FAQs are up!

[Kol Saresk]

@Excessus: I think the minimum is just sticking with tradition. The understrength is just an option that if you've already consolidated your minis into as few squads as possible, and you still have minis left over that do not meet the minimum strength requirement, then you can choose to field the leftovers in an understrength unit so you can have as much of your collection on the field.

 

At least, that's how I'm drawing the interpretation of the rules.

 

Arguably, someone could rightly "ask" that you spread out your minis into as many at least minimum strength as possible. ie, if you have thirty five Tzaangors, someone could ask that you have 20 and 15, whereas the rules are okay with 30 and 5.

 

So, I'm not too sure with the intent, or why they made it easier to do so,

 

As for why it exists, seems like it's for players who have trouble meeting the minimum restrictions of fielding an army, with the requirement that they field as many "actual" units as possible.

 

And honestly, that's where I would hold to it as well because if someone walks up to a table with 65 Tzaangors, you can obviously easily field three actual units, whereas say a new player only has fifteen minis total, and no other Troops, I'd stand by it so he can hit the Unit minimum and still get a game.

[Sception]

I find your interpretation to be extremely dubious.  I really see no ground to stand on in arguing that an army with 35 tzaangors does not have enough tzaangors available to field a minimum unit in order to field any under strength units at all.

[Kol Saresk]

That's why I said if I encountered such a situation, I would be the one to ask them to split it 20 and 15.

 

Whereas if a new player came up and was like "Hey, I only have Ahriman and fifteen Tzaangors, is it okay if I split them ten and five so I have a points legal army?" I'd be like "Yeah, no probs."

 

RAW, a thirty and five would fit into the rules as long as that was all they had. RAI, not in my opinion and obviously not in yours.

 

But the rules are vague on how it all works. They demand that you can't be able to field minimum strength, but they say nothing about the status of the other units.

 

We(and I include myself in this we) are drawing the conclusion that as a result, you should be breaking down your units until you can field a minimum strength unit. But the rules don't say anything about the other units of the same type in your army, only the one unit that you "don't have enough units to field".

 

So I agree with you, it's shaky ground in certain places because you exactly can breakdown one bigger unit to be able to field a minimum unit, but nothing demands it.

 

Personally, I would. It's obvious you would. I imagine tournaments will as well.

 

But at the moment, it's RAI, while RAW is just "you don't have enough". Not "you must be unable to break down your other units past the minimum." Although the next FAQ could/should probably have it in there.

[Sception]

Ahriman plus a single unit of tzaangors is already a legal matched play army, though.

 

RAW, no, you cannot include any under-strength units you do not have enough 'available' (available isn't defined, but if they're in your army there's no way to argue they aren't available) to field a minimum strength unit, and even then the minimum strength unit is the only unit of those models you are allowed.  35 is enough to field a minimum strength unit, so no under strength units at all.  This isn't a RAI argument, it's just what the under-strength unit rules say, as written.

[Kol Saresk]

Nope. Matched play requires the use of detachments and there are no detachments that allow less than one troop.(Page 212)

 

Narrative and open play, yes. But not matched.

 

And again, I agree with your take on the rules, as I've pointed put twice now. However, until we get something that says what we all agree on, nothing says that you have to break down the other units. So, if two people agreed on it before hand, it is allowable within the rules.

 

It would not be allowable in any game I participate in unless it is something like the 15 Tzaangor situation.

Addendum, you were right. Patrol does have a minimum of one Troop slot. Apologies.

[Kol Saresk]

I feel should also include that I was thinking of RAI as Rules as Interpreted, not Rules as Intended.

[Sception]

alright.

 

Although, I will point out that even if patrol did require two troops, ahriman plus one unit of tzaangors could still be a legal battle forged army in the form of a pair of auxiliary support detachments.

Edited July 6, 2017 by malisteen

[DreamIsCollapsing]

@Excessus: I think the minimum is just sticking with tradition. The understrength is just an option that if you've already consolidated your minis into as few squads as possible, and you still have minis left over that do not meet the minimum strength requirement, then you can choose to field the leftovers in an understrength unit so you can have as much of your collection on the field.

 

 

No, you can not. 

 

Rules say : You can form a mini-squad if you don't have enought models for a minimal size squad. 

So if you have already 1 or 2 squads of the same units : 

- Either one of this squad isn't at full force, and you can (and must) add your few models left to one of your squad

- Or all your squad are full, wich mean you can take off some models of your full size squads + your few models lefts to make another reglementary squad. 

[Kol Saresk]

@Mali: Fair enough. Honestly, I don't think there will be too many games with understrength units except in really weird cases because just the players talking ahead of time, they can probably figure out how to avoid the issue entirely.

[Sception]

The main reason for under-strength units is transports whose minimum capacity doesn't carry a minimum unit & character.  Which honestly would be better avoided by increasing the capacity of some transports.  I always felt land raiders should be capacity 12, for instance.

[Raven1]

I think the main reason to it is land raiders as transports but I would want it for multiple 3 man scarab occult terminators with hellfyre and soulreaper cannon or what have.

[sanityimpaired]

Nope. Matched play requires the use of detachments and there are no detachments that allow less than one troop.(Page 212)

Hold on.  Nine of the twelve standard detachments don't have a troop requirement.  Five of them don't have a slot for troops at all.

 

Is there some rule I'm not seeing that an army must include a Patrol, Battalion, or Brigade detachment before it can use any of the others?

 

 

[Kol Saresk]

No, but since the conversation was talking about a hypothetical player with a hypothetical army of only Ahriman and 15 Tzaangors, I thought it would've been clear that we were only talking about the Patrol, Brigade, and Battalion detachments. Simple logical progression I would think since the hypothetical player would be unable to play say, a Vanguard detachment since they would have no Elites.

 

That said, the last sentence of the post is me apologizing to Mali because I had been looking at the Patrol detachment wrong and he was right about Ahriman and 15 Tzaangors being a point legal army via the Patrol detachment.

 

Does that clear things up?

[Marshal Loss]

If GW meets their estimations, we should expect a FW FAQ sometime this weekend. Fingers crossed.

[Plaguecaster]

God I hope so though I just want one sentence in writing and I'll be happy

"all units with Legions keyword may be given any legion keyword INCLUDING DG AND TS"

:D

[DreamIsCollapsing]

They already said that (non officialy tho)

[Plaguecaster]

Yeah I know that but is it so wrong to want that in writing in an offical faq and not using "but they said I can" with an email or FB post so there is absolutely no disagreement on me using them as such Edited July 8, 2017 by Plaguecaster

[DreamIsCollapsing]

Yeah I know that but is it so wrong to want that in writing in an offical faq and not using "but they said I can" with an email or FB post so there is absolutely no disagreement on me using them as such

 

Your wish came true

 

Otherwise, any of the units in this book can be from any Legion.

 

[Brother Aiwass]

Yay https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/40K_8th_ed_Update_Imperial_Armour_Index_Forces_of_Chaos_ver_1.0.pdf

 

So good update, sooo good... Thanks FW dudes and dudettes, now pretty please update the xenos stuff without nerfing the Tantalus! ^_^

[Cryptix]

Slaanesh Dreadnought are back, at least partially. One with 4 Blastmasters could be nasty

[CrimsonReign]

how would it get 4 blastmasters? 

Was under the impression that only the multimelta could be swapped for 2 of them - and the helbrute can only swap its fist for a missile launcher?

[Sception]

Revised FAQs are up.  Some highlights:

 

Cypher can't summon at all

 

Noise marines slain while within 1" of an enemy unit can only use their special ability to shoot that unit with pistols, but if they fall during the fight phase and the enemy unit is imperial then the army special rule applies and they can get extra shorts on 6+ to hit, or 5+ with the banner.  Also, if a bunch die at once, they can all throw grenades (but not at a unit within 1" of them).

 

Warptime can explicitly be used on reinforcements

 

World Eaters and Emperors Children legion keywords cannot be given to units with the wrong marks (everyone knew it was supposed to work this way, but they've erratad the change so that's actually what the rules say now)

 

exalted sorcerers can have force swords

 

death guard can have sorcerers on palaquins

 

And from the core rules FAQ:  under-strength units can only be included as auxilliary detachments, and thus cannot fill force org requirements.  so they eat command points instead of providing them, a good change that kills the most obvious abuses while leaving them around for more reasonable uses, like fitting characters & retinues in transports.