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.

I don't see why they don't just do what they did with AoS. Allow understrength units but you still pay the points for a min size unit (or multiple of the min size in aos). so sure you could field a single grot as a unit but you're still paying the points for the other 9 or whatever you're not putting on the table.

So, first off, I think the grot oiler requires the Big Mek to be present to be taken. It's phrased differently for both of them than it is for adding additional Seraphim to a Seraphim Squad, or adding a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or WGPL in Terminator Armor to a Wolf Guard Squad. ["It may be accompanied by a Grot Oiler." vs. "It may include a WGPL"]. Baddrukk's version is "This unit is a single model armed with a slugga, choppa, stikkbomms, and Da Rippa. He may be accompanied by up to two Ammo Runts." In addition, if we look at Flash Gitz, its upgrade clause is worded: "This unit contains 4 Flash Gitz and 1 Kaptin. It can include up to 5 additional Flash Gitz. Any Flash Git or Kaptin may be accompanied by an Ammo Runt."

The Flash Gitz one is particularly important, because it implies to be that the Ammo Runts are not added to the squad as an additional member, like the Wolf Guard Pack Leader or extra Flash Gitz are, but is an upgrade taken to each individual Flash Git or Kaptin, and belongs to that Flash Git or Kaptin.

Therefore, I think that the Big Mek and Baddrukk model must exist in the list for a Grot Oiler and Ammo Runt to be taken, since the Grot Oiler and Ammo Runt are upgrade to the bigger model that manifests as a little model tagging along with it, not a upgrade to the bigger model's unit. If the bigger model does not exist to take the little model as an upgrade, it cannot be taken.



This, of course, doesn't stop the unit from being taken completely empty [IE, with 0 models in it for 0 points] or from taking a squad of Conscripts with 1 3-point Conscripts in it, but anyway, I don't think Grot-Oilers-as-HQ's works.



Second, that list doesn't look super great in the first place. I think it'd be better with actual Big Meks than with whatever was bought with the 99 points saved. At least, that's what my friend who plays Orks hypothesizes, though that may be colored by rushing Battlewagons never having quite the effect he desired it to have.

I think the rule is stupid and not going to get used for any reason other than abuse, but I'm not going to turn my brain sideways pretending it says something other than what it says.

I'd never do it myself except explicitly for games where we're bringing the most crazy gak we can. Having that been said, hell yeah I'd play someone fielding undersized units. It's stupid, but really it's not THAT abusive.

Almost never.

Only with a friend who is a rookie to 40k and doesn't have enough miniatures.

Yes, non-competetive, and only if it is not done to excess.

1-3 undersized units seems ok. 1 of each unit in the army; all special/heavy weapons and/or sgts: I think I'm gonna have to pass on that dawg.

I don't know. I'm not a fan of the undersized unit concept. Seems like a cheesy way to get 9 command points in every game.

"Yes, that is an individual 6 conscripts, each is their own unit."
"No, i don't think so."

Almost never. Only if the player is just starting out and has very few models. (I answered other)

Blackie has the right idea. Honestly, there should be very few reasons to field undersized units. Everything you buy from GW already comes with enough to field a minimum-sized unit. I feel like this only applies if you buy used off of ebay or if you accidentally drop some minis in a pool of molten lava.

GW already greatly relaxed their rules on what players are allowed to field. "Use whatever you want! It's all legal. Even forgeworld is legal. And you can mix and match from any faction. All legal."

How long before "Players are now allowed to field unit while it's still in box. We do not want to limit players by forcing them to put together the actual model. The box will suffice."

ThePorcupine wrote:
Almost never. Only if the player is just starting out and has very few models. (I answered other)

Blackie has the right idea. Honestly, there should be very few reasons to field undersized units. Everything you buy from GW already comes with enough to field a minimum-sized unit. I feel like this only applies if you buy used off of ebay or if you accidentally drop some minis in a pool of molten lava.

GW already greatly relaxed their rules on what players are allowed to field. "Use whatever you want! It's all legal. Even forgeworld is legal. And you can mix and match from any faction. All legal."

How long before "Players are now allowed to field unit while it's still in box. We do not want to limit players by forcing them to put together the actual model. The box will suffice."

As long as you buy the models, GW's cool.

Yes, If that player was not building their list in a way to abuse the rules to make it more powerful. There's plenty of people who simply don't have the new unit counts. And there's also plenty of TFGs, too. It's on a person by person basis, and usually a quick look at their list tells me one way or the other.

My standard response to this kind of thing is, "play by the rules, not what you think the rules should be."

The problem to me is less that the rule is bad and easily exploitable*, but that it's unclear on two massively important ways:

1) What is a "type?" Is it that specific datasheet? That force org slot? Some keyword like infantry? "Type" isn't defined in game so we don't know. A lot of people in this thread are using different definitions but talking as if their interpretation is a given.

2) Can you field full-size squads next to the single under strength one? It's clear that you can only field one under-strength... type... and that avoids the most heinous exploits, but even after defining type we don't know whether that under-strength unit can be alongside full strength units.

*The rule IS bad, and easily exploitable, no matter what the answer is to the two questions. It's a stupid rule, but I won't hate the player when it's the game.

I've 2 Tyranid Warriors on the sprue ready to build and paint. The third was parts fodder for a Daemon Prince conversion that's in my lost box of stuff from when I moved. I'd field them as an undersize unit, paying the power or points costs for the whole squad, if only to give them a try with friends.

I'd similarly let a pal play an undersized squad of whatever, if I knew he didn't have the model, or, as has been mentioned above, was using it to fill out points on a list. (that's actually something I hadn't considered and is a really cool option)

But if someone is just blatantly playing the Extra CP game or trying to bulk out a required slot on a detachment with a single model for an undersized unit that's got a minimum of 5 or more, they can get to feth.

I think it should be fairly obvious when someone is being TFG, and when someone is just fielding what they can. Prime example is Obliterators. They now have to be fielded in at least groups of three, and only come in packs of three, whereas before they were individual. It should be fairly obvious when someone is padding out their detachments, and I wouldn't play with those people.

 Tokhuah wrote:
When someone is trying to manipulate the rules to do something not intended outside of the playtest process then I will not play with them.

I am currently in a situation where the group I thought I was playing with has allowed the SM players to convince them that the PR system is the way to go. They have done this to hide expensive upgrades in the simplified PR system. The other night a Wolves vs Ork battle took place with 50 PR but when the lists were held up to actual points the SMs had 1006 points to the Orks 856. Guess who won? I will have nothing to do with those shenanigans either. I may need to find a new playgroup...

Orks have their own opportunities to game the powerrating system. Six kannons for 7 PR is outright trolling. Or what about 15 tankbustas with 6 bomb squigs for 10 PR? You can make a horde army out of tankbustas. The strange thing is that when using powerratings orks become a very, very shooty army.

I said yes but only because I don't get to play often.

Would I play someone taking advantage of a rule loophole to make their army more powerful....Yes

Would I rub it in their face if I stomped them even with their "advantage".......Yes

This pretty much never comes up though even in tournaments where I play. Yes there are some powerful lists but most are still fun to play against. In the end it comes down to player attitude more than anything. If someone has a gamey list but is a cool and fun guy to play fine. If someone has a normal list but is a rectal covering then I will politely pack up my models and play someone else or go home.

No. No one I know would build a list around that.
I certainly wouldn't pay to play a game against something like that. If a person can't field actual squads then maybe they should play with out points.

When GW said only 1 of each type of unit, I read it as Troops, Elites, Fast, Heavy. Not as Boyz, Nobz, Meganobz, etc. Does anyone else read it the same as me or is everyone in the unit and not role when it comes to types?

The same people that tried to name their space marine chapter "tyranids" to break the game are the same people trying to get free CP off of this rule. STOP. You will have more friends.

No. It's one of the stupid problems with 8th, and it should never have been allowed in the first place. You pay the points for the minimum-size unit, period. If you absolutely refuse to put proxies on the table for the models you don't have then you can pay the full points for the unit but consider the missing models to be immediately removed as casualties.

The short answer is: no.

However, that applies solely to "that kind of player". If a friend has four Space Marines painted and wants to run them instead of a five man squad - sure, whatever. But as I age I've started to enjoy playing the games I want with like minded people. So if you're a gamey douche? Piss off. I won't waste your time and you won't waste mine.

I don't play pick-up games or tournaments, so I've no reason to play anyone who's running a netlist, a spam list, a spam netlist, a spamming netlist w/ undersized squad etc. At that point we might as well be playing two different games - so go find your own crowd.

Put me down as another player who wouldn't mind it if there is a good reason for the unit being undersized but wouldn't play someone who is trying to exploit the rule.

I said other because I wouldn't play against someone who was obviously trying to abuse the rule, but if there was a legitimate reason than I would be fine with it.

I don't fully understand why this rule was in the FAQs for point values and not the ambiguous "type" classification. I must have missed this one when reading the FAQs too because I don't even remember it being there.

My interpretation of the original rule was that an undersized unit costed the full price of a regular unit( I liked this) and that you had to consolidate an undersized unit if you had another of the same type in your army. Here type would mean the same unit, because you couldn't consolidate a unit into any other units.

In the case of something like what the OP describes (with the one man grot units to max out on CPs), yeah, no thanks.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about units where the min sized unit changed, and my opponent doesn't have enough of a model to run the unit the way he wants, I am generally cool with that. A good example would be Venomthropes, which used to be sold in 1 man blister packs and could be used as a unit of 1 model. In the new index, it is a 3 man minimum unit. I would have no problem playing against someone who had like 1 understrength venomthrope unit (or tyrant guard, or hive guard, or anything similar).

Sure, why not? For a long time I've brought two lists if I'm playing a GW game at the club. One that's all cheesed out and another that's intentionally toned down and "fluffy"/uses models I wouldn't use normally. I gauge the player and his army and pick which one to use and the attitude. Either way, I'm down and we'll have fun. What's NOT fun is showing up with a fluffy army full of troops and sub par units and playing a game against the latest freakish netlist, and vice versa.

Fun games = people on the same page, whatever that page happens to be. No use turning down games and people when there in reality is a fun game to be had, even if it means challenging yourself to play a little differently than you usually do. Whether than means toning down the "play to win" attitude for a nice casual game or ramping it up for the next guy...

I thought there was something in the book about you only being able to do that if you didn't own the model. If my opponent is fielding multiple units of one model, then they clearly owns more than what's in the under sized unit.

yup.

but if the gaming experience is bad then I wont play them again.

Ive played turtles, guys who drag rounds on to minimize the losses they are about to get on the next turn so that time runs out. Someonne who insists to play a list that is more of an Apocalypse style game and don't really match up. etc.

ton of reasons not to play others besides the gamer funk odor a second time.

2 circumstances, and only if I feel they're not intent on exploiting anything (no one would get a second chance if, for instance, it allows them to do something that wouldn't otherwise be legal, or they're obviously attempting some sort of min-max thing):

1- they honestly don't have the right number in their collection (ex: obliterators used to be smaller units, and I know someone who only has 2)

2- it's a pretty casual game, and they can't quite squeeze everything in their list, and dumping a grunt or two would allow that difference

I want to run three gk termies, one with a hvy flamer cuz he is modeled that way. They are very old models and don't match new kits at all so I would rather not mix them to make a five man unit and want to play them as if these three are all that remain of an old old unit lost in the warp for too long. Why not?

Sounds valid to me. It's not like you'd be building them to game the system.

 jeff white wrote:
I want to run three gk termies, one with a hvy flamer cuz he is modeled that way. They are very old models and don't match new kits at all so I would rather not mix them to make a five man unit and want to play them as if these three are all that remain of an old old unit lost in the warp for too long. Why not?

That was a legit unit back in 3rd too. I'd shake your hand, sir.

Depends on conditions I suppose.
If I was reading their list during a tournament it would still depend on the opposition. If I'm liking the person or just not seeing them as a jerk I'd probably leave it be or offer them the chance to quietly drop their Command Points, if they win anyway power to them - I'm there to play, not to win by cutting throats.

In casual I'd probably just bring it up then play anyway.