Switch Theme:

Undersized units  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Disassembled Parts Inside a Talos




In the 8th edition 40k rulebook it states that under-strength units must pay the points cost for a minimum sized unit even if it contains fewer models.
In the 8th edition Xenos 1 Index (and the other Index's) it states that if you do not have enough models for a minimum strength unit you only need to pay for models you actually have within the under-strength unit.
So which is it?

For the rulebook it is on P.242, and for the index's it depends on the Index but on Xenos 2 it's P.126.
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

0604854 wrote:
In the 8th edition 40k rulebook it states that under-strength units must pay the points cost for a minimum sized unit even if it contains fewer models.
In the 8th edition Xenos 1 Index (and the other Index's) it states that if you do not have enough models for a minimum strength unit you only need to pay for models you actually have within the under-strength unit.
So which is it?

For the rulebook it is on P.242, and for the index's it depends on the Index but on Xenos 2 it's P.126.


Only GW can answer this question.

   
Made in gb
Disassembled Parts Inside a Talos




   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

My argument is essentially that the Understrength units rule is a different rule to the under-strength units note the lack of hyphen (PS Kudos GW for impressing me with your rules writing yet again...)

Also usually codex/index overrules base rulebook so either way you are free to use the index interpretation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/27 12:02:51


 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

U02dah4 wrote:
My argument is essentially that the Understrength units rule is a different rule to the under-strength units note the lack of hyphen (PS Kudos GW for impressing me with your rules writing yet again...)

Also usually codex/index overrules base rulebook so either way you are free to use the index interpretation.


Ok, so one has a hyphen and the other doesn't. Does that change the fact that both of them say something completely contradictory about the exact same topic?


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 yakface wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
My argument is essentially that the Understrength units rule is a different rule to the under-strength units note the lack of hyphen (PS Kudos GW for impressing me with your rules writing yet again...)

Also usually codex/index overrules base rulebook so either way you are free to use the index interpretation.


Ok, so one has a hyphen and the other doesn't. Does that change the fact that both of them say something completely contradictory about the exact same topic?



Maybe index deals with matched play only while rulebook is more generic covering other forms=in other forms rulebook but in matched play index trumps?

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

tneva82 wrote:
Maybe index deals with matched play only while rulebook is more generic covering other forms=in other forms rulebook but in matched play index trumps?


They're both covering 'Battle-forged armies', which is matched play.

I don't see how anything can be parsed out of this. There are two rules saying the exact opposite thing. Either the indexes are wrong or the rulebook is wrong. There's no real way to assume which is right and which is wrong.

Therefore, if you abide by the 'do no harm' kind of mentality, then in this situation you'd be compelled to go with the ruling that is less favorable to you (pay the points for the minimum-sized squad).

But there absolutely is no 'answer' that anyone is going to get from this until GW speaks up about it.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 yakface wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
My argument is essentially that the Understrength units rule is a different rule to the under-strength units note the lack of hyphen (PS Kudos GW for impressing me with your rules writing yet again...)

Also usually codex/index overrules base rulebook so either way you are free to use the index interpretation.


Ok, so one has a hyphen and the other doesn't. Does that change the fact that both of them say something completely contradictory about the exact same topic?


One set of wording always uses a hyphen one always does not therefore they could be used as two separate rules both giving you permission to do the same thing but in a different way. As two separate rules they are not contradictory just different and you may use either.

Essentially you may take an understrength unit and pay full cost or an under-strength unit and only pay for what you wish to use.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sorry, the card says "moops".
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 yakface wrote:
They're both covering 'Battle-forged armies', which is matched play.
That is categorically untrue. Playing with a battleforged army does NOT automatically make it matched play. Any games can have a battleforged army if they want, but if you matched play then you MUST have one. Matched play is a specific set of additional rules for when you want a matched play game. It has no link with battleforged armies other than requiring the army to be one.

It's clear that one rule applies to matched play and the other applies to non-matched play.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/27 21:13:57


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 BaconCatBug wrote:
 yakface wrote:
They're both covering 'Battle-forged armies', which is matched play.
That is categorically untrue. Playing with a battleforged army does NOT automatically make it matched play. Any games can have a battleforged army if they want, but if you matched play then you MUST have one. Matched play is a specific set of additional rules for when you want a matched play game. It has no link with battleforged armies other than requiring the army to be one.

It's clear that one rule applies to matched play and the other applies to non-matched play.


This isn't actually true either. Battleforged armies is not in the matched play section of the book. It's in the advanced rules section of the book which is all entirely optional. Matched play only requires that you set a points limit and spend points for wargear instead of power.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Lance845 wrote:
Spoiler:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 yakface wrote:
They're both covering 'Battle-forged armies', which is matched play.
That is categorically untrue. Playing with a battleforged army does NOT automatically make it matched play. Any games can have a battleforged army if they want, but if you matched play then you MUST have one. Matched play is a specific set of additional rules for when you want a matched play game. It has no link with battleforged armies other than requiring the army to be one.

It's clear that one rule applies to matched play and the other applies to non-matched play.


This isn't actually true either. Battleforged armies is not in the matched play section of the book. It's in the advanced rules section of the book which is all entirely optional. Matched play only requires that you set a points limit and spend points for wargear instead of power.

From 'Matched Play' (pg. 212 of the 8th edition rulebook):

Finally, you will need to organise your army into Detachments, as all matched play games use the Battleforged army rules (pg 240).

Battleforged is not optional for Matched Play.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 Lance845 wrote:
This isn't actually true either. Battleforged armies is not in the matched play section of the book. It's in the advanced rules section of the book which is all entirely optional. Matched play only requires that you set a points limit and spend points for wargear instead of power.


Ok, I'll eat crow on that front too (I was actually in the middle of revising my post because I caught that mistake myself).

However, I still stand by my assessment otherwise. There is absolutely nothing 'clear' about this being two separate rules, and everything about it says as much. Yes, one rule has a hyphen in the name, but they're still essentially the same two things, but just with very different meanings. Why the heck would GW put two different rules for the same thing, one in the rulebook and one in the indices? It just does not make any sense at all to do so, especially because players are libel to read whichever one they come across first and think that's the way it is and not ever bother to read it again in any other book its in (I know I didn't bother reading the rule in the Indices because I figured it was just a recap of what the same rule in the rulebook was).


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 yakface wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
This isn't actually true either. Battleforged armies is not in the matched play section of the book. It's in the advanced rules section of the book which is all entirely optional. Matched play only requires that you set a points limit and spend points for wargear instead of power.


Ok, I'll eat crow on that front too (I was actually in the middle of revising my post because I caught that mistake myself).

See my previous post.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





USA

Page 192 Main Rules under Narrative Play

"Narrative Play can be further enhanced through the use of Battle-Forged armies (pg 240). In these armies, your units are organized into Detatchments, which not only allows your armies to better reflect the background of their Faction, but also awards Command Points......

Matched Play page 212

"There are several ways to choose an army for Matched Play games. Typically, you and your opponent will build an army to an agreed points limit, BUT you could instead for example, build armies that have a set number of units. ALTERNATELY, you could use the Wounds Characteristic or the Power Rating of each unit.........These are JUST a few examples of WAYS you can organize an army for matched play games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So Matched play is not an ABSOLUTE in the way it is built as some are trying to impress.

In the Main rules it states how to use Understrength units in a Battle forged army. We have one rule therein

. Battleforged can be used in Narrative/Matched play.

IN THE INDICES Under Battleforged Armies ...it has a different rule within.

BUT LOOK AT THE MAIN PARAGRAPH UNder the Index.

"When picking a Battle-forged army for MATCHED PLAY, you will need to record details......

Here is clearly a stated way to use BattleForge armies in Matched play then it goes on to detail the rules.

Very clearly a set of rules for B.a.t.t.l.e. F.o.r.g.e.d. in M.a.t.c.h.e.d. P.l.a.y.

which is NOT battleforge in a general rule that is used for an example Narrative Play (ie NOT matched play)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/27 23:55:02


 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Matched Play' (pg. 212 of the 8th edition rulebook):

Finally, you will need to organise your army into Detachments, as all matched play games use the Battleforged army rules (pg 240).

The rules for Matched Play says to use the rules for Battleforged armies found on page 240 of the main rulebook, not in the Indexes. Again, there are no separate rules for Battleforged armies in Narrative Play versus Matched Play.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





What do the other indexes say in this regard?

because if only 1 of the 5 books says something different then that is obviously the error
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






GodDamUser wrote:
What do the other indexes say in this regard?

because if only 1 of the 5 books says something different then that is obviously the error
Yes, obviously no-one has bothered to check to see if this is the case.

The exact same line, word for word, occurs in all 5 indexes. "In matched play games, you only pay the points for the models you actually have in an under-strength unit (and any weapons they are equipped with)."

Even if one was different from another, it wouldn't be an "error", it would just apply to only those armies in that codex.

If we're going to use the old adage of Codex > BGB, then it's perfectly clear.
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes, obviously no-one has bothered to check to see if this is the case.

The exact same line, word for word, occurs in all 5 indexes. "In matched play games, you only pay the points for the models you actually have in an under-strength unit (and any weapons they are equipped with)."

Even if one was different from another, it wouldn't be an "error", it would just apply to only those armies in that codex.

If we're going to use the old adage of Codex > BGB, then it's perfectly clear.


That's fair.. I just didn't see it in the thread, and I don't have all of them to check myself

But this is good news for me
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Which again doesn't explain why the Matched Play rules say to use the rules found on page 240 of the main rulebook if we're supposed to be using the rules in the Indexes.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Ghaz wrote:
Which again doesn't explain why the Matched Play rules say to use the rules found on page 240 of the main rulebook if we're supposed to be using the rules in the Indexes.
Because the Indexes were not written at the time the rulebook went to print?

That's like saying (For example) "The codex says you can roll 2D6 when advancing. The rulebook says you roll 1D6. Therefore you have to roll 1D6 because the rulebook says so."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/28 02:10:41


 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. If they weren't meant to use the rules in the main rulebook, they wouldn't have referenced the main rulebook regardless of when the Indexes were printed.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Ghaz wrote:
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. If they weren't meant to use the rules in the main rulebook, they wouldn't have referenced the main rulebook regardless of when the Indexes were printed.
That's some nice mental gymnastics there. What would they have referred to then? Some magical book that doesn't exist?

Again, by your logic special rules in the Codexes are overridden by the main rules.
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





See I would find it weird that the dataslate has a unit size, then increase increments...

But if it is just pay for what you have is there technically no max unit size?

Because I was originally taking the undersize thing and paying for points was only for increase implements..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/28 02:26:58


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






Is this a crack about old marines? Because it's not the size of the marine, it's the motion of the bolter.

-three orange whips 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






GodDamUser wrote:
See I would find it weird that the dataslate has a unit size, then increase increments...

But if it is just pay for what you have is there technically no max unit size?

Because I was originally taking the undersize thing and paying for points was only for increase implements..
It's pay for what you have but you still can't go above the max unit size. That's the whole point. Also Understrength Unit rule specifically mentions having LESS models than needed.
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





Yeah see that just feels wrong to me..

Because if the rules say there is no reason to have a min unit size.. (basically what undersized is)

then what to say the max size isnt just for show as well?

My initial interpretation was that you had to take the min, but could undersize the increments.... but that was my RAI

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/28 02:37:38


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






GodDamUser wrote:
Yeah see that just feels wrong to me..

Because if the rules say there is no reason to have a min unit size.. (basically what undersized is)

then what to say the max size is just for show as well?
You're literally asking why there isn't a special rule saying you can have any max unit size?

The rules are permissive. They tell you what you CAN do. The rules don't say you can't kick a puppy to make your opponent automatically lose, nor do they say you can't stab your opponent during the game for a reroll.

The rule is indented to allow you to use a unit you haven't got enough models for, or to allow you to put a character in with a unit in a transport (Think Terminators and Regular Land Raiders).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/28 02:38:53


 
   
Made in au
Infiltrating Broodlord





 BaconCatBug wrote:
You're literally asking why there isn't a special rule saying you can have any max unit size?



No what I am saying... is why did they bother with unit size on the Datasheets if they mean nothing
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






GodDamUser wrote:
My initial interpretation was that you had to take the min, but could undersize the increments.... but that was my RAI
Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GodDamUser wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You're literally asking why there isn't a special rule saying you can have any max unit size?



No what I am saying... is why did they bother with unit size on the Datasheets if they mean nothing
They do mean something? You can only have ONE understrength unit of each type. All other units have to have the minimum count.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/28 02:40:03


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: