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.

 davou wrote:
seems pretty easy for them to just errata the understrength unit part of the rules to say

"Understrength units cannot count towards the required units to create a detachment but may occupy the optional slots"

Yes read the other thread from a few days ago where I suggested:

 admironheart wrote:
.

I like to think that some battles follow on the heels of a previous battle. Sometimes there is only a couple guys left or maybe just the Sarg. Everyone else died. The next Platoon comes in to reinforce and the fight moves forward. There would be the need to grab the survivors and push forward...so Understrength units make perfect sense.

I do think they need to have a sort of 'penalty' besides just paying for the cost. My suggestion would be that Understrength units could NOT fil a Mandatory spot/role (red)in a Detachment, but rather just an extra/grey.

Otherwise Brigades can be filled up quite quickly if some armies have enough low cost model units.

We shall see how it plays out.
eally.

To be honest, most tournaments will probably just say, you cannot have units of under strength models. It wouldn't be hard and im sure given what the 8th rulebook said, they would have already said that to begin with

dosiere wrote:
Why is there even a rule to use understength units? Seems unnecessary. For drops, you could always just put the single model understrength units all in a transport anyway, so it's not a hindrance that way. I don't understand why this needs to be a thing.

Because they are there for older players to retroactively be able to legally field certain models who, for one reason or another, GW decided to bump up their unit sizes. I used to run two single-man TWC models in 5th ed. TWC are now a minimum unit size of 3+ and without buying more* there is no way for me to field these guys without this rule.

Same goes for many of the medium-sized Nid creatures.


*Yes, I could field them as WGBLs or WLs on Thunderwolves, but I digress...

 PFI wrote:
To be honest, most tournaments will probably just say, you cannot have units of under strength models. It wouldn't be hard and im sure given what the 8th rulebook said, they would have already said that to begin with

Which is too bad. I'd willingly pay a full unit price but use once less model if it meant I was able to fit a character in a transport with the unit.

Honestly that's the only legit use I'd really see for understrength units.

Some of the paints, actually many of the paints that my 3 man or 5 man units have are no longer available. GW stopped making them. So how am I supposed to take a dozen swooping hawks and repaint them to make 2 squads instead of the 4 that I have?

Just rude to ask me to not play with my toys or tell me to spend my money to play.

I thought SPORTSMANSHIP used to be a thing in 40k. Everyone I HAVE Seen post against understrength units are doing so from a gut feeling about what they think is 'appropriate' to play.

My PDF is almost all infantry, Heavy stubbers instead of heavy bolters, NO ARMOR and Auto Guns instead of the high tech Lasguns.

My 3rd ed dark elder ONLY had 1 raider, but Reavers and Hellions and lots of foot units like Warriors and Mandrakes...not Raider SPAM with uber cheap tanks and OP tactics

My Eldar are mostly a mix of footdar, Same with my Exodites and Harlequins.

I don't think anyone has ever called my lists WAAC.

So if for the first time in 20+ years I am using undersized units to make an easy list building and others want to say that it is UnBalanced....makes me very offended since that is not my armies nor my list builds nor my playstyle or my remarkable sportsmanship scores in tournaments.

It seems only the serious Tournament players who are rabid about building uber competitive lists have a problem. I thought a solid list and good generalship would make these WarDogs able to knock of this one trick pony that is making them paranoid.

There's literally nothing stopping you from playing those squads in a casual game. But as beneficial as those rules are to you, you have to admit that there's a lot of room for abuse.

 admironheart wrote:
Some of the paints, actually many of the paints that my 3 man or 5 man units have are no longer available. GW stopped making them. So how am I supposed to take a dozen swooping hawks and repaint them to make 2 squads instead of the 4 that I have?

Coat D'arms makes almost every old GW color. Not to mention, you can mix or otherwise recreate most paints pretty easy. Heck, Dakka has a conversion chart for all the different paint lines to show which paints match which.

So if for the first time in 20+ years I am using undersized units to make an easy list building and others want to say that it is UnBalanced....makes me very offended since that is not my armies nor my list builds nor my playstyle or my remarkable sportsmanship scores in tournaments.

Just because the rule is unbalanced doesn't mean that everyone that uses it is unbalanced. Unfortunately, you may suffer at tournaments because of the folks who will abuse it.

 admironheart wrote:
Some of the paints, actually many of the paints that my 3 man or 5 man units have are no longer available. GW stopped making them. So how am I supposed to take a dozen swooping hawks and repaint them to make 2 squads instead of the 4 that I have?

Just rude to ask me to not play with my toys or tell me to spend my money to play.

I thought SPORTSMANSHIP used to be a thing in 40k. Everyone I HAVE Seen post against understrength units are doing so from a gut feeling about what they think is 'appropriate' to play.

My PDF is almost all infantry, Heavy stubbers instead of heavy bolters, NO ARMOR and Auto Guns instead of the high tech Lasguns.

My 3rd ed dark elder ONLY had 1 raider, but Reavers and Hellions and lots of foot units like Warriors and Mandrakes...not Raider SPAM with uber cheap tanks and OP tactics

My Eldar are mostly a mix of footdar, Same with my Exodites and Harlequins.

I don't think anyone has ever called my lists WAAC.

So if for the first time in 20+ years I am using undersized units to make an easy list building and others want to say that it is UnBalanced....makes me very offended since that is not my armies nor my list builds nor my playstyle or my remarkable sportsmanship scores in tournaments.

It seems only the serious Tournament players who are rabid about building uber competitive lists have a problem. I thought a solid list and good generalship would make these WarDogs able to knock of this one trick pony that is making them paranoid.

Alright, alright, no need to take the entire thread as a personal attack on your character.

 admironheart wrote:

I don't think anyone has ever called my lists WAAC.

So if for the first time in 20+ years I am using undersized units to make an easy list building and others want to say that it is UnBalanced....makes me very offended since that is not my armies nor my list builds nor my playstyle or my remarkable sportsmanship scores in tournaments.

You're taking it too personal. It's a broken rule open to way too easy abuse. That doesn't mean that you're abusing it when you're using it as it's probably intended. The rule is bad, your use of it is not. There's a big difference.

gotta use transports...because that's more boxes you have to buy from GW.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
8 pages of rules...and 80 pages of FAQs.

How many pages are the Indexes which the FAQs are referencing - 1000 maybe? sheesh

There's a minimum squad size on everything isn't there? If a guardsmen unit is 10-30 (or whatever) then you can't legally field a unit of 1 guardsman; you have to have at least 10. You couldn't even include a unit of 1-9 in your list.

Apart from the rule allowing you to do just that...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's a minimum squad size on everything isn't there? If a guardsmen unit is 10-30 (or whatever) then you can't legally field a unit of 1 guardsman; you have to have at least 10. You couldn't even include a unit of 1-9 in your list.

The whole point of this discussion revolves around a specific provision that allows you to play understrength units (that is, explicitly, units that are below the minimum squad size) and the FAQ entry that allows you to only pay the points for the models you bring (in comparison to the more punitive but probably more balanced "if you bring an understrength unit, you pay for it" method when paying for your army in the form of Power Points).

So yes, there's a minimum size, but no, you CAN legally field a unit of 1 guardsman (some restrictions apply, see dealer for details, warranty void in some states) because there's a special rule that lets you do that.

It's broken in its potential implementation (not AS broken as it COULD be, but still broken) and will likely be ignored by Tournaments, but that's why this thread is still going strong.

 Melissia wrote:
There's literally nothing stopping you from playing those squads in a casual game. But as beneficial as those rules are to you, you have to admit that there's a lot of room for abuse.

No, he doesn't, actually. Show us a list that abuses this and wins more than its fair share of games against lists that don't, then maybe.

eldritchx wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
There's literally nothing stopping you from playing those squads in a casual game. But as beneficial as those rules are to you, you have to admit that there's a lot of room for abuse.

No, he doesn't, actually. Show us a list that abuses this and wins more than its fair share of games against lists that don't, then maybe.

You already missed it. I took the first list from Army List forum I could find and added 6 or 7 CP for like 70 points.

 pretre wrote:

eldritchx wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
There's literally nothing stopping you from playing those squads in a casual game. But as beneficial as those rules are to you, you have to admit that there's a lot of room for abuse.

No, he doesn't, actually. Show us a list that abuses this and wins more than its fair share of games against lists that don't, then maybe.

You already missed it. I took the first list from Army List forum I could find and added 6 or 7 CP for like 70 points.

Two points.

I am not literally taking this personal....it is just so many players who are against it are speaking in absolutes. Like if it was a casual game I would play vs, but if it was more serious I would walk? REALLY...if it was a tournament you would walk? Is that permissible? Is that good sportsmanship to leave. I have played plenty of games out that I know for the next couple hours is really about being the punching bag for your opponent since the battle went poorly, but you still go on.

And how much is 7 CP worth? There are no point costs. In some lists it can be huge.....especially smaller lists like that flyer. But in your example your dragging in units from all over and the list is much more sizeable. I'm not so sure that the 7 CP advantage in that list could be better than squeezing the list into 1 more vanguard or spearhead so the difference could be like 5 or 6 CP to be fair. That is 3 re rolls and 2 counter charges. IT CAN BE GAME BREAKING. BUT do you honestly look at 3 possible rerolls and 2 counter charges as OP and you would rather pack up your toys and walk than play?>

Is that really the mindset of some gamers on this site? Step back and look at the minutia that we are discussing and take it out of 'theory' and put it in play. IF WE SEE THOSE BROKEN LISTS in play after a few months then sure I will be the first to request change, but the sky is not falling yet.

There may be room for abuse but why does the community think its the proper response to just quietly accept this abuse. If this type of behavior occurs and it ruins games and events, why not call it out for what it is; bad behavior. Unacceptable, selfish, petty, mean spirited dickery. TO's are well within their rights to deny entry to people with a history of selfishly abusing rules and ruining other's enjoyment of the game. Were the community to stop quietly condoning rules abuse and selfish behavior, the worst I can see happening is everyone playing fewer games against donkey-caves.
Oh and one more thing. Yes, everyone has the right to define, seek out, and only play those games they enjoy. No one has the right to expect and demand others play games that they do not enjoy. If you can't adapt how you play so that ,at the very least, you do not consistently ruin other people's games you deserve to have others refuse to play against you.

Because we're talking about preventative measures to stop abuse at tournaments, not people playing casual games at their community LGS. Shame and shunning may work at the latter, but if someone enters a tournament and are your opponent with a cheesy list, you HAVE to either play against them or quit and give them the win anyway. So it's really better for everyone involved to prevent as well as shame and shun.

"Page 89 – Wargear
Add the following before the final paragraph:
‘Models in Assault Squads that have the option for a
flamer may take a meltagun or plasma gun instead
(replacing their bolt pistol and chainsword)"

WHOO HOO!

Oh my God, removing my assault guys arms again. I just painted the plasma Pistols, time to get the Plasma Guns.

Really, this buff was needed to place Assault Squads in the game again. As a Raven Guard player, I can't avoid smiling. Given the fact that flamers were relatively useless (8" range when you have to land 9" away from enemy units), being able to spam Plasma guns on them is a God send.

 Kithail wrote:
"Page 89 – Wargear
Add the following before the final paragraph:
‘Models in Assault Squads that have the option for a
flamer may take a meltagun or plasma gun instead
(replacing their bolt pistol and chainsword)"

WHOO HOO!

Oh my God, removing my assault guys arms again. I just painted the plasma Pistols, time to get the Plasma Guns.

Really, this buff was needed to place Assault Squads in the game again. As a Raven Guard player, I can't avoid smiling. Given the fact that flamers were relatively useless (8" range when you have to land 9" away from enemy units), being able to spam Plasma guns on them is a God send.

Before you do that, you might want to check where that is actually added.
Hint: It's added the to the Blood Angel wargear section, so only BA Assault Squads can take Plasma/Melta guns.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
"Page 89 – Wargear
Add the following before the final paragraph:
‘Models in Assault Squads that have the option for a
flamer may take a meltagun or plasma gun instead
(replacing their bolt pistol and chainsword)"

WHOO HOO!

Oh my God, removing my assault guys arms again. I just painted the plasma Pistols, time to get the Plasma Guns.

Really, this buff was needed to place Assault Squads in the game again. As a Raven Guard player, I can't avoid smiling. Given the fact that flamers were relatively useless (8" range when you have to land 9" away from enemy units), being able to spam Plasma guns on them is a God send.

Before you do that, you might want to check where that is actually added.
Hint: It's added the to the Blood Angel wargear section, so only BA Assault Squads can take Plasma/Melta guns.

Why you force me to go through this emotional rollercoaster? Why?

Damn you are right. There goes my happiness. Luckily I did not touch a model yet.

 Kithail wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
"Page 89 – Wargear
Add the following before the final paragraph:
‘Models in Assault Squads that have the option for a
flamer may take a meltagun or plasma gun instead
(replacing their bolt pistol and chainsword)"

WHOO HOO!

Oh my God, removing my assault guys arms again. I just painted the plasma Pistols, time to get the Plasma Guns.

Really, this buff was needed to place Assault Squads in the game again. As a Raven Guard player, I can't avoid smiling. Given the fact that flamers were relatively useless (8" range when you have to land 9" away from enemy units), being able to spam Plasma guns on them is a God send.

Before you do that, you might want to check where that is actually added.
Hint: It's added the to the Blood Angel wargear section, so only BA Assault Squads can take Plasma/Melta guns.

Why you force me to go through this emotional rollercoaster? Why?

Damn you are right. There goes my happiness. Luckily I did not touch a model yet.

Considering Shrike is crap, just take a BA countsas list.

 Hollow wrote:
^^ I would argue that the vast majority of those FAQ come from a player-base determined to undermine rules that have very clear intent.

Maybe not the majority but certainly the case for many of them. Some of them are absolutely cringeworthy. The only purpose some of the answers serve is to clamp those sowing seeds of discord.

Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

 Selym wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

It says MODELS can fire after advancing. The rules for shooting tell you to select UNITS to fire as part of the procedure. Advancing makes selecting the unit impossible.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or make sure GW does it's job. Lots of those are so bloody obvious errors how GW let them slip through is embarrassing.

Did FAQ even fix assault weapons? Because as it stands assault weapon state actually doesn't DO anything unless GW fixes it in errata...

Of course, some things genuinely needed FAQs. I think a few errors are forgivable though. What's the problem with assault weapons?

That they can fire after Advancing, presumably. Looking through the Battle Primer, I see no problem.

It says MODELS can fire after advancing. The rules for shooting tell you to select UNITS to fire as part of the procedure. Advancing makes selecting the unit impossible.

Oh, come on, man! This is a game not a legal contract. It is perfectly clear how the rules are intended to work. Interpreting it your way is really....masochistic. if you want to find problems, you will get problems