High potential understrengths?

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 826

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#37 » Jul 15 2017 01:35

Gragagrogog wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:It should not be considered for serious competitive play.


I don't see why not. Unless we start seeing tournament organisers ban it, it's a valid option.


ITC formats will likely ban its use. RAW, you are allowed to have one under-strength unit for each slot type (Troops, Fast Attack, etc). IIRC it is mainly for unmatched play just to get your models on the board.

The reason why ITC will likely ban it is because you can use it to make some cheeky lists or get around some restrictions. Especially since kill points missions will be based off of power level rather than unit destroyed.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
boomwolf
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 1754

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#38 » Jul 15 2017 05:23

Xanrag wrote:
Atzilla wrote:Bring Crisis Teams with Gun Drones but without Crisis.
Now Manta deploy gun drones.
Profit.

Seriously, don't use the understrength rule...


You can only take two gun drones per XV8 suit model though. If you don't have any XV8 suit models then can you really take any gun drones?

boomwolf wrote:A sunshark can drop the interceptor drones, though they look ok to me.


More interesting would be to take the intereceptor drones without the plane. Let's see, that should end up at 30 points for a unit of two 20" move drones with Ion Rifles.. perfect for accompanying say a Coldstar Commander?



Dear god, haven't even thought on that XD


In any case, Ralai's drones got massivly improved in the FAQ, so understrengthing him is now a poor idea. (they cost less than regular markers, a tiny bit better, and ralai has a controller now to boot.)

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1946

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#39 » Jul 15 2017 06:43

boomwolf wrote:In any case, Ralai's drones got massivly improved in the FAQ, so understrengthing him is now a poor idea. (they cost less than regular markers, a tiny bit better, and ralai has a controller now to boot.)


I think they still cost the same (7+3 vs 10) but still, they have that little edge in melee!

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 826

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#40 » Jul 16 2017 02:23

boomwolf wrote:
Xanrag wrote:
Atzilla wrote:Bring Crisis Teams with Gun Drones but without Crisis.
Now Manta deploy gun drones.
Profit.

Seriously, don't use the understrength rule...


You can only take two gun drones per XV8 suit model though. If you don't have any XV8 suit models then can you really take any gun drones?

boomwolf wrote:A sunshark can drop the interceptor drones, though they look ok to me.


More interesting would be to take the intereceptor drones without the plane. Let's see, that should end up at 30 points for a unit of two 20" move drones with Ion Rifles.. perfect for accompanying say a Coldstar Commander?



Dear god, haven't even thought on that XD


In any case, Ralai's drones got massivly improved in the FAQ, so understrengthing him is now a poor idea. (they cost less than regular markers, a tiny bit better, and ralai has a controller now to boot.)


Nothing in the rules, even with under-strength units, allow for this to happen. The Bomber and the Crisis Suits are the prerequisite to taking the drones. Not the other way around.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 147
Contact:

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#41 » Jul 17 2017 06:41

I'm seriously disgusted (appalled? spelling?) that there is even a thread about how to use this rule to have a tactical advantage in the game. First rule of this game should be fun for you and your opponent. This WAAC attitude does nothing towards that, actually the opposite.

(sorry just had to get this of my chest - carry on)

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#42 » Jul 17 2017 06:47

StealthKnightSteg wrote:I'm seriously disgusted (appalled? spelling?) that there is even a thread about how to use this rule to have a tactical advantage in the game. First rule of this game should be fun for you and your opponent. This WAAC attitude does nothing towards that, actually the opposite.

(sorry just had to get this of my chest - carry on)


Honestly there is no reason to be disgusted by the existed of such a thread alone. It's perfectly viable to use any rule advantage in existance in serious tournaments. It's a different world than casual games in your local store.
However how some people defend such a rules exploit is a whole different matter. :roll:

User avatar
deathboon
Shas'Saal
Posts: 208

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#43 » Jul 17 2017 09:02

Dark Hope wrote:I hate the power rating system so much. Had a new player come to my local GW store and wanted a quick game. We decided to use power points to hasten the list building process. I absolutely wrecked him into oblivion. The entire game I was like are you sure that's 60 power points? We counted it several times to make sure. I felt crazy bad for destroying a new player so I decided to count out the actual point value of both armies. His was about 1000 points, mine was about 1600. The thing you gotta realize is that the power ratings don't take into account equipment whatsoever, so when you load up crisis suits with fusion guns and missile pods and your opponent takes mostly bolt guns, it quickly becomes unbalanced.


I honestly think Tournaments should only ever use power level and not use points at all. The reason for this is that in a highly competitive setting it should simply be assumed that players are bringing the MOST POWERFUL and/or MOST COMPETITIVE version of every unit they bring, and if they choose not to do so they're voluntarily handicapping themselves.

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 272

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#44 » Jul 17 2017 09:28

deathboon wrote:
Dark Hope wrote:I hate the power rating system so much. Had a new player come to my local GW store and wanted a quick game. We decided to use power points to hasten the list building process. I absolutely wrecked him into oblivion. The entire game I was like are you sure that's 60 power points? We counted it several times to make sure. I felt crazy bad for destroying a new player so I decided to count out the actual point value of both armies. His was about 1000 points, mine was about 1600. The thing you gotta realize is that the power ratings don't take into account equipment whatsoever, so when you load up crisis suits with fusion guns and missile pods and your opponent takes mostly bolt guns, it quickly becomes unbalanced.


I honestly think Tournaments should only ever use power level and not use points at all. The reason for this is that in a highly competitive setting it should simply be assumed that players are bringing the MOST POWERFUL and/or MOST COMPETITIVE version of every unit they bring, and if they choose not to do so they're voluntarily handicapping themselves.


Power is easier to just set up and play so its great for pickup games and campaigns. Using the Narrative missions they tend to play pretty well in my experience. I am looking forward to using the Open War cards especially since two of the decks involve balancing disparities between Power Levels.

For tournaments however, where balance matters way more, I think Points is still the way to go. I say that even though I hate the point system and plan to never use it if possible.

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 385

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#45 » Jul 17 2017 09:46

I wouldn't mind having the power levels as the only measure, but the game is simply not built arround them. If what they did was first look at the power level, then build every characteristic to match that level, it would work. What they proabably did was just make a unit, then put some points cost on them, then derive power levels from that.

I also don't rly see the point of introducing such simplified point system today, when every1 has access to android/ios phone, you can build some neat apps if you invest some money/effort into it.

Same thing with getting killpoints per unit. In 4th edition you just counted the points for killing whole units and half of points if you've killed half or more models in that unit, it took like 2 minutes after the game...

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#46 » Jul 17 2017 10:09

deathboon wrote:
Dark Hope wrote:I hate the power rating system so much. Had a new player come to my local GW store and wanted a quick game. We decided to use power points to hasten the list building process. I absolutely wrecked him into oblivion. The entire game I was like are you sure that's 60 power points? We counted it several times to make sure. I felt crazy bad for destroying a new player so I decided to count out the actual point value of both armies. His was about 1000 points, mine was about 1600. The thing you gotta realize is that the power ratings don't take into account equipment whatsoever, so when you load up crisis suits with fusion guns and missile pods and your opponent takes mostly bolt guns, it quickly becomes unbalanced.


I honestly think Tournaments should only ever use power level and not use points at all. The reason for this is that in a highly competitive setting it should simply be assumed that players are bringing the MOST POWERFUL and/or MOST COMPETITIVE version of every unit they bring, and if they choose not to do so they're voluntarily handicapping themselves.

I disagree. You can ASSUME that every player takes the most powerful units possible, however the first thing a tournament should be is BALANCED and that is simply not given with power level and only points go into that direction.

Anyway, this is not the right thread to discuss Power level vs Points on tournaments. If you want to discuss about that, please open a new topic.

User avatar
boomwolf
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 1754

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#47 » Jul 17 2017 11:38

Panzer wrote:
StealthKnightSteg wrote:I'm seriously disgusted (appalled? spelling?) that there is even a thread about how to use this rule to have a tactical advantage in the game. First rule of this game should be fun for you and your opponent. This WAAC attitude does nothing towards that, actually the opposite.

(sorry just had to get this of my chest - carry on)


Honestly there is no reason to be disgusted by the existed of such a thread alone. It's perfectly viable to use any rule advantage in existance in serious tournaments. It's a different world than casual games in your local store.
However how some people defend such a rules exploit is a whole different matter. :roll:



Excuse me?

What's wrong with powergaming? we've been at it for years.

Heck, the main purpose of most of this forum IS powergaming, how to get the most power we can within the rules. especially in the dark days of 5th when we were borderline unplayable, but even during the good days, we strives for even more bang for our buck.

Its what we do, we optimize, we perfect the designs, we make the most with the least, and the greatest with the best-we bring froth the number crunching efficiency, the tabletop movement mastery, the objective strategy and the knowledge of how to do the absolute best that tau can do in each given scenario.

As long as understrength IS a rule, not taking it into consideration while listbuilding is being smug and putting limitations on yourself, because a clever opponent WILL be taking it into consideration himself.


In any case, this thread has mostly run its course I see. as few people actually think of any other potential uses for this mechanic, and the sunshark path may or may not even be RAW legal.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#48 » Jul 17 2017 11:40

boomwolf wrote:
Panzer wrote:
StealthKnightSteg wrote:I'm seriously disgusted (appalled? spelling?) that there is even a thread about how to use this rule to have a tactical advantage in the game. First rule of this game should be fun for you and your opponent. This WAAC attitude does nothing towards that, actually the opposite.

(sorry just had to get this of my chest - carry on)


Honestly there is no reason to be disgusted by the existed of such a thread alone. It's perfectly viable to use any rule advantage in existance in serious tournaments. It's a different world than casual games in your local store.
However how some people defend such a rules exploit is a whole different matter. :roll:



Excuse me?

What's wrong with powergaming? we've been at it for years.

Heck, the main purpose of most of this forum IS powergaming, how to get the most power we can within the rules. especially in the dark days of 5th when we were borderline unplayable, but even during the good days, we strives for even more bang for our buck.

Its what we do, we optimize, we perfect the designs, we make the most with the least, and the greatest with the best-we bring froth the number crunching efficiency, the tabletop movement mastery, the objective strategy and the knowledge of how to do the absolute best that tau can do in each given scenario.

As long as understrength IS a rule, not taking it into consideration while listbuilding is being smug and putting limitations on yourself, because a clever opponent WILL be taking it into consideration himself.


In any case, this thread has mostly run its course I see. as few people actually think of any other potential uses for this mechanic, and the sunshark path may or may not even be RAW legal.

Please speak for yourself lol

User avatar
QimRas
Shas'Saal
Posts: 272

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#49 » Jul 17 2017 12:05

Panzer wrote:Please speak for yourself lol


Concur. I personally make list and weapon choices based on the models I have and what I think looks cool or fun to play over what the point efficiency is.

Edit: Rephrased

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 385

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#50 » Jul 17 2017 12:09

I must say this is quite fun to read! :D Players disgusted by other players using(or even debating) the rules of the game, that's not something you see every day! :D

I knew the microaggression/safe space culture has gotten too far, but it's interesting to see which areas can it affect :D

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 826

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#51 » Jul 17 2017 07:25

StealthKnightSteg wrote:I'm seriously disgusted (appalled? spelling?) that there is even a thread about how to use this rule to have a tactical advantage in the game. First rule of this game should be fun for you and your opponent. This WAAC attitude does nothing towards that, actually the opposite.

(sorry just had to get this of my chest - carry on)


It is OK to try to find advantages when building a list or playing a game. That's just how everything works. Most games, like computer games, have codes and barriers that prevent players from doing certain things. When players get around certain "restrictions" and do something unexpected, we call that "clever use of game mechanics". Those are either fixed or allowed to stay depending on how much it "breaks" the game.

Games like 40K do not have a program to guide you per se. You could, knowingly or unknowingly "break" the rules. The problem comes when a player comes across a conflict and immediately assumes it should go in their favor without considering intent or game impact. That's when you run into a problem that you describe.

So for example, the suggestion that you could take an Interceptor Drone and not the Sunshark Bomber with the "Under-Strength" rule is stretching it. It ignores intent and game impact.

As with most forums for any game out there, game impact and intent is often tossed out the window in favor of power gaming. In 7th edition, Coordinated Firepower was power gamed hard and I think I was one of the few people on here that suggested it did not work the way everyone was claiming it to work. I cited game impact as well as intent as my argument and I was often attacked for it. Hounded in one case. So it was awesome when it turned out my argument was correct when it was FAQ'd.

Ultimately, power gamers gonna power game. Luckily for everyone, GW seems to be intent on updating rules and offering clarifications. If a player does something that makes them That Guy, just don't play against them. Rules will be clarified sooner rather than later with 8th.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 147
Contact:

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#52 » Jul 18 2017 04:39

Let me be clear, I don't mind power gaming I try to push certain lists also to the limit to see if I can put down a powerfull list. But I do it within reason of game intend and not by trying to find loopholes that shouldn't be used to that extent. The underpowered rule is intended for new players that are missing some models due to starterset amount of models or misplaced / lost models over time by "older" players.

Lying about models lost over time to gain a benefit is just pathetic in my opinion and is below my moral standards.

Xanrag
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 62

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#53 » Jul 18 2017 06:04

If nobody powergamed then we would probably not get clarifications to the wonky rules or it would take much longer, so they do fill their niche.

I don't quite agree that people always interpret rules to their own advantage though if the wording is so muddled that it can be interpreted in multiple ways then I'm not surprised if people interpret it the way that most benefits them.

And yes it is hard to write rules that are not ambigious, but it's not like this is a small mom and pop company that can't afford to playtest or even have an editor read through their rules.

The basic game itself is so wonky written that if you don't read all the margins and really squeeze out everything you can from the "fast rolling" segment the game just doesn't work, in my opinion they shouldn't have been so scared of adding a few more pages to the basic rules and having stuff in a logical fashion instead of hidden all over the place. (but that is another topic that could be discussed in another thread in case anyone is interested)

User avatar
shasocastris
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 987
Contact:

Re: High potential understrengths?

Post#54 » Jul 18 2017 09:45

This thread is getting ... uncivil. If you all wish to keep discussing the merits of various understrength units, fine. If you want to keep lambasting each other, do it elsewhere.

-shasocastris

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nymphomanius and 2 guests