Fielding Units - Minimum Sizes

[Digdug]

Am I able to field a unit below it's MINIMUM size in order to meet the requirement for a battalion ability?  For example, can I field a unit of 9 Chaos Warriors when the minimum unit size is 10?  

I'm looking at the Fatesworn Warband and ways to meet the battle line requirement while also obtaining the benefit of fielding units in multiples of 9.  Being able to field units of 9 Chaos Warriors would be far better and less taxing than trying to do them in blocks of 18.  I understand that by fielding 9 instead of 10 I would still have to pay the 180 point cost.

I have one no answer so far; looking for others to weigh in.  If there is somewhere in the rules, FAQs or General's Handbook where this is explained, would someone be kind enough to point me to where I can find it?

 

[BaldoBeardo]

It states you may take ONE understrength unit.

The battalion doesn't require units to have X models, it says units that have X models in them gain a bonus.

Nothing contradicts itself.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Arkiham]

The rule in the rule section says that the warscrolls provide the rules for using them.

The warscroll for the units state the minimum unit size.

For the unit in question. 10 is the minimum size, as stated in the units warscroll. 

[BaldoBeardo]

The rule you cited specifies ONE.

The warscroll rules aren't superceded. The GHB simply specifies what stuff costs, not what is considered a minimum-sized unit. The example in the GHB even uses a legal unit that is below the minimum purchase multiple for that unit (Retributors).

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Quote

the generals handbook also states the unit sizes with great big words MIN MAX Above every single group of units.

if it says min 10, it means minimum of 10.

And despite the capitalisation, the rule I cited above indicates that these minimums aren't cast iron. Similarly the formation rule itself could be read as impliedly allowing you to run below strength units.

You should really look at the purpose of the rule more. The purpose of the minimum rule is to stop a genuine abuse which would be deploying units of 2 models or 1 model, so that you would get all champions with extra attacks and super weapons or something similar. It's not designed to hard nerf a formation that's been pointed in the very same book. The maximum rule is there to deter Death Stars.

 

[Taketheskull]

Plus the cost of the scroll ?

[BaldoBeardo]

I'd hardly describe sacrifice one tenth of your points to increase survivability by 1/6th as 'shanking'... ?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Taketheskull]

Rules be damned!

Given the reasoning is ultimately fluff driven and has a cost to it (18pts/1model) for the player, as a tourney organiser, I'd use my discretion to allow it.

Outside of a tournament setting, if you objected to you opponent shanking themselves a model, you need to get a life.

[Arkiham]

the rules to unit sizes are on the unit war scrolls. 

the generals handbook also states the unit sizes with great big words MIN MAX Above every single group of units.

if it says min 10, it means minimum of 10.

the reason the book describes the example as pay for 5, can deploy 3 but pay for 5. is as its pay for units in increments of the minimum unit size. 

so, 10 chaos warriors = 180, 20 = 360 30 =540 etc.

but, 11-19 chaos warriors = 360, 21-29 = 540 etc.

it allows you to take under strength units as games workshop doesnt sell units in boxes matching the generals handbook deployment minimums.

chaos warriors come in boxes of 15 for instance.

[BaldoBeardo]

Of course, what would meet all rules is if you had 9 Chaos Warriors with Halberds, 9 chaos warriors with 2HW, 9 Chaos Warriors with GW, etc.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[BaldoBeardo]

The description on taking undersize units is included under the warscroll descriptions in any of the Battletomes/GA books, which is where the fatesworn warband is taken from.

GHB doesn't override the basic rules.

For example, Dryads. They're minimum 5, but GHB has them in blocks of 10. So I have to pay for 10, but can take 5 and it's legal. In the same way that Retributors are costed per 5, but minimum unit size is 3, as per the quoted example.

This is not the case with Chaos Warriors, unless I only have 9. There are other Chaos Mortal units who can be given marks that have starting size of 5, they're just not on foot.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Digdug]

@BaldoBeardo Where does it say that I may take ONE under-strength unit?  I'm looking at the quote on under-strength units on page 107 of the General's Handbook that deals specifically with pitched battles and the book states: "For example, if you decided to field a unit of 3 Liberators, rather than a full-strength unit with 5 models, the unit would still cost 100 points."

I'm not seeing where it states that only one unit can be under-strength as you keep mentioning.

However, having a hard time with negating your arguments on minimum unit sizes.  I do think @Nico has a point regarding unit sizes.  Why put it in the game if minimum unit sizes weren't flexible?  Would make it tough to meet other Mark of "X" warbands from the Everchosen lists.

[BaldoBeardo]

..and again, OP wanted the rules viewpoint. The rules are the rules. If you want to mess with them, that's part and parcel of what AoS is aiming for. I'm just pointing out that RAW, it's not possible with Chaos Warriors.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Page 130 of the Sylvaneth book (sure it mentions this elsewhere) indicates you can field under strength units (admittedly when you don't have enough models), but this weakens the minimums as absolute rules.

I'd also argue that there's implied permission in the formations themselves to field an under strength unit.

 

[BaldoBeardo]

The rules state you deploy units.

Units are defined as one or more models.

The warscrolls state the minimum size. For example in this case (chaos warriors) a unit is "10 or more models".

"If the model is fielded as part of a unit, then the description will say how many models the unit should have (if you don’t have enough models to field a unit, you can still field one unit with as many models as you have available)."

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Where in the 4 pages of rules does it expressly insist you deploy all the models? Are you seriously suggesting that they issued 4 formations That are all illegal in the rules?

[BaldoBeardo]

It's nothing to do with tournament thinking. As I said, prior to the GHB this was not a 'legal' approach, simply paying points for an illegal force doesn't make it legal.

That's the rules position. His opponent's may vary, and that's all that matters.

I'd allow it myself.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Nico]

It's clearly intended that you can use these formations (why else would they be pointed) so don't be obstructive for no reason - it doesn't say you have to deploy every model. You certainly have to pay for all 10 - no discount.

[anti]

That doesn't override the requirements of what constitutes a unit of a specific type.

The OP was after the rules position.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I would still call it fair. You pay the full point cost for the unit and that should be all that matters. But it would be a bad trade as you start the game with a unit already lacking models.

But I can see the point you're making, and in a full tilt tournament game I would never expect this issue to arise as a full strength unit would be better in any and all regards.

[BaldoBeardo]

That doesn't override the requirements of what constitutes a unit of a specific type.

The OP was after the rules position.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[anti]

I would argue for the permission to field multiple under-strength units (for full cost). The example text from Generals Handbook (p 107) says you "decide".

If my opponent want to field several such units, of the same type, I would have no problem with it. You simply pay additional point to be able to field fewer models. A bad trade, but why not?

[BaldoBeardo]

No. Read the whole thing. That's not permission to field *multiple* understrength units.It even uses the same "not enough models" preamble as the undersized unit rule from warscroll descriptions.

What you pay points for is immaterial, GHB doesn't override existing rules. Or to put it another way - multiple units of 9 wasn't legal before the GHB. Simply paying over the odds doesn't make it legal post-GHB.

You still have to form units, and those are defined elsewhere. GHB just says how you pay for them.

But again, that's if you want to follow the rules.

If you don't, as long as your opponent's okay with it, it doesn't matter.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[rokapoke]

If you want to follow the rules? Here's the relevant rule, verbatim, from the General's Handbook page 107:

Quote

UNDER-STRENGTH UNITS

Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a unit at full strength; if this is the case, you must still pay the full cost of the unit.

For example, if you decided to field a unit of 3 Liberators, rather than a full-strength unit with 5 models, the unit would still cost 100 points.

So yes, you could create 9-man units instead of 10-man units. If that gets you some benefit from your warscroll battalion, then you've essentially paid a small tax for it (since you're paying 180/9 models instead of 180/10 models).

[BaldoBeardo]

Minimum unit sizes are set on warscrolls or in the points values for matched play.

The warscroll rules state that if you do not have enough models for a minimum sized unit you can field ONE unit that's below the minimum (any book that has a description of the components of a warscroll has this).

Other than this, a warscroll battalion normally says "X units of Y", and the warscroll for the unit says "a unit of X has Y or more models".

Paying points is immaterial.

So it's a no if you want to follow the rules.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk