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.

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You're interpreting that rule way too broad. All it says is if you don't own enough for a minimum unit. It doesn't say it has to be my first unit. If I field a minimum unit of GK TEQ's I still don't have enough to field a minimum unit when I try to field my second.

Basically, nothing in the rule says it's measured on an army wide basis and not a per unit basis.

It says you can take one unit of that type, your minimum sized unit would have already fulfiled the one unit you were allowed to take. "...you may still include one unit..." The you can take one unit must be measured army wide, otherwise it does not function at all. The rule doesn't say you can include one under strength unit of that type in your army, it says you can include one unit of that type. So if you have an under strength unit of say Gk TEQ in your army you are disallowed from fielding any other GK TEQ squads by the understand th rule. Otherwise you would have 2 units of the GK TEQ type in your army. There are very few units where you could not just add the extra models to your minimum squad is o form a larger squad, and nothing in the game would force you to need a second unit in order to play.

Essentially when using the under strength rule you always must answer the following as true.

This under strength unit is the only one of its type in my army.

Otherwise I you are breaking RAW

No, you're selectively editing the rule. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

It's saying you can take one under-strength unit of that type, not one unit of that type full stop. There's no prohibition on having full strength units of that type alongside it. You're reading that in. It's not saying "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field your first minimum-sized unit" it's just 'a' minimum-sized unit. That could be any unit of that type: the first, second or even third. The reason it says "one unit" is so you don't take your 2 Flash Gitz and make 2 units of 1 Flash Gits. It's saying you have to make 1 unit of 2 Flash Gitz.

There's literally no prohibition on say, having 6 Space Marines and doing 1 squad of 5 and 1 squad of 1.

It cannot work that way because if you have fielded a minimum size squad you have enough models to
Field that squad. Further you are adding language to the rule stating that it means "one under strength unit of that type." It says you may include one unit of that type in your army. If you already have a unit of that type you would now have 2 units of that type. There is no selective reading. You are adding a second unit of that type.

Nonsense. I only have 1 unit that is under strength and thus 1 of that type (under strength).

You're also assuming type means datasheet, which there isn't any support for.

I don't care either way but it is unclear as you two have both presented quality cases.

1 max strength + 1 understrength
or
1 understrength

either works for me but they need to clarify that


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are my thoughts.

If I have 10 Howling Banshees and want to take them in a transport with 2 characters and I have the models/points left over to take 2 more Banshees.

You could reason that you could split up the banshees into 2 squads of 6. But then they cant fit into the same transport anymore. So should the rules force you to take 2 normal sized squads and mess up your planed transport

Or should you be permitted to go with the max and 1 undersized unit.

Some on one side argue that the spirit of the rules is you can play with all your models. then you can take a max and understrength unit.

I guess you cant argue it both ways.

If type doesn't mean data sheet what would it mean

Audustum wrote:
No, you're selectively editing the rule. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

It's saying you can take one under-strength unit of that type, not one unit of that type full stop. There's no prohibition on having full strength units of that type alongside it. You're reading that in. It's not saying "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field your first minimum-sized unit" it's just 'a' minimum-sized unit. That could be any unit of that type: the first, second or even third. The reason it says "one unit" is so you don't take your 2 Flash Gitz and make 2 units of 1 Flash Gits. It's saying you have to make 1 unit of 2 Flash Gitz.

There's literally no prohibition on say, having 6 Space Marines and doing 1 squad of 5 and 1 squad of 1.

Actually... you're ignoring the "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit;" If you fielded a minimum-sized unit, that first conditional is false and the rest of the text is irrelevant. It's simple logic. If a rule says If A, then B, and A is not true, then it doesn't really matter what B was.

edit: If anything Imperial armies would have even more trouble abusing this rule. Do you have more than 5 tactical marines? Congrats, no undersized devastators for your either, etc.

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

You're interpreting that rule way too broad. All it says is if you don't own enough for a minimum unit. It doesn't say it has to be my first unit. If I field a minimum unit of GK TEQ's I still don't have enough to field a minimum unit when I try to field my second.

Basically, nothing in the rule says it's measured on an army wide basis and not a per unit basis.

It says you can take one unit of that type, your minimum sized unit would have already fulfiled the one unit you were allowed to take. "...you may still include one unit..." The you can take one unit must be measured army wide, otherwise it does not function at all. The rule doesn't say you can include one under strength unit of that type in your army, it says you can include one unit of that type. So if you have an under strength unit of say Gk TEQ in your army you are disallowed from fielding any other GK TEQ squads by the understand th rule. Otherwise you would have 2 units of the GK TEQ type in your army. There are very few units where you could not just add the extra models to your minimum squad is o form a larger squad, and nothing in the game would force you to need a second unit in order to play.

Essentially when using the under strength rule you always must answer the following as true.

This under strength unit is the only one of its type in my army.

Otherwise I you are breaking RAW

No, you're selectively editing the rule. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

It's saying you can take one under-strength unit of that type, not one unit of that type full stop. There's no prohibition on having full strength units of that type alongside it. You're reading that in. It's not saying "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field your first minimum-sized unit" it's just 'a' minimum-sized unit. That could be any unit of that type: the first, second or even third. The reason it says "one unit" is so you don't take your 2 Flash Gitz and make 2 units of 1 Flash Gits. It's saying you have to make 1 unit of 2 Flash Gitz.

There's literally no prohibition on say, having 6 Space Marines and doing 1 squad of 5 and 1 squad of 1.

It cannot work that way because if you have fielded a minimum size squad you have enough models to
Field that squad. Further you are adding language to the rule stating that it means "one under strength unit of that type." It says you may include one unit of that type in your army. If you already have a unit of that type you would now have 2 units of that type. There is no selective reading. You are adding a second unit of that type.

Nonsense. I only have 1 unit that is under strength and thus 1 of that type (under strength).

You're also assuming type means datasheet, which there isn't any support for.

You are adding under strength as a qualifier to the one unit. That does not exist. If you don't assume that the rule means data sheet it is much more restrictive based on the wording, as if you can field any minimum sized unit of that type, you would be disallowed from fielding under strength units of that type. So if type mean things like infantry, if you have any minimum infantry units you have fielded one minimum infantry unit, and cannot have an under strength infantry unit. If type means battlefield role (which would be super sloppy wording) then if you have one minimum troop squad you cannot field any other minimum troop squads.

So since "type" is not defined I think the best assumption for the rule is that they mean data sheet as it best fits what seems to be the spirit of the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
If you purposely make models unavailable for the purpose of power gaming you are acting contrary to the spirit of the rule. You aren't cheating you are just being a jerk.

wow.

edited to my heated reply for possibly being grouped with unsavory players from someone who doesn't know me...sorry


Automatically Appended Next Post:

. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

Where does leaving at home half of my unit is cheating or powergaming?

Further you are adding language to the rule stating that it means

Where does it define spirit of the rule that equates to cheating in this section?

There is no selective reading.

If I leave most of my 5 army collection at home and half of my minimum squad. Those models are not available to me at the place of gaming. That is as written. m I required to bring in all 400+ models plus 20+ tanks and 5+ titans to make you happy? will you need to go thru my stuff? Will I have to take off my shoes for this invasive search?

Using your own words I see where you are doing the EXACT same thing that you accuse the other poster of.

And it is only your assumption that someone is power gaming if they build a list one way. Do you find many powergamers at tournaments to FLGS? Do they all play legal lists? What is your criteria that everyone else needs to jump thru to make you happy>?

Let people have their views, Let people powergame or not, Let people make their lists, but if we are playing games and follow the legal rules of the games...it seems rude and presumptious to tell others they cant play legal lists.

just my opinion in general.

We just happen to disagree. I think it is blatantly obvious that the rule is intended for newer players to be able to throw something down on the table. I think that if you show a 2k list that is min maxed and includes several (maybe even one if you are at maxed points) under strength squads, then you have done so for the sole reason to get an advantage, the definition of power gaming. If you are not power gaming and happened to forget part of your squad, I have no issue. Likely I would even still play the power gamer and may even have an enjoyable match, but I'd still likely have the feeling that they know that is not the intent of the rule No I'm not going to strip search people, but if someone is continuously doing this and the games are not enjoyable I'll decline to play them in the future if they insist on brining under strength squads. I'm hoping events ban the practice.

Do I know if you have the models available to make a full strength squad? No
Is it cheating to leave them unavailable if you do own them? No
Is it something I would consider poor sportsmanship in list creation? Yes, just my opinion.

Mavnas wrote:

Audustum wrote:
No, you're selectively editing the rule. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

It's saying you can take one under-strength unit of that type, not one unit of that type full stop. There's no prohibition on having full strength units of that type alongside it. You're reading that in. It's not saying "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field your first minimum-sized unit" it's just 'a' minimum-sized unit. That could be any unit of that type: the first, second or even third. The reason it says "one unit" is so you don't take your 2 Flash Gitz and make 2 units of 1 Flash Gits. It's saying you have to make 1 unit of 2 Flash Gitz.

There's literally no prohibition on say, having 6 Space Marines and doing 1 squad of 5 and 1 squad of 1.

Actually... you're ignoring the "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit;" If you fielded a minimum-sized unit, that first conditional is false and the rest of the text is irrelevant. It's simple logic. If a rule says If A, then B, and A is not true, then it doesn't really matter what B was.

edit: If anything Imperial armies would have even more trouble abusing this rule. Do you have more than 5 tactical marines? Congrats, no undersized devastators for your either, etc.

No I'm not. My second unit meets that criteria: I don't have enough models to fieldd that second unit. You have to add to the rule to make it apply only to the first unit. I addressed this in a previous post.

"Actually... you're ignoring the "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit;" If you fielded a minimum-sized unit, that first conditional is false and the rest of the text is irrelevant. It's simple logic. If a rule says If A, then B, and A is not true, then it doesn't really matter what B was"

I'm not quoting that full page but
The above statement is wrong I had enough models to field unit A no need to apply undersized unit rule. I go to field unit B I do not have enough models left to field a minimum sized unit so condition for undersized unit rule is true so I may include one unit of that type. I cannot Now take unit C of that type as I would need to fill unit B up to minimum strength before I could take another unit of that type

We just happen to disagree. I think it is blatantly obvious that the rule is intended for newer players to be able to throw something down on the table. I think that if you show a 2k list that is min maxed and includes several (maybe even one if you are at maxed points) under strength squads, then you have done so for the sole reason to get an advantage, the definition of power gaming. If you are not power gaming and happened to forget part of your squad, I have no issue. Likely I would even still play the power gamer and may even have an enjoyable match, but I'd still likely have the feeling that they know that is not the intent of the rule No I'm not going to strip search people, but if someone is continuously doing this and the games are not enjoyable I'll decline to play them in the future if they insist on brining under strength squads. I'm hoping events ban the practice.

Do I know if you have the models available to make a full strength squad? No
Is it cheating to leave them unavailable if you do own them? No
Is it something I would consider poor sportsmanship in list creation? Yes, just my opinion

I see it all from your vantage point. And we disagree on many of them.

I think it is a minor rule that has minor consequences and perhaps huge potential in the future for list building efficiency.
I have literally spent many hours on some lists to get the right mix at and near point limit.

I think If you played vs me and I had what you would call a power gamer list....I am confident that you would score me at least a 4 if not 5 on tournament sportsmanship


ON the other hand my problem is with Ynnari strength from death. NOW THIS CAN BE A POTENTAL huge area where understrength units can be a game breaker.

I am willing to embrace this rule and see how it plays out. But if the Ynnari are getting too much advantage or even the imperium (for easy detachment bonuses) then I would like a ban.
However I really enjoy seeing an imperium list with Preachers, Assassins, Guard, a unit of Marines/sisters of battle, the inquisition ALL in the same list. It just seems extra fluffy for me. All the forces of the Imperium in a desperate battle.

My pal who started to play 2nd edition this winter said to me:
"You don't care if you win or lose do you, you just like to play for the visual narrative" This was his conclusion after about a dozen games and how I set up my terrain board (it is a full on Diorama...HO train set with toy soldiers and explosions)

have a safe holiday if you celebrate it

Audustum wrote:

Mavnas wrote:

Audustum wrote:
No, you're selectively editing the rule. The rule says "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; 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".

It's saying you can take one under-strength unit of that type, not one unit of that type full stop. There's no prohibition on having full strength units of that type alongside it. You're reading that in. It's not saying "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field your first minimum-sized unit" it's just 'a' minimum-sized unit. That could be any unit of that type: the first, second or even third. The reason it says "one unit" is so you don't take your 2 Flash Gitz and make 2 units of 1 Flash Gits. It's saying you have to make 1 unit of 2 Flash Gitz.

There's literally no prohibition on say, having 6 Space Marines and doing 1 squad of 5 and 1 squad of 1.

Actually... you're ignoring the "Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit;" If you fielded a minimum-sized unit, that first conditional is false and the rest of the text is irrelevant. It's simple logic. If a rule says If A, then B, and A is not true, then it doesn't really matter what B was.

edit: If anything Imperial armies would have even more trouble abusing this rule. Do you have more than 5 tactical marines? Congrats, no undersized devastators for your either, etc.

No I'm not. My second unit meets that criteria: I don't have enough models to fieldd that second unit. You have to add to the rule to make it apply only to the first unit. I addressed this in a previous post.

You seem to be claiming there's a "After you've already fielded some units" clause that applies here. You can't intentionally set aside some models, call them the first unit then claim you don't have enough for a min strength unit. The rule is clearly meant for super casual games among friends who may have some random models that will never see the light of day otherwise.

Mavnas wrote:


edit: If anything Imperial armies would have even more trouble abusing this rule. Do you have more than 5 tactical marines? Congrats, no undersized devastators for your either, etc.

But my devastators have different colored helmets!

If you have 20 spare points and just want to field a single eldar ranger to squat an objective i think that's fine, no one is going to search your bag or car or house to make sure you only own the 1 ranger. If you want to field 4 venomthropes and plop them down as a unit of 3 and an understrength unit of 1, that's not how the rule works. You can't claim models aren't available when they are right there on the board next to each other. Remember this rule is under the battle forged army section, it's a list building rule, not a rule about set up. The only models you can prove are unavailable to you are the ones we can't see.

There is an easy solution. Always bring a handful of skeleton models and allow your opponent to use them as counts-as to buff up his unit size.

You think GW wanted 'who can design the best understrength unit' to be part of list building as a new and competitive facet to the game?

You can't be serious..

 Rismonite wrote:
You think GW wanted 'who can design the best understrength unit' to be part of list building as a new and competitive facet to the game?

You can't be serious..

That sums it up for me.
That and ..."If that's what you have to do to win." No thank you.

Mavnas wrote:
. The rule is clearly meant for super casual games among friends who may have some random models that will never see the light of day otherwise.

and yet Battle forged is for Matched games. And tournaments are goint to use Power Levels or points for their matched games so there is crossover.

"Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit"[

There is the word sometimes as the prefix for the entire rule. Sometimes does NOT mean all the time or last week or next week. It can. But today I only have 3 Dire Avengers with me. So today I have 3 DA available. And today I will field an USU and pay the actual costs.

There is no hiding, sneaking, new player, ownership, or many other misunderstood interpretations applied to this rule and clearly in no way says it is for super casual games. ALL of that is a weird overbearing means to manipulate a rule so that it fits some players view of the game. I think that is why we use rules so some bully groups don't shame or intimidate others in a fun gaming environment. I hope that a lot of posters on this site stand back, play it out, set aside preconceived notions, AND then make a judgement call if this rule works or does not for this edition. Too much close mindedness on this topic.

I'd be shocked if TOs allow this rule, so figuring out how to abuse it seems a bit silly, since all you'll be doing is being mean to people in casual games.

 Kingsley wrote:
I'd be shocked if TOs allow this rule, so figuring out how to abuse it seems a bit silly, since all you'll be doing is being mean to people in casual games.

But were not a lot of the playtesters who used these rules TO themselves?

 admironheart wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
I'd be shocked if TOs allow this rule, so figuring out how to abuse it seems a bit silly, since all you'll be doing is being mean to people in casual games.

But were not a lot of the playtesters who used these rules TO themselves?

Yes and the ITC guys already said it was not intended for competitive play with people
Min maxing, and they recommend TOS not allow it, or at most allow a single
USU.

I find the single USU or some such thing to be fine. Perhaps more mission based.

I have played a game where you h ad to take out some of your models (d6) from every unit to show it had been worn down. Those type of games can be fun

 admironheart wrote:
I find the single USU or some such thing to be fine. Perhaps more mission based.

I have played a game where you h ad to take out some of your models (d6) from every unit to show it had been worn down. Those type of games can be fun

Sure for fun casual games I have no issue with the rule. I just think it is bad for a competitive game. I would have no problem with someone at a shop saying, he I forgot 2 guys do you mind if I run this unit understrength. I take issue when people are building lists for a competitive game with abusing this mechanic in mind.

Well competitive players will min max it's part of playing competatively just like complaining about the intention of the rules and moaning at other players for playing by the raw is the realm of the fluff bunnies (which must be a miserable place cos there always so unhappy with everyone else as this thread shows)

The ITC draft 8th FAQ currently endorses GW FAQ''s and makes no mention of the undersized unit rule.

As a TO I started this thread because I wanted to know if there was anything like Ynnari that I had not considered as my instinct is to approve all rules for use in the tournaments I run until demonstrably broken or prohibited by ETC. As with so little practical data it's difficult to even accurately define the meta yet alone what is genuinely tournament breaking as that is often meta dependent.

By and large only 1 person actually answered my question with a supplement to the original ways id thought of to use the rule so thanks to the person who commented on ynnari the rest has been quite unhelpfull. The lack of defined ways to power game the rule suggest's it isn't as bad as most fluff bunies would complain.

As a result of this thread at my tournaments the models that are available to you will be defined as those written on your list as they are the only models available for use in a tournament regardless of those in your possession elsewhere.

(I am certain that available does not constitute owned under the raw and could not care less what the intention was there is no way to varify the availability of models even if I know John Smith has 50 more guardsman he could have lent them to his mate bob so john could reasonably argue they wouldn't be availiable and even if they were available to him it would be unfair to hold him to account when I have no idea what's in the collection of another player who has travelled from miles away also I ordered two grey knight models individually off eBay this week (for conversion purposes) so it is perfectly possible to only own one model of a unit)

It also clear that unit in the context of the rule means datasheet and means you can use one understrength unit of each datasheet irrespective of the number of full strength units of that type so that is how it will be applied.

I know the next TO on from me is not allowing it in his next event and I think there is still some diversity of opinion on the issue from TO's.

Personally I hope the ITC don't ban it for a few events so it can properly tested

U02dah4 wrote:


The ITC draft 8th FAQ currently endorses GW FAQ''s and makes no mention of the undersized unit rule.

On their podcast Reecius advised banning or limiting to a single USU. The draft came out prior to the GW FAQ and thus prior to the change to the USU rule.

It also clear that unit in the context of the rule means datasheet and means you can use one understrength unit of each datasheet irrespective of the number of full strength units of that type so that is how it will be applied.

This is not clear in any way whatsoever, as evidenced by people disputing various parts of what you said.

Tournaments are free to do whatever they wish, but I think that abuse of the USU rule if allowed will be a bigger thing that you are considering, and you have been given examples of gaming it for CP, you could also abuse it to get more dedicated transports, allowing for even more Razorback spam if desired. Now we don't know how powerful these things will be.

I'm sorry if you read the draft at the bottom it lists all the faq documents so has been updated since their release

U02dah4 wrote:
I'm sorry if you read the draft at the bottom it lists all the faq documents so has been updated since their release

Adding an FAQ link does not mean the ITC went through and edited the rest of their document based on those FAQ. All I'm saying is that the guy who runs the ITC said he recommends not allowing USU.

Also seems clear majority view although it has been a small sample

U02dah4
Audustron
Admironheart
Actinium(after some discussion)
All share approximately 1 view

While
Breng77
Plasmatron
Share a different view but while your view was stated many times it makes it no more correct at least in my eyes. Also even if your arguments were correct I could not validate who legitimately could use the rule and who could not which is not practical when running an event.

Meanwhile the odd fluff bunny chimes in to say that it should be only for casual and your bad people for considering it. (Paraphraseing) I shall ignore them because RAI is unimportant.

As a TO I have the privaledge of writing the tournament pack for my tournament and my interpretation will be clearly stated to prevent misunderstanding unless GW clarify between now and 7 days before the event (Cut off for list submission)

yeah It is not clear either way and a TO can use, not use, or interpret it however they choose.

I never changed my stance on the rule? I still very specifically think you can not take a full strength unit and then an understrength unit of that same thing, because you clearly have the available models in that case to make multiple legal strength units.
You even say you agree the models in a list are those that must be considered available to you but then say you can take a single understrength unit in addition to as many full strength units of the same type that you want which is patently not my view (even after some discussion).

Then I apologise I have clearly misinterpreted your later responces

Well, isn't this a mess that GW have created?

Their intention is clear. This is for people who cannot field full units.

Multiple ways of cheesing this rule clearly exist. They are, but are not limited to:
- spamming CPS
- spamming dedicated transports like razorbacks (which you can already do with 1-man acolyte squads, but meh).
- Strength from death
- Getting loads of "free" upgrade sergeants/nobz/whatever, equipping them with cool gear, sticking them in one transport.

GW shouldn't be allowing this in matched play. Or if they do, they should follow the approach used in the power level system - so you can have the USU but you have to pay for the minimum-sized unit and their gear.

As a TO you can do what you want, but take my advice as a dead-eyed tournament junkie and don't allow USU. It's a rule that exists to be abused and nothing else. Don't ruin your event before it's started.

If you want a RAW justification, ask that players prove that they are abiding by the USU rule by demonstrating that the models from their unit are unavailable. It will be impossible for them to prove that they aren't cheating and not fielding models that are in fact available to them.

Raw what proof would you accept in 99%of cases it's unvarifiable and in the other it's 1 model deliberately purchased from eBay.

Other than strength from death
I'm not sure the others are good I mean sure drop 10 Sgt instead of one vanguard unit and watch your opponent net 10 kill points and thank you for handing them the win
Spamming transports as noted you can do already
Spamming command points you can do for the same reason if that's your aim (although I set detachment limits