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.