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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule is indented [...] to allow you to put a character in with a unit in a transport (Think Terminators and Regular Land Raiders).

While I have no means to prove this statement incorrect (I suspect, though, that you have no means to prove it correct, either), my gut feeling tells me that this is a player exploiting a rules loop-hole. I'm fairly sure that the undersize thing is there to allow people who don't own enough models to fill the minimum unit size to still use those models that they have (which, of course, you also said in your post).
Sneakily shoe-horning a Chaos Lord into that Land Raider together with 4 Terminators? Hmm...
I guess in a friendly game, I'd allow it if I could get a re-roll by stabbing my opponent.

I can tell you with absolute certainty this is one of the reasons the included this rule.

Basically this is clear as mud, it is pointless getting into arguments over it, my personal thought is go with the least broken, that is what the rulebook says until we are told otherwise

0604854 wrote:
Basically this is clear as mud, it is pointless getting into arguments over it, my personal thought is go with the least broken, that is what the rulebook says until we are told otherwise

So if I were playing a game with you and said "No, you can't charge after advancing, the rulebook says so", despite you having a rule in the Index saying you could, you'd also say to use the rulebook? Because we are being "told otherwise" in the indexes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

0604854 wrote:
Basically this is clear as mud, it is pointless getting into arguments over it, my personal thought is go with the least broken, that is what the rulebook says until we are told otherwise

So if I were playing a game with you and said "No, you can't charge after advancing, the rulebook says so", despite you having a rule in the Index saying you could, you'd also say to use the rulebook? Because we are being "told otherwise" in the indexes.

This is logically incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it. A codex that makes an exception to a rule is different from all codex making a rule irrelevant. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure most players see how easily this will get exploited. That matters. So yeah, if you really don't have enough models, go for it. But if your army is optimized with understrength units, and I know you have a bigger collection, I'm going to enforce RAW and ask you to fill out your units.

Otherwise, be prepared for lots of cracks about your undersized "unit".

IMHO

The point of contempt is a "rule" thats outside of the rules added in a suggested listbuilder that gw copy pasted in all the books wich they prolly didnt proofread (the copy pasta not the rules) as it should not have a rule conflict as this is clearly not intended as a obscure place to blatently contradic the rulebook

your opinion may vary but basic commonsense should tell you this is just a Gdubs SNAFU and not a rule intended to be called a rule...

I for one like the index version at first it seems powerful but it really isn't

Most big things are 1 model so no effect on these units
Most little things are inconsequential in 1s and while they fill out a detachment they give away easy kill points (assuming detachments are limited as in comp) so not unbalanced
Many units require minimum numbers to get the weapons upgrades and
You can't spam them - sure I can take 2 extra scion heavy weapon's dudes but I'm limited to only 1 unit and that unit has no meat shield so expensive models die more easily

Advantages one or two select GK units work nicely as 1 man (but normally there miles to expensive to be viable).

Helps you full out a brigade for expensive armies
Gives you more choice for that 12 pts left over
Let's you take 1 or 2 extra suicide heavy weapons
Helps new players who may not have the models compete on an equal footing


Conversely Base rule book advantages none no one is ever going to use that rule in comp
Disadvantage screw over the new player by making them pay extra for a weaker unit so they lose more easily and have less fun

U02dah4 wrote:
I for one like the index version at first it seems powerful but it really isn't

Most big things are 1 model so no effect on these units
Most little things are inconsequential in 1s and while they fill out a detachment they give away easy kill points (assuming detachments are limited as in comp) so not unbalanced
Many units require minimum numbers to get the weapons upgrades and
You can't spam them - sure I can take 2 extra scion heavy weapon's dudes but I'm limited to only 1 unit and that unit has no meat shield so expensive models die more easily

Advantages one or two select GK units work nicely as 1 man (but noreally there miles to expensive to be viable.

Helps you full out a brigade for expensive armies
Gives you more choice for that 12 pts left over
Let's you take 1 or 2 extra suicide heavy weapons
Helps new players who may not have the models compete on an equal footing


Conversely Base rule book advantages none no one is ever going to use that rule in comp
Disadvantage screw over the new player by making them pay extra for a weaker unit so they lose more easily and have less fun

It does make a difference for Tyranids.. while only small it does mean I use spare point on a individual or duo of Tyrant Guard and or Venomphropes

Having yet to play tyranids is that game breaking powerful (a problem)

An auto include (concerning)

A useful choice (advantage)

A viable option but with flaws (choice)

A bad option (no change)

In the most part at least in imperium lists is not game breaking it is a consideration in list building and gives you some optons or let's you shave off those 10 pts to get down to 2000

Remember the wording states that you get to have just one of that unit.

So If I have 1 Fire Dragon Exarch in an undersized unit. It is NOT just that one undersized and then I can have a 10 model full sized unit of fire dragons.

So if you do take the undersized unit option, then you wont be able to take any full or max sized units either.

I agree with Ghuz that it is a big F'd up snafu. However, UNTIL there is a FAQ, the weight of opinion/Overall implication of the written rules... would be that you can do it.

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.

Currently any list I have with undersized units, more or less
works out to a couple Rangers, a FireDragon Exarch with Fire Pike and a Dire Avenger Exarch with DireSword and maybe an Scorpion Exarch to grab late game objective.

Pretty much that is it. We are talking about under 150 points in a 2k list. And it seems kinda weak and not really worth it when I could take another Tank for that much. So not much fuss really.

 admironheart wrote:
So If I have 1 Fire Dragon Exarch in an undersized unit. It is NOT just that one undersized and then I can have a 10 model full sized unit of fire dragons.

So if you do take the undersized unit option, then you wont be able to take any full or max sized units either.

Completely untrue. You can only take 1 of the undersized unit. There is no restriction on taking other units of the same type that meet the minimums.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
So If I have 1 Fire Dragon Exarch in an undersized unit. It is NOT just that one undersized and then I can have a 10 model full sized unit of fire dragons.

So if you do take the undersized unit option, then you wont be able to take any full or max sized units either.

Completely untrue. You can only take 1 of the undersized unit. There is no restriction on taking other units of the same type that meet the minimums.

You may be right, but casual reading of it seems to say you can take 'one' of that unit. Now is that supposed to mean 1 undersized unit plus others or just 1 undersized unit. I don't think it is very clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the other thing is this.....except in some quirky units where you are forced to take a larger size.....you could always take your maxed sized unit and shuffle models to make 2 legal units.

So if I have 11 Fire Dragons. I can make 1 10 FD unit and 1 undersized 1 FD unit. But rather than that why not just make a legal 6 FD and 5 FD unit?

Or I have one min sized unit of 5 FD and then 1 more regular FD. Why not just make 1 unit of 6 to have no undersized. (now if you have 4 regular FD and 2 FD exarchs then that would be the reason you would want 1 min sized squad and 1 undersized so you can take advantage of the "intent" of the rule.}

Then the undersized rule never comes to play.....since it is exampled for use with 'not enough models'

 admironheart wrote:
Then the undersized rule never comes to play.....since it is exampled for use with 'not enough models'

Unless your opponent is stalking you and taking inventory of your collection, who is to say if you have enough models or not?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
Then the undersized rule never comes to play.....since it is exampled for use with 'not enough models'

Unless your opponent is stalking you and taking inventory of your collection, who is to say if you have enough models or not?

That assumes you never play with same people but I would presume many if not most have faily fixed gaming group...

But that's good reason why it's stupid rule writing to make it based on how many you own.

Coming up with ideas in a Ynnari list for undersized units, a 20-point Ranger that can setup before the first turn and prevent the opponent from bringing in any units within 9" of it seems pretty good to me, but hey, that's definitely a First Blood kill.

Thematically, the rule does allow for some old codex choices to be reincarnated. You can take a single exarch from a few different aspects to follow the Avatar as a court of the young king, a Shining Spear exarch as Nuadhu Fireheart, or a Helliarch as Baron Sathonyx. On the flip side, any unit that gives any type of buff or debuff to other units would seem to take advantage of being an undersized unit. For Ynnari, a single Swooping Hawk exarch gives a leadership buff to nearby units and a single Hekatrix can force rolloffs for No Escape.

How many Imperium units are there that allow a model to take a heavy weapon? Taking undersized units to an extreme would probably involve one model from every one of those units equipped with a lascannon. It also matters as to the interpretation of what one 'type' of undersized unit entails. One 'type' of unit could mean one tactical marine with a lascannon as an undersized unit, or one Blood Angel with lascannon, one Space Wolf with lascannon, one Ultramarine with lascannon, etc.

tneva82 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
Then the undersized rule never comes to play.....since it is exampled for use with 'not enough models'

Unless your opponent is stalking you and taking inventory of your collection, who is to say if you have enough models or not?

That assumes you never play with same people but I would presume many if not most have faily fixed gaming group...

But that's good reason why it's stupid rule writing to make it based on how many you own.

What if you own some in your house in California, but you are playing at your other house in Georgia? The own part of the language is utter nonsense. If that is all the models you have with you at that time....then the rule applies nicely. Say you played a 2k game with your 2k list early on and later the whole club decides to do a massive multiplayer 3k list for each and you only have half a squad of marines but with the other pieces you have you have 3k. Well then I don't think you need to go to the airport to get your models cross country. SOME COMMONSENSE needs to be applied lol



Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can always say that any models in your house belong to Mom. And the models you take to the store are yours when they leave the house. There the legality is settled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Oaka wrote:
How many Imperium units are there that allow a model to take a heavy weapon? Taking undersized units to an extreme would probably involve one model from every one of those units equipped with a lascannon. It also matters as to the interpretation of what one 'type' of undersized unit entails. One 'type' of unit could mean one tactical marine with a lascannon as an undersized unit, or one Blood Angel with lascannon, one Space Wolf with lascannon, one Ultramarine with lascannon, etc.

Well most units with heavy/special weapon options require there to be 10 or such to upgrade to a heavy weapon. Devestators and StormGuarians are quick top of the head exceptions.

The real benefit to non elder armies would be a Sarg with a Gravpiston or just a couple models to fully fill up that vehicle. Like one poster mentioned....For Necrons take one model shy so that a Character has room to fit in the Transport.

So far not one of these ideas seem 'broken' to me

What is broken is the 10 million dice rolls and 1 million buffs and modifiers I need to remember each round. Glad my last opponent reminded me that his vehicle was Doomed and that I needed to use my Spirit Stone saves!!!!!

I miss having psychic cards to place next to the unit with the power in play. It is awesome to have Vehicle wargear cards to place next to the units that have them for a quick reminder. May have to take some 2nd ed templates and typeset some 8th ed rules to give a good 2nd ed Dark Millennium Feel to my 8th edition games.


Anyone have a good way to keep track of Wounds>? The last game I kept picking up the 'wound dice' when I rolling the 10 million dice.

What about Victory Points and Command Points. The dice keep getting knocked over and hunting for the next number in sequence is a pain for 10 or 12 sided dice (20 sided would be even worse)

Either use counters or use something like d4's which are stable and clearly not d'6's

Okay lets take it to the extreme I want another Vangaurd detachment I "Lost" Aun'va but still have his body guards. Can I man my Hq unit and only pay for one Ethereal Guard at 5pts

TheBoy wrote:
Okay lets take it to the extreme I want another Vangaurd detachment I "Lost" Aun'va but still have his body guards. Can I man my Hq unit and only pay for one Ethereal Guard at 5pts

Yes, that would be legal. I don't see what your point is.

If that is your extreme it's clearly not game breaking. Without using the undersized unit rule I can take a company commander with bolt gun and 3 one man acolyte squads for 55pts filling out a vanguard.

What you get in your example is 1 very cheap HQ unit that gives you no real tactical or combat advantage and is a very easy kill point for your opponent. Sure it's worth considering as an option for point saving but many competitive lists I'm reading are looking at 5ish your still paying full wack on 4.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/

New Errata is New:
Page 242 – Understrength Units
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If you are using Power Ratings, you must still pay the
Power Rating cost as if you had a minimum-sized unit,
even though it contains fewer models. If you are using
points, you only pay the points for the models you
actually have in an understrength unit (and any wargear
they are equipped with). An understrength unit still
takes up the appropriate slot in a Detachment.’

I was just coming here to bring the news. Glad to see someone has already shared the FAQ.

It's nice to see FAQs out so fast!

The likely main reason the Understrength rule is there is to account for old Codex options where the new box sets contain more models.

Take Zoanthropes. Used to be a single model metal blister. New box set is three plastic Zoes.

Old Codex allowed 1-x per unit. New Index allows 3 as base, because that's what the current box builds, then adds multiples of 3 thereafter.

That's it. Shenanigan it as much as you think relevant and try to make tactics around it (good luck) but it's mainly there as a legacy thing to keep older armies valid with the Indexes.

JohnnyHell, that's a wonderful argument for the intentions of the Understrength Rule and I will be using that in our 40k group.

awesomesauce.

Glad they used commonsense to let folks play with armies or units that from a previous ed may have only needed 3 models but now need 5. I have too many armies to paint to revisit some old units to move up to 5 or 10!

Now I will be able to have a Brigade every game. I use about 3 cp every battle round. And will use 4 once I have 12 cp for my Brigade! Thanks to Min-sized units

Here's the thing. It's all well and good if you want to try and play a casual game against your buddy with the models that you have. But when people try to min max with a rule that is explicitly intended for casual games, that's not ok. I think GW just should have said "this only applies for narrative games" or something of that nature.

Point being, I don't see a single TO allowing this nonsense in a competitive setting.

Then they can Make certain local House Rules. But that what it is. House Rules

If they want to do that then we can petition all sorts of house rules to the TO once they open that can of worms

I would love the Highlander rule!

Don't take understrength units and avoid this issue altogether.

TBH I've never refused to play against anyone, and I've run into some special players in my time. But if anyone tried to pull understrength units for the purpose of min/maxing and power gaming some extra CP, I really would. Totally taking a rule meant for new players to be able to just play the game and trying to glean some advantage out of it just reeks of WAAC to me

But it is NOT and issue as per the FAQ.

Just because you don't like it don't mean you can say its not for your opponent.

What if your opponent don't like your Airwing army cause he wants to hack and slash you with chainswords?

What if your opponent don't like your Knight Army cause he wanted to shoot your horde army with his lasguns?

The people complaining about this printed rule I bet don't have issue with a ton
of spam lists but are getting bent over a handful of single model units that can be targeted and shot at extremely easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 luke1705 wrote:
. Totally taking a rule meant for new players to be able to just play the game and trying to glean some advantage out of it just reeks of WAAC to me

What about players that have units and whole armies that were geared to a previous edition. Not they have to purchase many more pieces and revisit old paint schemes to make it proper?

Saying the rule is for 'new players' is a total misnomer and some of those new players may have collections twice or many times your collection and perhaps was playing this game when you were unaware of its existence?

And it IS fluffy to boot. Many units will suffer casualties in war and battle and get pulled into the next fight. Heck, in some missions it should be mandatory to have a lot of undersized units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

0604854 wrote:
Basically this is clear as mud, it is pointless getting into arguments over it, my personal thought is go with the least broken, that is what the rulebook says until we are told otherwise

We got told otherwise