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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Pepe96 wrote:
I think you still can take only one understrength squad.

Is that per army or per detachment?

Per unit type.

So you can only take one understrength tactical squad, one understrength scout squad, one understrength intercessor squad, etc, for space marine troop choices.

That's exactly how I read it. the rule itself is - aside from the type thing - pretty clear. I don't like it though, and I don't think it should be part of the Matched Play ruleset at all. I don't think TOs will allow this either, it's too easy to abuse. I'd not throw a friendly game because of it, but I'd probably try to avoid that player from then on.

*edit* and the abuse potential is there, just an example: Troop slots missing for your 9CP detachment? Just grab a conscript and a guardsman. 10 points. I'm sure there are other troop choices like that. It's gonna be great for Imperial players only though.

The thing is, it's not really any good.

Sure you can maybe squeeze 6 extra CP out of a detachment by adding a Guardsman, Scion, and Conscript, but each of those one Guardsman, Scion, and Conscript is a deployment drop that doesn't do anything.

Going first, from my experience, is worth considerably more than 6 re-rolls.

"If you cannot field" = "if you do not physically have enough models," not "if you want to"

If you did not bring the models with you then they are not at that moment available. Same if you did not bring your titan to the store....then you cant use it unless you want to use legos or such as a proxy. This is a no brainer.

It in NOWAY says it is for kids. It can be for the most harden vet players with a dozen armies or that new guy who just heard of 40k last week.

ONLY you are overlaying your own viewpoint to make it fit in with what you want it to be. NO Where does it say anything about the new guy or ownership or such...that is just made up bs people are using to justify something most of their own false interpretations don't actually have any real criteria other than 'gut feeling'

If you feel that guy is a Dbag for doing that....maybe he feels you are a dbag for eating xyz fast food or such....either way none of it has a real place in the game with sportsmanship and such...it is just you overlaying your own preferences onto some other gamer.[which IN ITSELF is highly suspect as to the type of player that others have to consider if you are actually worth spending time having fun with for real]

Now if the meta actually bears out that something is amis then that is some real concrete stuff to use to consider if this is good or bad

 admironheart wrote:
If you did not bring the models with you then they are not at that moment available. Same if you did not bring your titan to the store....then you cant use it unless you want to use legos or such as a proxy. This is a no brainer.

It in NOWAY says it is for kids. It can be for the most harden vet players with a dozen armies or that new guy who just heard of 40k last week.

ONLY you are overlaying your own viewpoint to make it fit in with what you want it to be. NO Where does it say anything about the new guy or ownership or such...that is just made up bs people are using to justify something most of their own false interpretations don't actually have any real criteria other than 'gut feeling'

If you feel that guy is a Dbag for doing that....maybe he feels you are a dbag for eating xyz fast food or such....either way none of it has a real place in the game with sportsmanship and such...it is just you overlaying your own preferences onto some other gamer.[which IN ITSELF is highly suspect as to the type of player that others have to consider if you are actually worth spending time having fun with for real]

Now if the meta actually bears out that something is amis then that is some real concrete stuff to use to consider if this is good or bad

SO you don't differentiate at all between the person who accidentally leaves models at home, and needs to use this rule to make a list and the guy who knows he owns the models, but purposefully leaves them at home for the purpose of building a more efficient list? He had the models when he built the list, he knew he owned them, but elected to leave them home to gain an advantage. Sorry that is clearly an unintended abuse of this rule. If you want to do it that is on you, but I wouldn't go out of your way because I expect tournaments will ban its use, and GW will amend their FAQ before too long.

Breng77 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
If you did not bring the models with you then they are not at that moment available. Same if you did not bring your titan to the store....then you cant use it unless you want to use legos or such as a proxy. This is a no brainer.

It in NOWAY says it is for kids. It can be for the most harden vet players with a dozen armies or that new guy who just heard of 40k last week.

ONLY you are overlaying your own viewpoint to make it fit in with what you want it to be. NO Where does it say anything about the new guy or ownership or such...that is just made up bs people are using to justify something most of their own false interpretations don't actually have any real criteria other than 'gut feeling'

If you feel that guy is a Dbag for doing that....maybe he feels you are a dbag for eating xyz fast food or such....either way none of it has a real place in the game with sportsmanship and such...it is just you overlaying your own preferences onto some other gamer.[which IN ITSELF is highly suspect as to the type of player that others have to consider if you are actually worth spending time having fun with for real]

Now if the meta actually bears out that something is amis then that is some real concrete stuff to use to consider if this is good or bad

SO you don't differentiate at all between the person who accidentally leaves models at home, and needs to use this rule to make a list and the guy who knows he owns the models, but purposefully leaves them at home for the purpose of building a more efficient list? He had the models when he built the list, he knew he owned them, but elected to leave them home to gain an advantage. Sorry that is clearly an unintended abuse of this rule. If you want to do it that is on you, but I wouldn't go out of your way because I expect tournaments will ban its use, and GW will amend their FAQ before too long.

By that logic a person who buys better unit options is abusing the rules too.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:
If you did not bring the models with you then they are not at that moment available. Same if you did not bring your titan to the store....then you cant use it unless you want to use legos or such as a proxy. This is a no brainer.

It in NOWAY says it is for kids. It can be for the most harden vet players with a dozen armies or that new guy who just heard of 40k last week.

ONLY you are overlaying your own viewpoint to make it fit in with what you want it to be. NO Where does it say anything about the new guy or ownership or such...that is just made up bs people are using to justify something most of their own false interpretations don't actually have any real criteria other than 'gut feeling'

If you feel that guy is a Dbag for doing that....maybe he feels you are a dbag for eating xyz fast food or such....either way none of it has a real place in the game with sportsmanship and such...it is just you overlaying your own preferences onto some other gamer.[which IN ITSELF is highly suspect as to the type of player that others have to consider if you are actually worth spending time having fun with for real]

Now if the meta actually bears out that something is amis then that is some real concrete stuff to use to consider if this is good or bad

SO you don't differentiate at all between the person who accidentally leaves models at home, and needs to use this rule to make a list and the guy who knows he owns the models, but purposefully leaves them at home for the purpose of building a more efficient list? He had the models when he built the list, he knew he owned them, but elected to leave them home to gain an advantage. Sorry that is clearly an unintended abuse of this rule. If you want to do it that is on you, but I wouldn't go out of your way because I expect tournaments will ban its use, and GW will amend their FAQ before too long.

By that logic a person who buys better unit options is abusing the rules too.

Not at all, in one case they are taking valid options for a unit available in all circumstances, in the other they are specifically "forgetting" models in order to gain an in game advantage, as the USU rule is only an option if models lack availability. So creating a scenario where models are made unavailable is specifically gaming the system.

Take this example, you are at home and write a 2k list, in that list you specifically include understrength units to gain an advantage, then you go to the store, leaving models at home to play your list "legally". You had the models available when you wrote the list, but not when you played the game, are you breaking the rules? There is no way to prove that you are, and no one would bother, but you know you had the models available when you made the list. Are you cheating? This would be no different from someone playing a rule incorrectly, it is almost impossible to prove they were intentionally cheating, but they gained an advantage.

Essentially if you "knowingly" leave models at home, you are cheating in list building, but when you arrive at your destination, you are no longer cheating because you don't have the models "available" at game time.

This is in no way the same as taking good unit options.

Breng77 wrote:
Not at all, in one case they are taking valid options for a unit available in all circumstances, in the other they are specifically "forgetting" models in order to gain an in game advantage, as the USU rule is only an option if models lack availability. So creating a scenario where models are made unavailable is specifically gaming the system.

Essentially if you "knowingly" leave models at home, you are cheating in list building, but when you arrive at your destination, you are no longer cheating because you don't have the models "available" at game time.

This is in no way the same as taking good unit options.

Except I can easily say just as much that "creating a scenario where models are made available" by buying them is gaming the system.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The thing is, it's not really any good.

Sure you can maybe squeeze 6 extra CP out of a detachment by adding a Guardsman, Scion, and Conscript, but each of those one Guardsman, Scion, and Conscript is a deployment drop that doesn't do anything.

Going first, from my experience, is worth considerably more than 6 re-rolls.

I won't be going first most of the times anyway. IG is a mass unit army usually. And then there's a pretty easy fix: put the single-model-units in a transport. A Valkyrie or Vendetta isn't bad as a pure gunboat, just put them in there. My current list has 2 Valkyries in it that carry Command Squads, they have the transport slots left to just squeeze all 3 guys in there, too. You're not limited to a single unit inside a transport anymore.

oh - and quite honestly: If you're arguing that it's not OK to use understrength units just because you have another Tac Marine hidden somewhere in your basement, you should take a look in a mirror and think about who's TFG. Just tell them you're not OK with that rule and find a solution. If you're arguing on THAT level, you already lost.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Not at all, in one case they are taking valid options for a unit available in all circumstances, in the other they are specifically "forgetting" models in order to gain an in game advantage, as the USU rule is only an option if models lack availability. So creating a scenario where models are made unavailable is specifically gaming the system.

Essentially if you "knowingly" leave models at home, you are cheating in list building, but when you arrive at your destination, you are no longer cheating because you don't have the models "available" at game time.

This is in no way the same as taking good unit options.

Except I can easily say just as much that "creating a scenario where models are made available" by buying them is gaming the system.

nope, you are stretching here. The models I own has not changed during my creation of a list. In my example if I own a model, and write a list that says the model is unavailable, and then make it unavailable when playing I have gamed the system. I don't see how that is akin to having bought a model so that I can use it in a list I wrote. It is all about the timing of things.

If you bring your models to a store, then write your list and are missing a few models, so you use USU, your intent (in theory) is different, than it is when you write a tournament list ahead of time, using the USU rules, and create a scenario where your list is legal, by not bringing models for a full size squad. Essentially you are required to do something outside the scope of the game to make your list legal.

I would have similar issue with someone making a list, and showing up at the store with a list that was not legal given their models and saying, "hold on while I buy and assemble this squad."

GW could make a simple solution for it in an FAQ: "Understrength units do not count toward detachment slots"

Tarendal wrote:
GW could make a simple solution for it in an FAQ: "Understrength units do not count toward detachment slots"

which completely ruins the actual intended use for the rule

nekooni wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


oh - and quite honestly: If you're arguing that it's not OK to use understrength units just because you have another Tac Marine hidden somewhere in your basement, you should take a look in a mirror and think about who's TFG. Just tell them you're not OK with that rule and find a solution. If you're arguing on THAT level, you already lost.

It really depends on how the rule is being used. If it is one unit, maybe but say you run into this list (quick thrown together list, not saying it is the best thing ever), but it is clearly exploiting this rule.

Battalion
Captain
Lieutenant

1 crusader
1 tactical
5 scouts
1 scout
1 assault marine
1 sternguard vet
3 x5 devestators w 4 lascannons
1 devastator x lascannon
12 Razorbacks with Twin AssCan

 CrownAxe wrote:

Tarendal wrote:
GW could make a simple solution for it in an FAQ: "Understrength units do not count toward detachment slots"

which completely ruins the actual intended use for the rule

Not really?

Breng77 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


oh - and quite honestly: If you're arguing that it's not OK to use understrength units just because you have another Tac Marine hidden somewhere in your basement, you should take a look in a mirror and think about who's TFG. Just tell them you're not OK with that rule and find a solution. If you're arguing on THAT level, you already lost.

It really depends on how the rule is being used. If it is one unit, maybe but say you run into this list (quick thrown together list, not saying it is the best thing ever), but it is clearly exploiting this rule.

Battalion
Captain
Lieutenant

1 crusader
1 tactical
5 scouts
1 scout
1 assault marine
1 sternguard vet
3 x5 devestators w 4 lascannons
1 devastator x lascannon
12 Razorbacks with Twin AssCan

I'm not arguing that it can't be abused. If you'd bothered to read the rest of what I've written I'm saying the exact same thing. But just because a rule is there and CAN be abused is no excuse to fall back on excessive ruleslawyering. The rule and how it's supposed to work is clear. It's clear that you can use it to gain additional CP, I've even provided examples of that. But it's still a rule that's there, and instead of being honest and saying that it's a fething stupid rule we shouldn't use in Matched Play, some people go out of their way to be TFG just to make the rule unusable.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Tarendal wrote:
GW could make a simple solution for it in an FAQ: "Understrength units do not count toward detachment slots"

which completely ruins the actual intended use for the rule

Well apparently you maybe did not see eye to eye with the designers.

The rule is nicely FAQ'd for tournament play now

new faq:

If you are playing a matched play game, you can
only include an understrength unit in an Auxiliary
Support Detachment.’

You always have a credit card available to you the rest of your squad is right over there on the shelf. Unit is out of stock?There are always 'counts as' bases available to you. Go grab them, fill out your squad.

You think GW wanted 'who can make the best understrength unit' to be the new and interesting strategic facet to the game? You have got to be kidding me.

Well if you want to go that route and not have any cp to play with then go for it.

I think the CP bonus will almost always override any interesting strategic from understrength units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rismonite wrote:
You always have a credit card available to you the rest of your squad is right over there on the shelf. Unit is out of stock?There are always 'counts as' bases available to you.

I have well over 15k elder units not counting Nids, DE, Harlies, and PDF and SM.

But the number of units I play no matter what edition is based on if it is painted or not or if even if the there is enough of my units painted the same to fill out a squad. It is why I almost never play any of my 4 units of swooping hawks since they are all painted in 3's.

That is my choice how I like to play. I don't like to play counts as or unprimed/unpainted army. Seems poor form for someone to dictate to me that I should play some way outside of a perfectly legal game play norm. Do you like players to tell you how to build your list?