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.
Page 108 in the Xenos 1 book, Under "Under-Strength Units":
"In matched play games, you only pay the points for models you actually have in an under-strength unit... An under-strength unit still takes up an appropriate slot in a detachment."
As long as you had the detachment slots available, you could take a wave serpent full of Fire Dragon Exarchs that each only cost the same as a normal Fire Dragon. You could fulfill your troop slot requirements with a single guardian model. You could field multiple brigade detachments at super low points levels.
99% sure this is a typo because it directly contradicts something in the BRB (couldn't find the entry), but army books take precedence right?
Isn't this overridden by the individual unit entries? Like Company Veterans says "this unit contains 1 Veteran Sergeant and 1 Space Marine Veteran", which means you have to have at least those.
Deathypoo wrote: Page 108 in the Xenos 1 book, Under "Under-Strength Units":
"In matched play games, you only pay the points for models you actually have in an under-strength unit... An under-strength unit still takes up an appropriate slot in a detachment."
As long as you had the detachment slots available, you could take a wave serpent full of Fire Dragon Exarchs that each only cost the same as a normal Fire Dragon. You could fulfill your troop slot requirements with a single guardian model. You could field multiple brigade detachments at super low points levels.
99% sure this is a typo because it directly contradicts something in the BRB (couldn't find the entry), but army books take precedence right?
The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
BaconCatBug wrote: The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
Missed that! Still relevant.... Could at least pay one troop tax for 7 points. I was also looking at Having Fire Dragons and Storm Guardians share a Wave Serpent, so one Serpent could have an under-strength FD unit, and one could have an under-strength guardian unit.
On the one hand I'm glad it's not so powerful, on the other hand it's probably not a typo and it's still pretty cheesy imo.
BaconCatBug wrote: The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
Missed that! Still relevant.... Could at least pay one troop tax for 7 points. I was also looking at Having Fire Dragons and Storm Guardians share a Wave Serpent, so one Serpent could have an under-strength FD unit, and one could have an under-strength guardian unit.
On the one hand I'm glad it's not so powerful, on the other hand it's probably not a typo and it's still pretty cheesy imo.
Not really, you don't get anything for free, it feths you over if you don't put them in a transport and you can only ever have 4 units that are understrength in an army. It's really unlikely to be of a very significant benefit.
BaconCatBug wrote: The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
Missed that! Still relevant.... Could at least pay one troop tax for 7 points. I was also looking at Having Fire Dragons and Storm Guardians share a Wave Serpent, so one Serpent could have an under-strength FD unit, and one could have an under-strength guardian unit.
On the one hand I'm glad it's not so powerful, on the other hand it's probably not a typo and it's still pretty cheesy imo.
BaconCatBug wrote: The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
Missed that! Still relevant.... Could at least pay one troop tax for 7 points. I was also looking at Having Fire Dragons and Storm Guardians share a Wave Serpent, so one Serpent could have an under-strength FD unit, and one could have an under-strength guardian unit.
On the one hand I'm glad it's not so powerful, on the other hand it's probably not a typo and it's still pretty cheesy imo.
I think you have to pay for the entire squad...
Only outside of matched play. If you're playing matched play the rules in the Index clearly state you only pay for the models you take.
BaconCatBug wrote: The understrength model rules say you can only have 1 understrength unit per type.
Missed that! Still relevant.... Could at least pay one troop tax for 7 points. I was also looking at Having Fire Dragons and Storm Guardians share a Wave Serpent, so one Serpent could have an under-strength FD unit, and one could have an under-strength guardian unit.
On the one hand I'm glad it's not so powerful, on the other hand it's probably not a typo and it's still pretty cheesy imo.
I think you have to pay for the entire squad...
Only outside of matched play. If you're playing matched play the rules in the Index clearly state you only pay for the models you take.
From 'Understrenght Units' (pg. 242, main rulebook):
If you are using points, you must still pay the points cost as if you had a minimum-sized unit, even though it contains fewer models.
I see nothing that contradicts this advanced rule.
'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
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Battle forged armies are not limited to Matched Play. In the main rulebook it states that Narrative play and some missions require them.
The Main Rule book states you pay for understrength units in Battleforged armies as a minimum sized unit.
So for Narrative or for certain missions that would be valid.
It looks like Matched Play, which necessitates you use points and battleforged requirements ....there seems to be the option to go with a different system.....wow
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.
Of course, this still only applies if "you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit". So it seems hard to take advantage of. I guess you could argue that it's not about actual ownership but just about what you happen to have with you, so as long as you leave your extra models at home you're fine, but your opponent could always render your list illegal by handing you an extra model of the appropriate type.
Well, depends on how it is ruled.....Exarchs used to be independent characters. I can see 1 Dire Avenger Exarch, 1 Dark Reaper Exarch, 1 Howling Banshee Exarch, etc making a sorta Court of the King in some lists.
for example a FirePike FD Exarch would make a great tank hunter and a Shuriken Cannon armed Dark Reaper Exarch only costs 17 points!
Automatically Appended Next Post: ofc none of them benefit from being independent characters so they can be singled and shot easily
NUff said
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dionysodorus wrote: Of course, this still only applies if "you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit". So it seems hard to take advantage of. I guess you could argue that it's not about actual ownership but just about what you happen to have with you, so as long as you leave your extra models at home you're fine, but your opponent could always render your list illegal by handing you an extra model of the appropriate type.
but would painting and colors apply? So I have ultramarines or Imperial Fists....if you hand me a blood angels model I can say that due to keywords that that model is NOT part of that unit as there are no faction-mixed units. NO Iyanden yellow guardians fething up my Ulthwe 1 model storm guardian unit...you see?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/25 23:41:44
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.
Dionysodorus wrote: Of course, this still only applies if "you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit". So it seems hard to take advantage of. I guess you could argue that it's not about actual ownership but just about what you happen to have with you, so as long as you leave your extra models at home you're fine, but your opponent could always render your list illegal by handing you an extra model of the appropriate type.
Dionysodorus wrote: Of course, this still only applies if "you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit". So it seems hard to take advantage of. I guess you could argue that it's not about actual ownership but just about what you happen to have with you, so as long as you leave your extra models at home you're fine, but your opponent could always render your list illegal by handing you an extra model of the appropriate type.
That's just absurd.
I mean, yeah. Obviously the point of this rule is to let people take a unit they like in friendly games even if they don't own the models for it. It doesn't strike me as weird that you get absurd results if you start trying to use it strategically to bring cheaper, under-strength units.
but would painting and colors apply? So I have ultramarines or Imperial Fists....if you hand me a blood angels model I can say that due to keywords that that model is NOT part of that unit as there are no faction-mixed units. NO Iyanden yellow guardians fething up my Ulthwe 1 model storm guardian unit...you see?
I don't see that there's any general requirement that models be colored appropriately for their keywords or uniformly colored by keyword. Regardless, you could field an Ultramarine-colored marine and an Imperial Fist-colored marine as part of a single unit in some made-up Chapter that rolls that way, so you would still be required to field a unit with "as many models as you have available". That unit would just have to be a custom Chapter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/25 23:52:34
Dionysodorus wrote: Of course, this still only applies if "you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit". So it seems hard to take advantage of. I guess you could argue that it's not about actual ownership but just about what you happen to have with you, so as long as you leave your extra models at home you're fine, but your opponent could always render your list illegal by handing you an extra model of the appropriate type.
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, yeah. Obviously the point of this rule is to let people take a unit they like in friendly games even if they don't own the models for it. It doesn't strike me as weird that you get absurd results if you start trying to use it strategically to bring cheaper, under-strength units.
but would painting and colors apply? So I have ultramarines or Imperial Fists....if you hand me a blood angels model I can say that due to keywords that that model is NOT part of that unit as there are no faction-mixed units. NO Iyanden yellow guardians fething up my Ulthwe 1 model storm guardian unit...you see?
I don't see that there's any general requirement that models be colored appropriately for their keywords or uniformly colored by keyword. Regardless, you could field an Ultramarine-colored marine and an Imperial Fist-colored marine as part of a single unit in some made-up Chapter that rolls that way, so you would still be required to field a unit with "as many models as you have available". That unit would just have to be a custom Chapter.
I would be very much opposed to someone telling me my BloodAngels army had to change their keyword to some custom chapter. That goes beyond sportsmanship if you are forcing your opponent to take one of your models so you can manipulate his list....that is even worse than the premise that you put forward earlier....on the sportsmanship side!
As far as the point of the rule...In room full of people the vast group would agree with you on the for fun aspect. However they did put the rule in for Battleforged armies AND for MatchedPlay. So unless tournament organizers put in their own house rules it is very likely to see undersized units to show in lists.
I myself as a biased elder player missing the days when an exarch would throw a marine captain into fear when engaged in hth, or having the access to healing vehicles with BoneSeers or a medkit for our troopers have no issue taking the lowly exarch or a solo ranger or wytch to gain a special bubble buff/wargear.
In fact this whole 8th edition only true failing is the tons of bubblewrap and aura buffs to make characters have a better effect on the armies. WHY not just have the characters be actually better than having a chajillion special bubblebuffs. Just tone them down so they dont remake 2nd ed HeroHammer but let us have wargear and vehicle upgrades.
I feel kinda dirty as an elder player with the few vehicle upgrades that most other armies are without. I miss the customization of units as opposed to the bubblebuffing everything with so many different mechanics.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/26 00:45:39
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.
I dunno if I'd ever really use that to my advantage. Maybe with Necrons so I can use just 9 Warriors on an ark and then a Character to ride along with them. Not sure how cost efficient that is though...
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Read the demi-sentence after the semi-colon: "if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available."
There is a hard no-shenanigans written into the rule. You get exactly 1 just am exarch.
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Read the demi-sentence after the semi-colon: "if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available."
There is a hard no-shenanigans written into the rule. You get exactly 1 just am exarch.
Swooping Hawk Exarch =/= Fire Dragon Exarch. Different unit, different Force Org slot.
Yes; I shouls have been more clear. An earlier poster had mentioned a wave serpent full of Firedragon Exarchs; that cannot be done.
You can, and it would be fluffy in a warhost list with the avatar, have 1 of each exarch(the court of the young king).
The departure between the Index and the rulebook is the only paying for the models you bring. The rulebook said you have to pay for the minimum sized unit with base gear. I will go with the index version since the battleforged armies rules are not part of the core rules and the index actually contains the points in that part of the rules(also it just makes sense)
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
admironheart wrote: I would be very much opposed to someone telling me my BloodAngels army had to change their keyword to some custom chapter. That goes beyond sportsmanship if you are forcing your opponent to take one of your models so you can manipulate his list....that is even worse than the premise that you put forward earlier....on the sportsmanship side!
Who says anything about changing keywords. They would still be blood angels.
admironheart wrote: I would be very much opposed to someone telling me my BloodAngels army had to change their keyword to some custom chapter. That goes beyond sportsmanship if you are forcing your opponent to take one of your models so you can manipulate his list....that is even worse than the premise that you put forward earlier....on the sportsmanship side!
Who says anything about changing keywords. They would still be blood angels.
my bloodangels are not painted pink for example.
Heck to continue with this line of player interaction.... if I don't like your primered army perhaps I can swap out some of my models so I can play vs a painted foe. Actually if you don't have a painted army of my quality then I will just swap in a nice army for yours.....I mean its that type of really bad sportsmanship that the game is trying to avoid.
Telling an opponent to take a model of your own to invalidate their list is only overcome by sheer cheating as fas as bad form and sportsmanship is concerned. This game used to be about promoting good sportsmanship. Taking advantage of a rule does not necessarily make you a bad sportsman.
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.
The understrength rule seems to be more written because they know that they use to sell blister packs of models rather than whole legal units so a lot of existing players may have an odd number that is not legal (A modern example would be Ogryns; if you built one of them as Nork Deddog you'll be short one for the remaining two). While it would allow for a fluffy Court of Young Kings list I would not count on it surviving the edition (or even the next FAQ).
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The understrength rule seems to be more written because they know that they use to sell blister packs of models rather than whole legal units so a lot of existing players may have an odd number that is not legal (A modern example would be Ogryns; if you built one of them as Nork Deddog you'll be short one for the remaining two). While it would allow for a fluffy Court of Young Kings list I would not count on it surviving the edition (or even the next FAQ).
Does anyone think that ITC will remove it if it doesn't get removed in a FAQ?
40k drinking game: take a shot everytime a book references Skitarii using transports.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The understrength rule seems to be more written because they know that they use to sell blister packs of models rather than whole legal units so a lot of existing players may have an odd number that is not legal (A modern example would be Ogryns; if you built one of them as Nork Deddog you'll be short one for the remaining two). While it would allow for a fluffy Court of Young Kings list I would not count on it surviving the edition (or even the next FAQ).
Does anyone think that ITC will remove it if it doesn't get removed in a FAQ?
I'd be betting on it. the rule isn';t there to allow WAAC TGFs to be dicks, it's to allow little 9 year old Johnny who bought that 15 dollar 3 marine blister pack to put down his 3 tac marines and pay with them.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
