAQ stipulates. At no time are you paying the normal points costs for a flamer because it has no points cost. It is free. It isn't 0 points or even - points. It does not have a normal points cost to pay and therefore by definition of the FAQ cannot be the first special weapon which you pay the normal points cost. That is the RAW. With RAI, someone asked what the designers intent happened to be. Well as written in the codex, without the FAQ, getting the flamer first and a free special weapon. Why release a FAQ if that was the designers intent? The FAQ expresses the designers intent that a normal points cost must be paid before a free special weapon is unlocked. As there is no normal points cost for the flamer, it is not available as the first choice. Free =/= normal points cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Free =/= normal points cost. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. If the price of the Flamer is free normally, how is free not its normal points cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Since I was part of the original post in the army list thread, the title of thos thread is skewed. It is normal POINTS cost which the FAQ stipulates. At no time are you paying the normal points costs for a flamer because it has no points cost. It is free. It isn't 0 points or even - points. It does not have a normal points cost to pay and therefore by definition of the FAQ cannot be the first special weapon which you pay the normal points cost. That is the RAW. With RAI, someone asked what the designers intent happened to be. Well as written in the codex, without the FAQ, getting the flamer first and a free special weapon. Why release a FAQ if that was the designers intent? The FAQ expresses the designers intent that a normal points cost must be paid before a free special weapon is unlocked. As there is no normal points cost for the flamer, it is not available as the first choice. Free =/= normal points cost. Thank you for the clarification. :P I always feel weird when a thread is referenced and a previous participant does not chime in. :P I agree that by the literal definitions of ‘free’ and cost’ prevents the double-stacking of flamers, but in the context I believe that ‘free’ and ‘0 points’ are interchangeable. A similarly literal interpretation of ‘additional’ means the listed cost must be paid for the second weapon as well, but I believe it is poor phrasing, and in the context ‘additional’ was probably intended to refer to overall cost and not the specific cost of the weapon. Also, FAQs are not RAW: “The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book. The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.” GW website The FAQ does not directly state that the flamer may not be taken as the second choice, and C:SW includes no restriction regarding whether the listed weapon chosen may be 'free' or not. The FAQ does directly restrict a second weapon choice to a unit of ten already containing a listed weapon. Free =/= normal points cost. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. If the price of the Flamer is free normally, how is free not its normal points cost? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Brother Ramses is stating that 'free' is not a 'normal points cost' because it is not a 'points cost' at all. If no points are spent, there is no cost, therefore that option is excluded from the FAQd rule. [EDIT: Added additional response and shortened my still lengthy post] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Given that this is a pedantic question at the core, I'm about to get all pedant on you guys. Apologies. If I understand this correctly, this is very much like the origin of the number zero. It took humans a while to get down with zero being a number...as in, if there would be nothing to count, why count anything at all? Why have a number - a construct used to answer "how many objects?" - to represent there being no objects at all? If you are as huge a nerd as I, you may find this entire debacle (thousands of years hence) fascinating to think on. Here we have a similar question: why have a term to represent no cost ("free") when there is no cost to represent? Why, we now have such a case! Purchase the first item at its normal cost, obtain the second item free/no-cost/"for zero points". If "normal cost" is free/no-cost/"for zero points", the second part of that clause remains unchanged and still holds. <3 It's not weird if you're a programmer. -_- I swear. EDIT: typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Free doesnt mean it isnt purchased. If you walk in, and participate in a buy one get one free sale the second one is free- but you didnt pay money for it. The price on your receipt will be canceled out, or 0.00, and youll not have become a shoplifter. Same if you walk into a store with a coupon and get a free carton of ice cream... Free/0 Cost doesnt suddenly invalidate it as a choice in this respect. You paid the standard value for it (+0) and it was added to your point total as normal. There are cases where units can even reduce the cost of upgrades into the negatives, such as blood angel transports or C:SM assault squads... Is a Drop Pod any less 'purchased' because it was received for free in exchange for wargear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimtooth Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Free is not a points cost value. Nowwhere do you see "x" cost free points. Free is not a defined points cost vale which is what the FAQ specifically asks for. What is the normal points cost for a flamer? It has no normal points cost. The upgrade is available for free, but is has no normal points cost to pay that would unlock the condition that a second weapon is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Free is a point value. +0pts. A value of 0 is still a value, and often an important one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Wilhelm Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Since I was part of the original post in the army list thread, the title of thos thread is skewed. It is normal POINTS cost which the FAQ stipulates. At no time are you paying the normal points costs for a flamer because it has no points cost. It is free. It isn't 0 points or even - points. It does not have a normal points cost to pay and therefore by definition of the FAQ cannot be the first special weapon which you pay the normal points cost. That is the RAW. With RAI, someone asked what the designers intent happened to be. Well as written in the codex, without the FAQ, getting the flamer first and a free special weapon. Why release a FAQ if that was the designers intent? The FAQ expresses the designers intent that a normal points cost must be paid before a free special weapon is unlocked. As there is no normal points cost for the flamer, it is not available as the first choice. Free =/= normal points cost. I do think that what Brother Ramses has said, is what GW was trying to say. "Q. Must a Grey Hunter unit that consists of ten models take the first special weapon at normal points cost in order to take the second free one? (p26) A. Yes. " In what case could you take a pair of special weapons and never pay the points cost of the first one? You always have to, and that paying of the first one is clear even in the Codex. Which makes me think the FAQ writers are talking about the "Flamer and other" situation. Otherwise the FAQ actually means nothing, as they have just restated the only way you can actually purchase special weapons. When someone asks a question, stating the codex back to them is not an answer if it is the only way it can be done in the first place. +++ However, the FAQ writers have, imo, dropped the ball on this one. Why write a vague and needs interpreting FAQ for a vague and needs interpreting rule? "For a pair of special weapons, the free second weapon is only ever the cheapest [or equally expensive] of the two." Clear, right? "Yes" is not a decent answer. +++ I think it is apparent that, gentlemanly, the cheaper one should only be the free one, and that from the codex itself. I think it is also apparent from the FAQ [and using some common sense + deduction] that the cheaper one should only be the free one. But both these require a value judgement, and if we are just going on value judgements, then we don't need FAQs. Neither is written as GW have obviously intended, and are just not tight enough. So I agree with Ramses point, but I think the FAQ is just as bad as the Codex, and you'd have a monkey of a time getting people to obey it, as it is so loosely written to seem very RAI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan VK Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Free is not a points cost value. Nowwhere do you see "x" cost free points. Free is not a defined points cost vale which is what the FAQ specifically asks for. What is the normal points cost for a flamer? It has no normal points cost. The upgrade is available for free, but is has no normal points cost to pay that would unlock the condition that a second weapon is free. C:SW specifically grants permission for a weapon from the list, of which the flamer and its lack of cost are a part of, to be taken at no cost if the unit is ten strong. It does not specify that a weapon must have already been purchased from the list, although it may be inferred from 'second Space Wolf', but the C:SW FAQ does (rightly IMHO) specify such a restriction. Neither C:SW or the C:SW FAQ specify that the first weapon purchased must not be 'free', although that may be inferred from the C:SW FAQ. I believe that a direct statement trumps an inference, especially when it is codex to FAQ. I do think that what Brother Ramses has said, is what GW was trying to say. "Q. Must a Grey Hunter unit that consists of ten models take the first special weapon at normal points cost in order to take the second free one? (p26) A. Yes. " In what case could you take a pair of special weapons and never pay the points cost of the first one? You always have to, and that paying of the first one is clear even in the Codex. Which makes me think the FAQ writers are talking about the "Flamer and other" situation. Otherwise the FAQ actually means nothing, as they have just restated the only way you can actually purchase special weapons. When someone asks a question, stating the codex back to them is not an answer if it is the only way it can be done in the first place. +++ However, the FAQ writers have, imo, dropped the ball on this one. Why write a vague and needs interpreting FAQ for a vague and needs interpreting rule? "For a pair of special weapons, the free second weapon is only ever the cheapest [or equally expensive] of the two." Clear, right? "Yes" is not a decent answer. +++ I think it is apparent that, gentlemanly, the cheaper one should only be the free one, and that from the codex itself. I think it is also apparent from the FAQ [and using some common sense + deduction] that the cheaper one should only be the free one. But both these require a value judgement, and if we are just going on value judgements, then we don't need FAQs. Neither is written as GW have obviously intended, and are just not tight enough. So I agree with Ramses point, but I think the FAQ is just as bad as the Codex, and you'd have a monkey of a time getting people to obey it, as it is so loosely written to seem very RAI. I do not believe the intent behind the FAQ to be so cut and dry. FAQ entries frequently restate things that should be obvious to anyone reading the rule in the codex (I'm looking at you, Chapter Tactics in C:SM ;)), and they also frequently break with established precedent (sometimes the core rules, too). Without evidence, the following are equally likely: - that the writer is restating that a unit must consist of ten models to qualify for the upgrade - that the writer is clarifying that the first option may not be free of cost To unnecessarily add fuel to the fire, if the intent is to prevent a person from purchasing a cheap weapon and getting a more expensive one for free, the FAQ is an utter failure as getting a plasma gun for free from purchasing a meltagun is still legal. [EDIT: Added an additional response because Marshall Wilhelm posts like a ninja while I'm distracted by shiny things :ph34r:] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 What is the normal points cost for a flamer? It has no normal points cost. If it is normally free, then it normally costs zero points. Thus, it's normal point cost is zero points. BroRam, your entire argument hinges upon whether or not the terms "free", "no cost", and "costs zero points" are interchangeable. You maintain that they are not, yet you offer no explanation other than the implicit "They use different words." The different words all form synonymous phrases, however, so purchasing a flamer at zero points (its normal points cost) does effectively count for purchasing a flamer. Much more plainly, how can purchasing a flamer for free not count as purchasing a flamer? How did you get it? Did you shoplift it? :tu: ADDENDUM: A little elucidation. It's free ice cream day at Ben & Jerry's. I go in and I get a free ice cream cone. The cone costs zero dollars. The following two statements are equivalent. "I got an ice cream cone for free!" and "I gave them zero dollars and received an ice cream cone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimtooth Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 All the real world analogies aside, this is the Wolf of Warhammer 40k and people need to remember that specfially. Free is not a defined points value. Flamers are feee does not equate to flamers cost 0 pts. The FAQ tells you that a normal points cost must be spent to unlock the second free weapon. Free is not a points cost value. Breakdown the process, Plasma and melta: Pay the normal points value. In this example, pay the normal points value for a melta which is 5pts. That unlocks the free plasma if the unit is 10 GH. Flamer and melta. Per the FAQ you need to pay the normal points cost before getting the second weapon for free. In this example, the flamer does not have a normal points cost. Free is not defined anywhere as a normal points cost. If I pick the Flamer, no normal points cost is paid, it is a free upgrade. I must pick the weapon that has a normal points cost, which is the melta at 5pts. Now here is the kicker that is going to blow some minds; Flamer and flamer: No normal points costs can be checked against the flamer. However you do not get a second flamer for free because of the FAQ, you get the second flamer for free because it is free. You don't say, I paid the normal points cost for a free flamer to get a free free flamer. You didn't pay any normal points cost for the first flamer because it was free so you do not get a free second flamer. You get a second free flamer because it was free. Gets a little confusing there, but I said it would blow your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.