The "normal cost" of a free weapon.

[Brother Valerius]

Free is not a defined points value. Flamers are feee does not equate to flamers cost 0 pts.

 

It doesn't have to be, and yes it does. The 40k rules are themselves based upon the rules and conventions of the English language, and if something is not defined in the rules (yet can be easily resolved by using our grasp of English), then it is part of the rules just as much as if it had been explicitly spelled out. This is a necessity. If we didn't allow for certain things to be undefined in the rules, we would spend half the book defining what all the terms mean, and the book would be three times as long.

 

Your argument hinges upon "but nowhere in the rules does it say that free is a cost", but it doesn't need to say it anywhere. It is clear from the context which the rules themselves reside in that the two are equivalent.

 

Now, as for the intent, I agree that the intent (as shown in the FAQ) is obviously to make it so that you can't take a free special weapon by taking a free flamer. However, as far as RAW is concerned, it is clearly permissible.

[Something Wycked]

... Exactly what I was going to say...

[thade]

Warhammer is completely devoid of a glossary and packed full of ambiguously defined terms that trust us to go on English and logic. As a matter of fact, many bouts we've had recently here have involved in-depth grammar analysis of the rules in an attempt to discern what they intend.

 

So...show me how "free" and "costs no points" are not the same thing.

 

(Hint: "Free" and "costs no points" are the same thing. In what world are they not the same? That world is not Warhammer. <3)

[Grimtooth]

Warhammer is completely devoid of a glossary and packed full of ambiguously defined terms that trust us to go on English and logic. As a matter of fact, many bouts we've had recently here have involved in-depth grammar analysis of the rules in an attempt to discern what they intend.

 

So...show me how "free" and "costs no points" are not the same thing.

 

(Hint: "Free" and "costs no points" are the same thing. In what world are they not the same? That world is not Warhammer. <3)

 

And yet you still fail to see that, "free" and "costs no points" are not defined normal points costs. The FAQ hangs you on the the specific usage of the normal points cost. You cannot get around that FAQ because free is not a normal points cost nor is it a defined value or points cost. You would be better off if the cost for the flamer was listed as 0pts, however GW has listed the upgrade as a free upgrade, devoid of any normal points cost value.

 

I am done on this one before I start getting into this anymore. This started in an army list section where people were trying to justify free special weapons in an army list at which time I pointed out it was an illegal list if the person was trying to do this. So the discussion boils down to some people wanting to cheese the system for free specials in an army list and myself and others saying that the FAQ prohibits it. Cheese away.

[awfulawful]

And yet you still fail to see that, "free" and "costs no points" are not defined normal points costs.

 

 

So how many points does a "free" flamer cost? Would you write it in your list as zero, or would you note that it is an undefined value? A "free" weapon costs zero points. Normally.

 

I agree that it is certainly open to abuse on a cheesy scale, but I just don't get how a free weapon can be said to cost anything other than zero points.

[timmytool]

I think this can be easily solved by reading the C:SW p81 army list entry "Options:"

"This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so alongside the associated points cost for each."

 

As the flamer is a upgrade then "free" must be the associated points cost.

[Brother Valerius]

Warhammer is completely devoid of a glossary and packed full of ambiguously defined terms that trust us to go on English and logic. As a matter of fact, many bouts we've had recently here have involved in-depth grammar analysis of the rules in an attempt to discern what they intend.

 

So...show me how "free" and "costs no points" are not the same thing.

 

(Hint: "Free" and "costs no points" are the same thing. In what world are they not the same? That world is not Warhammer. <3)

 

And yet you still fail to see that, "free" and "costs no points" are not defined normal points costs. The FAQ hangs you on the the specific usage of the normal points cost. You cannot get around that FAQ because free is not a normal points cost nor is it a defined value or points cost. You would be better off if the cost for the flamer was listed as 0pts, however GW has listed the upgrade as a free upgrade, devoid of any normal points cost value.

 

I am done on this one before I start getting into this anymore. This started in an army list section where people were trying to justify free special weapons in an army list at which time I pointed out it was an illegal list if the person was trying to do this. So the discussion boils down to some people wanting to cheese the system for free specials in an army list and myself and others saying that the FAQ prohibits it. Cheese away.

 

Bad form, sir. I doubt anyone is trying to "cheese the system", we're merely having a discussion.

[thade]

I don't play Space Wolves, nor do I use their codex for anything other than fluff citations and comprehension.

 

This is still very clear to me. It either costs something or it doesn't cost something. There is no "undefined" here.

 

The 40k rule set is not so hard-and-fast as you make it out to be, which the reason I adhere to my views. The points costs are "defined" as nothing. They are listed at set values which are overridden by "free" (or "no points cost") in this case we're discussing here. As soon as you try to hold the set as if it's set in stone, things begin to fall apart. There are constant allowances. There have to be. And even you make them all the time, no doubt.

 

For instance, base-to-base contact is required for assaults...but constantly it's the case (at least around here) that generous allowances are made in the light of beautifully crafted and super bumpy terrain pieces...not to mention the grandiose poses some models are set in. Base-to-base may suddenly devolve into a quarter inch or more away, or a model lying on it's side, or reaching through a window or a wall, or even crowd-surfing. Assaults are a mess in almost any case that doesn't involve a perfectly flat and large section of the table. Not in base-to-base should mean you can't swing, but very, very, very often allowances are made otherwise.

 

I'm not convinced that this method of gaining two free weapons is at all a problem (given my initial analysis earlier in the thread) and logically it holds, provided you don't try and hold to the rule set to a standard it's frankly not up to.

[dswanick]

Warhammer is completely devoid of a glossary and packed full of ambiguously defined terms that trust us to go on English and logic. As a matter of fact, many bouts we've had recently here have involved in-depth grammar analysis of the rules in an attempt to discern what they intend.

 

So...show me how "free" and "costs no points" are not the same thing.

 

(Hint: "Free" and "costs no points" are the same thing. In what world are they not the same? That world is not Warhammer. <3)

 

And yet you still fail to see that, "free" and "costs no points" are not defined normal points costs. The FAQ hangs you on the the specific usage of the normal points cost. You cannot get around that FAQ because free is not a normal points cost nor is it a defined value or points cost. You would be better off if the cost for the flamer was listed as 0pts, however GW has listed the upgrade as a free upgrade, devoid of any normal points cost value.

 

I am done on this one before I start getting into this anymore. This started in an army list section where people were trying to justify free special weapons in an army list at which time I pointed out it was an illegal list if the person was trying to do this. So the discussion boils down to some people wanting to cheese the system for free specials in an army list and myself and others saying that the FAQ prohibits it. Cheese away.

 

Well, it's too bad BR came in, snipped away, and left. He never answered the question "What is the normal cost of a free weapon" and as such I can't ask the follow on question - if free isn't the normal cost of a free weapon then how can a 10 man Grey Hunter pack be fielded with two flamers?

 

Here's the problem with Brother Ramses logic : If I understand him right - you can't pay the "normal cost" of "free" as free isn't a points cost. Therefore you can't buy any of the second special weapons if the first weapon chosen is a Flamer as this second weapon purchase requires that the "normal cost" be paid, which he says can't be "free". Therefore, a 10 man GH squad can never pay the "normal cost" of the first flamer and therefore can't buy the second special weapon - regardless of what it is (Flamer/Melta/Plasma).

 

I am curious if Brother Ramses would be offended if the "free" cost was taken out of the debate and, instead, the question were framed in these terms :

What would the points cost of a 10 man Grey Hunter pack armed with a Plasmagun and a Melta be? Should they cost 155pts (Melta 5pts/Plasma free) or 160pts(Plasma 10pts/Melta free)?

 

As an addendum - The FAQ simply states that the first weapon must be purchased as a prerequisite of purchasing the second weapon. It is disallowing taking a ten man pack with a plasma weapon for free if you haven't first taken another special weapon at its cost (free/5/10). Yes you could take a flamer/melta and pay no points for the specials but, as others have pointed out, you still loose 2 bolters in the process. Something which does not happen if you field a 10man pack with just a melta.

So :

10 Grey Hunters, 9 Bolters, Flamer - 150pts (good)

10 Grey Hunters, 9 Bolters, Melta - 155pts (good)

10 Grey Hunters, 8 Bolters, Flamer, Melta - 150pts (good, in my opinion)

10 Grey Hunters, 9 Bolters, Melta - 150pts (bad)

[Something Wycked]

I think this can be easily solved by reading the C:SW p81 army list entry "Options:"

"This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so alongside the associated points cost for each."

 

As the flamer is a upgrade then "free" must be the associated points cost.

Win. The C:SW codex does indeed define the normal points cost of the free weapon. Well played, timmy. Well played.

[D-USA]

Based on the many BoGo (Buy one Get one) sales my wife has dragged me to, it seems that the basic procedure IRL would be a "Buy one, get one of equal or lesser value for free". If this was the intent for this rule we might never know, because the RAW is pretty poor.

 

I would think that instead of paying for two, you would just pay for the more expensive one and get the cheaper one free. It is what "feels" right, but we all know that 40K is not based on "feelings" unless they are grimdark...

[thade]

I think this can be easily solved by reading the C:SW p81 army list entry "Options:"

"This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so alongside the associated points cost for each."

 

As the flamer is a upgrade then "free" must be the associated points cost.

Win. The C:SW codex does indeed define the normal points cost of the free weapon. Well played, timmy. Well played.

Indeed, this clears the issue up and escaped all of us. Well done, Timmy. :P

 

The associated points cost is 'free'.

[dswanick]

Based on the many BoGo (Buy one Get one) sales my wife has dragged me to, it seems that the basic procedure IRL would be a "Buy one, get one of equal or lesser value for free". If this was the intent for this rule we might never know, because the RAW is pretty poor.

 

I would think that instead of paying for two, you would just pay for the more expensive one and get the cheaper one free. It is what "feels" right, but we all know that 40K is not based on "feelings" unless they are grimdark...

I won't disagree with you as to the probable intent of the spirit of the rule. However, without the "of equal or lesser value" clause - the RAW is pretty clear that Flamer/Flamer, Flamer/Melta, and Flamer/Plasma are all valid and all free choices for a 10-man Grey Hunter pack.

[D-USA]

Based on the many BoGo (Buy one Get one) sales my wife has dragged me to, it seems that the basic procedure IRL would be a "Buy one, get one of equal or lesser value for free". If this was the intent for this rule we might never know, because the RAW is pretty poor.

 

I would think that instead of paying for two, you would just pay for the more expensive one and get the cheaper one free. It is what "feels" right, but we all know that 40K is not based on "feelings" unless they are grimdark...

I won't disagree with you as to the probable intent of the spirit of the rule. However, without the "of equal or lesser value" clause - the RAW is pretty clear that Flamer/Flamer, Flamer/Melta, and Flamer/Plasma are all valid and all free choices for a 10-man Grey Hunter pack.

 

RAW are RAW, if people start to debate the RAI then we need a FAQ, which they did, and which didn't bring any more clarity to the RAI... :ph34r:

 

Badly written, and badly FAQed. Which does leave the door wide open to the way the majority is ruling it. I do think that the majority seems to think that is is broken even though it is legal. But rules are a question of legality, not cheese.

[Grey Mage]

Frankly, Imma quote Depthcharge on this one:

 

"There is no cheese."

 

Its not game breaking, its not unfair- check the free options for C:SM some eh?- and its within the RAW. Its not even game changing like say a Stormraven or AV 12 valkyries that fly-for-free.

[ForgivenFighter]

I don't know how to do the quote thingy yet. But the rule states this from a post early:

 

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.

 

Every one is focusing on the "cost" of a free weapon when if memory serves me right, in the C:SW it shows it something like this:

 

Plasma Pistol...10 Points

 

And goes down the list of selections for the specific bulleted entry.

 

I think the key portion to this whole rule is this:

 

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.

 

If you have a 9 man GH pack you may take a flamer (free), melta (5?) or plasma (10) in replace of one the members bolter. Now when you attach some IC or WG PL or BL to him...the number goes up to 10 man pack. As I've been understanding the rules and the way my Army Builder works...that Pack Leader (if we can call that list of characters that) doesn't count as the original member of the Pack but an attachment...so therefore, no second additional weapon. Right?

 

But if the original pack is number to 10...and the entire 10 is comprised of 10 GH, you get an additional weapon for NO additional cost. Thus, a Flamer/Melta or Flamer/Plasma would be perfectly legal...because the first weapon was taken per the rules at the proper cost and you are given a second weapon as a bonus for having a 10 man squad. So really, my thinking is, the point cost isn't the issue, but really is the number 10 made up of all GH or 9 GH with a additional unit.

[greatcrusade08]

you dont buy an Ic upgrade to a unit, you buy them seperately and then you attach them pregame.. when your building the squad your either building it at 9 men or ten men..

its really that simple

[ForgivenFighter]

GC08, that's what I was trying to say. So it boils down to not the cost of the first weapon, but wether or not you bought 10 GH units for that specific choice to get the additional weapon for free, right?

[Grey Mage]

Negatory- it comes down to the fact that it must be an "additional weapon".

 

You cant have an additional one unless there is a preexisting one- wich some people were trying to circumvent, and were smacked with the FAQ.

[Arikel]

Negatory- it comes down to the fact that it must be an "additional weapon".

 

You cant have an additional one unless there is a preexisting one- wich some people were trying to circumvent, and were smacked with the FAQ.

 

To clarify, you must have bought a special weapon and buy 10 grey hunters to get a free special weapon. For the purposes of the rule, purchasing a flamer at the cost of one bolter and 0 points is a legal way to get the 2nd weapon regardless of that weapons type as long as you buy 10 marines. Seems to sum up what I've read in this post, and agrees with the raw.

[Spacefrisian]

If you think about it than the reason behind it isnt to far fetched eg you must choose wether you take 9 men and a wolfguard or 10 men and 2 free weapons that dont work at maximum effect together.

[thade]

If you think about it than the reason behind it isnt to far fetched eg you must choose wether you take 9 men and a wolfguard or 10 men and 2 free weapons that dont work at maximum effect together.

I said as much on the first page, but they weren't content with it. <3