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.

 admironheart wrote:

 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. Now 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.

I think you're drastically over exaggerating how many units had their minimum unit size increased. I played Tau with solo suits as my troops last edition (one of the worst armies in that regard). I would have had to buy a lot more suits to play my army literally as I did last edition. However, I can play my same army with minor differences because I can just run a different FOC and everything is fine.

But all that aside, my perspective comes from the competitive side of things. If I was playing against someone in a casual pickup game who actually didn't own the models and wanted to play, I couldn't care less. What rubs me the wrong way is people trying to game list building and saying "I can pretend I don't own the models I need to field this unit" especially in a competitive setting. I feel like people are going to feel entitled to run understrength units at tournaments, and that's ridiculous.

 luke1705 wrote:
I feel like people are going to feel entitled to run understrength units at tournaments, and that's ridiculous.

But why?

Why do you really feel that a unit of 3 Dire Avengers is ridiculous? 5 is ok but 3 makes you nauseous?

A unit of 2 bikers is legal and so is a unit of 9. But if another unit is supposed to be 5 but has a max of 10 it is pretty much the same max size.

so 2 to 9 don't bother you if they tell you its ok. However if a unit was supposed to be bigger and you only bring 2 that is worrisome?

I find it really easy to fill out lists by taking off a model or 2 with this rule. Simple, easy and fast....consistent with the current edition.

It has nothing to do with the unit size. GW has clearly said in the rules that as a courtesy, you can still play your army if you don't have the models that you need.

It's ridiculous that people will try to use that when many of them certainly do OWN the models they need to play a full sized squad just to try to gain an advantage. Pretty much the definition of WAAC.

Again, this all applies only to a tournament setting. Casual play, do whatever you want. But this is classic taking out of context. You can say RAW that no one "knows" if you have the models that you need to make up a full sized unit. But for example, I'm sure that you would say that if I had a unit of 15 berserkers (min unit size 5) and then tried to field a second unit with only 1 berserker in it, that this is against RAW because I do have enough models to field a full strength unit. It just bothers me that people want to use this as justification to try and game a system that is a courtesy, not meant for use in a competitive setting.

The most glaring case is the single Exarch abuse people is suggesting.
is it legal now? Yes, it is.
Is it ridiculous? Of course. Why would people want to field a Dark Reaper Exarch with Tempest launcher alongside the minimum 2 extra Reapers when they can run the Exarch alone? Get ready to see it in tournaments unless it's specifically banned.

 DanielFM wrote:
The most glaring case is the single Exarch abuse people is suggesting.
is it legal now? Yes, it is.
Is it ridiculous? Of course. Why would people want to field a Dark Reaper Exarch with Tempest launcher alongside the minimum 2 extra Reapers when they can run the Exarch alone? Get ready to see it in tournaments unless it's specifically banned.

A whole single model that can't be protected by the character rule? Yeah, so threatening. /s

What tangible advantage are people talking about? Is it simply Points saving to field more squads? I'm lost as to how it's a massive tactical advantage for me to field my one metal Zoanthropes vs buying a plastic box.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What tangible advantage are people talking about? Is it simply Points saving to field more squads? I'm lost as to how it's a massive tactical advantage for me to field my one metal Zoanthropes vs buying a plastic box.

lets you fill detachment requirements for almost no points so it'd be easy to take the 9cp detachment. For example chaos can fill a troop slot for 2 points

 CrownAxe wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What tangible advantage are people talking about? Is it simply Points saving to field more squads? I'm lost as to how it's a massive tactical advantage for me to field my one metal Zoanthropes vs buying a plastic box.

lets you fill detachment requirements for almost no points so it'd be easy to take the 9cp detachment. For example chaos can fill a troop slot for 2 points

You know the one unit limit is still in effect right? You've made this into a daemon in your head (no pun intended). It's not the horrific evil you think it is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What tangible advantage are people talking about? Is it simply Points saving to field more squads? I'm lost as to how it's a massive tactical advantage for me to field my one metal Zoanthropes vs buying a plastic box.

lets you fill detachment requirements for almost no points so it'd be easy to take the 9cp detachment. For example chaos can fill a troop slot for 2 points

You know the one unit limit is still in effect right? You've made this into a daemon in your head (no pun intended). It's not the horrific evil you think it is.

this was my first time posting in this thread so idk why you're jumping down my throat I just was pointing out an advantage to undersized units

 CrownAxe wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
What tangible advantage are people talking about? Is it simply Points saving to field more squads? I'm lost as to how it's a massive tactical advantage for me to field my one metal Zoanthropes vs buying a plastic box.

lets you fill detachment requirements for almost no points so it'd be easy to take the 9cp detachment. For example chaos can fill a troop slot for 2 points

You know the one unit limit is still in effect right? You've made this into a daemon in your head (no pun intended). It's not the horrific evil you think it is.

this was my first time posting in this thread so idk why you're jumping down my throat I just was pointing out an advantage to undersized units

Pointing out an advantage that simply does not exist.

It's one unit per unit type tho. This can be a huge advantage in list building.

Gotcha. So Detachment abuse. Eh, glad I don't play against those guys.

Ok so it makes it means that everyone barring mono admech can cheaply fill a brigade certainly a list building consideration but how is that broken as everyone's effected equally.

Also competitively every list I've writen has a brigade and 2 detachments and competitively every tournament down my way are running 3 detachments for 2k with no repeated.

Also you wound up with units like 1 man assault squads which couldn't make it into combat because they would be overwatched to death so are essentially dead points. Which are just going to give your opponent killpoints.

Look at it this way.

When I have a list and I have like 30 points left over...SO EASY TO THROW IN A SARG OR AND EXARCH now

When I have a list and I am 40 points over...SO EASY TO TAKE OUT 2 OR 3 MODELS now

This is a no brainer on the 'functionality'

We had a nice 10 turn 5 hour game of 2nd ed 3v3 match yday. Three of the guys will not play anything past from 2nd ed, primarily from mindsets that they don't like change, the initative system, vehicle facing, psychic phase or any other myriad changes they DO NOT LIKE.

This is a LIST BUILDING facet that some are protesting. It is either be an old timer or move on with the new. I played more 3rd ed games than any other, still love 2nd ed and am liking 8th. Either stay with the old or EMBRACE the new man

I must ask: How does one field an undersized unit?

I've seen the rules. I just want to know how and when it can happen.

 daedalus wrote:
I must ask: How does one field an undersized unit?

I've seen the rules. I just want to know how and when it can happen.

so many ways to build a game. YOU can do it in Narrative and Matched Play.

Matched play can be build with Power or Points or perhaps wounds or some other criteria.

When you do a Matched Play game with points this is what you need to follow

There is a hot debate if USU can be fielded alongside the 'same' type of unit that is normal sized (anywhere from min to max allowance)

SOMETIMES is the introductory word.

and it is predicated upon the main word AVAILABLE models.

The restriction is that you can ONLY have 1 of an USU

So if you find yourself with not enough available models to have a min squad then you can field it AND only pay the points for the models+ their wargear as written in the 5 indices.

There are many views on what Available means. Who should use it. Why it is in the rules. Trying to read the minds/intent of GW and the FAQ.

Really if you keep all the clutter of those ancillary and speculative noise away and just use the main focus of the RAW, you should be fine to figure it out when explaining your list to your opponent.

good luck

Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DanielFM wrote:
The most glaring case is the single Exarch abuse people is suggesting.
is it legal now? Yes, it is.
Is it ridiculous? Of course. Why would people want to field a Dark Reaper Exarch with Tempest launcher alongside the minimum 2 extra Reapers when they can run the Exarch alone? Get ready to see it in tournaments unless it's specifically banned.

A whole single model that can't be protected by the character rule? Yeah, so threatening. /s

His gun doesn't need line of sight so just hide him behind a wall and he can't be targetted.

 yakface wrote:
Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

I don't see how USU is going to be a major problem outside of using them to take "required" slots in detachments. Ban THAT and everything is perfectly fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 yakface wrote:
Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

I don't see how USU is going to be a major problem outside of using them to take "required" slots in detachments. Ban THAT and everything is perfectly fine.

You might be able to squeeze out a few more CP that way, but you can justify almost any army as a legal one following some force org detachment somewhere. It's one of the more disappointing things about this game that just won't go away..

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 yakface wrote:
Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

I don't see how USU is going to be a major problem outside of using them to take "required" slots in detachments. Ban THAT and everything is perfectly fine.

Given that the imperium can already fill an elite slot for 8 pts hq''s are mostly single models and so don't benefit from the rule amd many lists are running heavys as vehicles (1 model) can't say that's much of a problem just ba lances the factions ability to do that

The only potential problem I can see is if helps yannari to much.

Other than that yes it effects list building sure but thats not a problem.

USU is here for now I guess.

So am I correct in thinking that you can't have USU of anything that is in your list currently that is not at max strength? For example.. I can't take a squad of 9 dire avengers and then take a second unit of just 1 (i dont have the models to fill a second squad to min 5).

I find it hard to argue you could do that, since you could fill that entire first squad with that model. Or take two 5 man squads in that case.

I realize this is ONE extremely specific example i gave... hopefully y'all follow what i am trying to ask

 Grizzyzz wrote:

I find it hard to argue you could do that, since you could fill that entire first squad with that model. Or take two 5 man squads in that case.

One could say : I want a squad of 9 models, then I don't have enough models to make a second squad of 5 models (which is the condition to take an understrength unit). I would say, though, that you cannot take two understrength units. You cannot take a squad of 9 and two squads of 1, but you can take a squad of 9 and a squad of 1.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

I find it hard to argue you could do that, since you could fill that entire first squad with that model. Or take two 5 man squads in that case.

One could say : I want a squad of 9 models, then I don't have enough models to make a second squad of 5 models (which is the condition to take an understrength unit). I would say, though, that you cannot take two understrength units. You cannot take a squad of 9 and two squads of 1, but you can take a squad of 9 and a squad of 1.

If 5 models is the minimum size of those squads, you can't field a unit of 9 guys and a unit of 1 dude, you must deploy two units of 5. The rules says you can use understrenght units if you don't have the models, but in your case you do have the models. If you have 10 guys you can't take a unit of 9 and a unit of 9, but if you have only 1-4 of those guys you can bring a unit that doesn't have reach its minimun size value.

 Blackie wrote:

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

I find it hard to argue you could do that, since you could fill that entire first squad with that model. Or take two 5 man squads in that case.

One could say : I want a squad of 9 models, then I don't have enough models to make a second squad of 5 models (which is the condition to take an understrength unit). I would say, though, that you cannot take two understrength units. You cannot take a squad of 9 and two squads of 1, but you can take a squad of 9 and a squad of 1.

If 5 models is the minimum size of those squads, you can't field a unit of 9 guys and a unit of 1 dude, you must deploy two units of 5. The rules says you can use understrenght units if you don't have the models, but in your case you do have the models. If you have 10 guys you can't take a unit of 9 and a unit of 9, but if you have only 1-4 of those guys you can bring a unit that doesn't have reach its minimun size value.

I have the models, for a unit of 9. I now want a unit of 5, but I don't have enough models. Therefore I can take a undersized unit.

Well, that full thread is solved in the most recent FAQ:

I like that Solution. Losing a CP per understrength unit and not bring able to use it to gain cheap CP makes it an unattractive last resort instead of a way to cheese the system.

 yakface wrote:

Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

With the new FAQ I seriously doubt it will be banned.

 admironheart wrote:

 yakface wrote:
Any sensible tournament is going to ban understrength units, so I doubt this will be something you see abused by players trying to bend the rules very often.

With the new FAQ I seriously doubt it will be banned.

Fun Fact: The new Errata is word for word what the ITC did anyway.