Imperial Guard Infantry Squads also fall into this natively. They can swap two models per ten for a single Heavy Weapon Team model. Meaning they can be "full strength" at 18-19 models.
@@ColonelHoganStalag13 not necessarily. With a command squad attached they still reach the 25 wounds threshold, wich I belueve was chosen for Guard specificaly.
@@solowingpixy8190 You are allowed to bring any amount up to the amount you paid for. So you can take 19, 18, technically even 1 if you wanted to. You could bring 10 units of 19 boyz and they could kill 190 Orks and not get a single VP from it.
I'm a fan of the loophole as a counter-play. Personally, if it was updated, I would just move the requirement down to 18 wounds of models. At that point you are taking a 15% penalty to the unit to counter that secondary- which is a fair dilemma to the pilot of the list when making unit strength.
That's one thing I don't like about 10e, the cheese people use to win. I play blood angels, and the most cheese I use in my games comes down to using terrain to my advantage. That's it, zero cheese.
Love that people say taking 19 model of very killable models is an issue but GW making it barely interact with hordes of marines or Custodes who love some infantry spam makes this oh but horde players can just not take the 20th model and be fine. Where is the secondaries for killing marines or custodes
it DOES make a difference for Orks greentide though. You can only pick 2 characters in a 20 man boyz blob if you have 20 models. So if you go for 19 models, you can only get 1 character.
Man, poor Grodzag the ork, has to stay at home and play video games while the boyz go out. Now that I spelled it out, it doesn't sound too bad anymore.
... who the fuck is proof reading these. My literal first thought when I saw how it scores was “ok so you just run 19 models then.” I was expecting there was some small text Auspex omitted that made my idea obsolete, but no, thats the loophole. Another wonder of simplified not simple.
Create ur own campaigns and mission packs boy. G-dubs have got no idea what theyre doing to the game, but they know exactly what theyre going to sell next...
well, taking one less than full strength was around from the start to circumvent blast rule, but one less model is worse than getting one more shot, which needs to hit and wound aditionally. with these extra vp its a no brainer to run 19, instead of 20 models, giving your opponent extra vp isnt worth this single model which doesnt do anything. guard for example cant do 19, they need to take fixed 10 and are allowed to double that, they dont have 10-20. soooo.... is this nerf only for guard at the end? anyways this looks weird and needs faq
I can field 19 Catachans and if you slaughter them, I can deprive you of your horde VP and still bring them back. GW is really not even trying to playtest rules at this point. They just publish things, without giving it any real thought or feedback and then wait for tournament reports and just tinker with point costs. Doesn't get much lazier than that.
@@ColonelHoganStalag13literally took me 5 seconds to realize a problem. And I don’t write rules gw fails to see these problems because like you said. They don’t play the game lol
That rule works against 10 Terminators. SM one, Scarab Occult etc. A bit niche, as they are the only sort of infantry with 3 wounds and max 10 in a unit.
@@nielsjensen4185 True. If you can light up 10 Terminators and their attached Librarian/Captain, you are doing something right, and probably winning anyway. Enjoy the VP.
That's probably gonna be the errata for it-and how it's played in casuals. But it's a little silly that they didn't catch that (IF they didn't and there's no clarification on the rules sheet).
@@ZejetyGW doesn't proofread anything it puts out. Hell - sometimes I doubt they even playtest their games have the time. There's a reason why GW's game design is generally seen as poor.
*counts as starting strength would be an option, but you can field damaged units with this, well i cant field 19 krieg, but some other units could interact with this too. the exact wording for this fix could be a problem, i cant count a unit of 19 like 20, this interacts with blast for example, but if i count it as just starting strength im able to field damaged units which could interact with other things. both outcomes arent favourable.
@@epicwaba6424 By no means to I think 9th was perfect. Power creep was monstrous all through 9th. Each codex was more overpowered than the last, and each one required a nerf shortly after. But at the very least, you looked forward to getting your codex. Now it's "Oh man, my army is fine right now, I hope my codex isn't next."
@@epicwaba64249th had issues but it was leagues better than 10th. 10th was quite obviously rushed out before it was ready to hit some artificial timeline.
@@EpicFiddleGuy It’s debatable which edition better, but both of them have had their moments where something was obviously not thought out or playtested thoroughly. This sort of specific thing is nothing new.
as usual GW has not even done basic work to determine how a rule can be interpreted. Or reword it to avoid creative interpretation. 1vp per 5 models has a similar effect
you lose special weapons if you do this its actually not worth it for many hordes the issue is how much vp this mission gives in the first place not that we can shoot ourselves in t he foot to avoid it
@@Rhod-wg7ytOnly if you're looking for a boring, sterile, balanced competitive tournament game. For people who don't take their toy soldiers too serious it's great.
LOL I haven’t heard about this yet, so on the slide that describes the secondary objective I said out loud, “so take 19 models?” and then laughed at the next slide. I’ve only played a couple of swarm lists and they’re so annoying in the move phase.
Maybe change to starting strenght of "11/12 or higher" so it doesn't affect 10 man units but still works with big ones Maybe "15 or higher" for any not quite horde unit that i might be forgeting
Not really, they want people to play balanced armies with a mix of units rather than spamming one type of unit. Battle line get buffed so they get taken at least a little, and the secondary punishes people who run horde skew lists. Skew lists should always be punished, although the easier solution is still to have some form of force organisation to help stop it in the first place.
Astra Militarum Infantry squads have like 5 different unit compositions. You can remove 2 guardsmen for 1 heavy weapons team. Making your squad 19 models. You can also remove 4 guardsmen and have 2 heavy weapons teams and be down to 18 models :)
true but inf squads are usually not at the frontlines. the best frontline battleline inf are DKoK and they can't take a HWT. they are also the only unit, who are actually taken in big numbers. catachans are minsized for zoning. inf squad is minsized for taking care of Solar. it also stays back. and cadians... are usually never picked. and even DKoK dispite them being quite tanky are left at home in favor of bullgryns, considering the stronger guard tournament lists
For me this is the reason why I don't buy cards nor books: it's like they don't check if things are correctly writed but, somehow, they are entitled to my money. They should have gone full digital an offer print on demand for the "collector edition" of the codexes, and include a smaller booklet with spiral binding in their army boxes, something cheap but easy to consult and transport.
@@whitemiasma5288 When I'm thinking I can go from spanish to english depending of the subject and the context, but not in dreams. Although I must add, with some dreams I "know" what was said but can't remember how it was said, so I can't be 100% sure.
I for one am happy that the secoundary does not work. It seems devatatingly OP if it worked as intended, especially most horde factions do not actually have durable hordes
Right, which is why a lot of them can be reinforced in one way or another. GW rules writers aren't that creative and so adding VP was a cheap out for them. As if a Tyranid army would have even the slightest bit of worry on losing 80 termagaunts. I'm convinced the rules writers aren't really into the lore like they should be or else it would be better reflected in the game.
we have bring it down to counter vehicle/monster skew. We have assassinate for character skew lists. Why not a 3rd one for horde skew? Playing vs 120 boys, 100 guardsmen or endless gargoyles is not fun at all.
@@BigMan-cp4pithe problem is assasinate and bring it down are far less rewarding in terms of VP than Cull the Horde. Seriously, any moderately shooting army can pretty reliably get the free 5vp if they just focus fire a battle line unit every round.
@@Mrpokemon718 fair point, it should be 4vp. That way if you only bring 1-3 horde 20 man units, max you give up is 12 VP if someone takes fixed against you. But if you are gonna run 120 boys, you absolutely should give up 20vp.
If the starting strength is 20 or more the wounds count should be 20 or more too, since its the same amount of effort to kill. But obviously they didnt want a Tactical Squad to count as a "horde"
thats what ive been doing I'm Hopeful there will be a similar fix for eldar as they did for works to fix that problem of overpaying for the troupes though my friend killed my wave serpent with his sisters then the entire block of harlequins piled out and the battle sisters had a bad time
Ok guard is a funny interaction with this becouse an infantry squad is 18 models and 20 wounds So you can have in front 120 guardsmen and this would be the worst secundary to take becouse they dont count towards it XD And thats without the trick of just not taking a max out unit
Rules writing has never been a strongpoint with GW. They write rules that were playtested by in hours clowns that play with studio painted armies. They exist and function in a bubble and it shows with constant errata and FAQ as soon as rules hit the shelves. Buying a codex at this point is sort of a joke as the rules will have changed and you'll have to print and maintain papers to supplement your codex that doesn't have up to date rules or point costs.
Advertisers need to sue Google for lying about view counts due to bots. It's been a LONG time coming. Google needs to be given a billion dollar fine right up their arse imo
Why not just make it. 2 VP for 10+ models, 3VP for 15+ models and 4VP for 20+ models. Get rid of the wounds characteristic and that should work just fine
The best thing is: tyranid swarm army? All units of 19, with a single unit of 22 neurogants (maybe with neurotyrant 'cause why not), you still have at least 1 unit of 20+ camping on your home objective until the opponent draws Cull the Horde, and when they fail to kill all of the 20 neurogants (which are honestly a lot, especially with some defensive stratagem like Rapid Regeneration) they'll be forced to drop the secondary. If you took only squads of 19 then the opponent will be able to redraw the mission freely.
Interesting - today I tested this in the 40K app, and I now get an error when I reduce a Catachan squad to 19 models by removing a basic trooper: "Your Catachan Jungle Fighters unit has an invalid number of Models. Check the Unit Composition defined on the Datasheet for more information." This suggests they are removing the "understrength units" clause from the rules. I'm certain I was able to make understrength squads in months prior (admittedly, it's been awhile since I tried).
This is why i'm in 2 minds of wither to start playing 40k again, as it just seems that the amount of rules changes is an on going thing between release & then (Britney Spears - Oops!...I Did It Again) points change & rules change. Wither is be the likes of The leagues of Votan, primarcs or something else & GW then possibly relying on a select few outside of GW to play test such things in tournaments. Which would probably explain why GW were so quick to change the rules for the Votans so quick due to being so over powered
GW should simply change the squad building rule to be either or. I.e. a squad of boyz can only be fielded as 10 OR 20. If fewer models than 20 are put on the table but more than 10, it's a 20boyz squad.
Bring it Down has existed for over a year now, and there are entire factions that are vehicle based. Those factions aren't automatically losing every game just because someone took Bring it Down. Even then, it maxes out at 20 points in Fixed, so it's still not going to win the game on its own. Not to mention that almost every single person I have played against in 10th edition has chosen to take Tactical Missions instead of Fixed, claiming that Tactical is just more fun. "Oh, you're terrified of a single secondary objective, and in order to protect yourself from it, have elected to bring less models than you paid for, and in many cases chose to forego any upgrades that are dependent on having the full number? Okay, sure. I guess I'll just have kill each squad with slightly less effort?"
I'm frankly very happy with the Bring it Down changes. It was in a really unhealthy spot as a fixed secondary, because of how much it skewed competitive for certain factions (especially ones like Tau who had basically no choice, but take majority vehicles). Funnily you can do something similar to the points discussed in the video with Tau. The "usual" drones for crisis now are gun and shield drones, but if you take a marker drone instead of the shield drone on the squad leader you end up with a combined 14 wounds (and 15+ is needed for 4vp). I'm pretty sure every competitive tau list now will drop one shield drone so their crisis are worth less bring it down. It was already worth putting a marker drone on the commander or squad leader anyways depending on the list and detachment (especially Kauyon doesn't really care who observes and who guides between the strat and the detachment rule), so this doesn't lose you all too much for potentially a lot less secondary scoring for your opponent (to the point where seasoned players probably won't even try fixed Bring it Down against a solid Tau player).
If this doesn't get fixed and is abused, I will just focus on making them score less, especially if I'm at a tournament. They don't deserve top tables, and I will score low if it means bringing their score down.
Definitely overlooked, I’ve found game designers (and video game designers) always assume players will play to the spirit of the game. Need to hiring a cheating goon to proof-read rules…
Once again showcases how stupid the current pow... euhm point system ist! I seriously don't get what was so bad about being able to take any number of models in a unit and just pay for that, plus their wargear. It worked great for 9 long editions and even Rouge Trader.
I'd just not play someone who did this. They'd just be a "that guy" or a tournament player. If someone is willing to do this just for that advantage, that says a lot about them honestly. They definitely ain't there to have a fun game with you. Sure, you can do it, but it's not very good sportsmanship to pay for 20 models and bring 19 to get a slight advantage.
This screams as something that's just disingenuous to play as and only people who are 'that guy' would do. If it gets abused enough expect a rules commentary to specify that if you pay the points for 20 models, regardless of if you field all 20 the unit counts as viable for the point of VPs.
I don't think this rule will really affect termagants that much because of the other changes all hored termagants list have gotten a massive Nerf. All I'm hoping for is a full overlock and change to the tyranid codex like death gaurd because right now with this change has made the biovores,ripper swarms obselit. And gargoyles and termagants weak. And thats just adding to all the other provisions problems tyranids have. Like a bad army wied rule, hive gaurd and tyrant gaurd practically useless and that old one eye and broodlord are the only good characters. All from just weak abilitys and bad damage out put. Its just sad to play tyranids. A good example is playontabletops last few battle reports with tyranids in witha hyrofant did more than ten norns. And the list goes on.
I just put the video on my channel about this issue as well. It looked like this was going to hinder vehicle heavy lists that don't use battleline units but in actual fact the bonuses from taking battleline are really not that game changing so I really don't see any meta being changed from the new play style.
I'd change the rule to be something like 5 pts for a unit that can have max 20 models and has the highest cost from the unit composition, so for boys it would be between 11-20 that counted for the rule
To be fair its a dumb secondary. Im tired of the power level in a points trenchcoat edition. If hordes are a problem that need countered then balance them better. I take one or two 20man squads of Crusaders with my Templars but Im paying a fair amount of points to make those squads work.
Seems like they can change it to 16 models since nothing has a 16 man squad that isn't a 20 man squad. I don't know how many 11+ squads there are, but 11 seems a bit low.
I find secondary missions exceed my comfortable cognitive load for a leisure activity. They forget that every rule you add or amend inherently makes the game worse and the improvements it brings have to exceed the bloat factor to justify its existence. This is an example of unintended consequences as well.
GW needs more MtG players in their rules writing team. Some real sweaty rules lawyers. The smell will be terrible, but they won't need to patch things one day after release every damn time.
GW needs to hotfix this or tourney organizers need to ban list tailoring to get around this rule. Green tide players especially. It's list tailoring to get around rules as intended and should be treated as such.
@@ColonelHoganStalag13 There's no reason not to ban understrength units in matched play. I'm not sure which rule you think such a change would "violate". 9°e and AoS3°e did this for their entire run, admittedly under slightly different circumstances but the point stands.
Sorry guys, but this one is already covered by the existing rules. When you purchase a unit, you do so at the points cost in the Munitorum Field Manual. These are not done in 'up to' amounts, they are done in specific quantities. Eg. Neophyte Hybrids: 10 Models 90 pts, 20 models 180 pts. Accordingly, at the point in time they are first selected and added to your army roster they are 20 models, even if you choose to only pack 19. Forget that the app you use may require clicking up to the appropriate number- the Munitorum Manual's wording is not related to how your app was programmed! As per the Rules Commentary document version 1.2, page 15: "A unit’s Starting Strength is the number of models in it at the point that it is added to your army." Ergo, the unit of Hybrids in the example above does count for the secondary mission. As a side note: If you take a unit of 10 Marines and put them in a drop pod with one or two characters, you would have to lose one or two marines to fit them. But if you choose not to put them in the drop pod (the character might take it alone, or you might decide the Pod is just a liability for a certain game), you just have 10 marines- so no point in not bringing the 9th and 10th model with you in case you choose to deploy them on the table. However, if one of the characters is an apothecary, then after a drop pod lands the apothecary can restore models up to the starting strength in later turns- which is 10, not 8 or 9.
@@craigg28 Munitorum Field Manual. There is no option for 19 models. You must, by definition, add the selected amount and pay the relevant points before you can modify it down as per understrength units. Like purchasing a loaf of bread with 20 slices, but you only want 19 of them. You must take the whole loaf before you can take one out.
@@craigg28 As noted, starting strength is defined in the rules commentary on p15. By definition, you have to purchase models in a unit at one of the stated entries before you can then make it understrength. Ergo, the starting strength is 20, not 19.
@@craigg28 Yes. You have two options - 10 or 20. In order to change from having 20 models to 19 you must BY DEFINITION have started at the option for 20, which is what you have to pay for even if you don't use the full allowance. As the rules for starting strength specifically states "at the point it is added to your army", and not something like 'when your army is finalised' or similar, then starting strength must, by definition, be the upper limit that has been paid for. Indeed, although certain list writing apps (and typing/writing it up yourself) may allow for putting down any number, the options for a unit like Neophytes, Cultist Mobs, Necron Warriors, Beast Snagga Boys etc are just 10 or 20. There is no option for 9 instead of 10 like Witchseekers or Prosecutors have. A player choosing to record it as 19, only bring 19 models, and never deploy more than 19 models just to claim their starting strength does not qualify them to be classed as a horde for the purposes of that mission is, I'm afraid, about as accurate as someone claiming their librarian isn't a psyker cos they never use smite and they crossed it off their army list- it's your option not to make use of all you paid the points for, but that IS the starting point.
Why do I feel like this is somehow tide to admech being shoehorned into a horde play style. I know most armies now are being rewarded for hordelists. So I wonder if this is some cludged solution?
@@kapitankapital6580 why? tyranids are barely able to win as is. there doesnt need to be a way to counter horde lists because theyre not very good to begin with. how does making tyranids even worse help the game at all?
@@Khobai it's a valid point, but I think the answer is to make hordes better rather than to give them one cheesy way to win. Nobody wants to play a game where you can't possibly win because you didn't build your list specifically around your opponent's army.
But are they though? If I take a Guard squad with 16 troopers and 2 lascannons teams, I'm not at 20 models and it is entirely what the writers had in mind. Would it be my fault for following my army rules or not following some poorly written victory point card that some inebriated Brit wrote and didn't bother playtesting?
