Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Foda_Bett wrote:Some of these things are illegal.
...

Older rules sets. Tomb Spyders didn't used to have bases, the Hellhounds flame template used to be placed in direct contact with the barrel and only fired its own length, that sort of thing. I played in 2nd and 3rd, and only got back into GW games in the last month or so.

As for whether you're a "cheezy git", I'd have to play you to be sure, but your attitude isn't a mark in your favor.

What does "cheesey" mean?

Swordguy wrote:
Claiming a cover save for baseless Tomb Spyders because the cloth throw over the table has a fold in it.

Unbased models are illegal, don't play against them.

Excuse me, that Land Raider is Illegal! It doesnt have a base! So is that defiler!

Or the guy who modeled his Russes and Basilisk as hover vehicles (cool, right?) for his Drop-Troops, and stuck 'em on extendable 5' high flying bases and claimed everyone was out of range to the models so they couldn't be shot at.

Considering this game is "2d" in the fact that you never measure diagionally you got screwed.

Are you actually playing 5th ed? All ranges are measured by the real distance, not the horizontal distance. Try Reading the rulebook.

No seriously, are you even playing 5th ed? Your entire post makes me think otherwise.

Not cheese. One of our locals plays a 3 railhead list and it doesn't seem to help him much. LOL!! Sounds like somebody is just jealous that they can't do it!

Sure, its cheesy, to your opponent.

Definition of cheese: "Anything my opponent does that reveals the fact that I am a whiny little bitch who doesn't want to bring my A-game when facing a perfectly legal combo by my opponent."

Gwar! wrote:

Swordguy wrote:
Claiming a cover save for baseless Tomb Spyders because the cloth throw over the table has a fold in it.

Unbased models are illegal, don't play against them.

Excuse me, that Land Raider is Illegal! It doesnt have a base! So is that defiler!

Or the guy who modeled his Russes and Basilisk as hover vehicles (cool, right?) for his Drop-Troops, and stuck 'em on extendable 5' high flying bases and claimed everyone was out of range to the models so they couldn't be shot at.

Considering this game is "2d" in the fact that you never measure diagionally you got screwed.

Are you actually playing 5th ed? All ranges are measured by the real distance, not the horizontal distance. Try Reading the rulebook.

No seriously, are you even playing 5th ed? Your entire post makes me think otherwise.

Yes that's right I'm not playing 5th
Models that come with bases must be based on them or larger if for "dramatic flair" or some crap like that. It's in that 5th book I'm not reading. Maybe it's you who's not reading it as 5th specifically mentions no cover save if the cover is on your base, the 4th/5th guard codex mention "throwing" the template.

Tomb Spyders always had bases. I started a necron army when they were released, and the codex shows them on bases. They have a small hole in the bottom of them to accept a flying base, which they came packaged with. If the necron player was blowing smoke up your ass because he 1) lost it or 2) didn't want to base his model and CHEAT because you're playing on a felt table that's your fault for not noticing or his fault for being an ass.

Hardly sounds like breaking an army to me.

The drop pod scenario is equally valid.

Use whatever means necessary and available in the rules, but don't expect me to like it or play you in the future. Of course, if you always conceded to your opponents preferences, you would always let your opponent win so that wouldn't be very fun for you either. Also, lash would be non-existent.

It is not cheesy since Tau will sooner or later have to deal with Guard.

Cheese is non-existent. There is possible codex abuse or going against the intent of the rules.

In 4th edition maybe, but I think 5th edition moved towards 9 broadsides.

They should consider themselves lucky you only have 3 railguns a turn, and skimmers aren't invincible anymore.

jamunition wrote:What does "cheesey" mean?

As I understand it, cheesey means lists that are legal or half-legal, that are especially written for winning instead of for a fun game.

to the question of horizontal lines or not.: This has been changed a few times in GW history. The older cityfight codex for example states that you MUST measure in horizontal lines, 2D , while other publications said other things. So this matter is a bit confusing.

And I voted for NOT CHEESY because Tau are a bit screwed with the new cover-save-rules and all the horde armies. It´s good for them that you can´t jump from unit to unit anymore ( in CC ) and they have to use this (only) advantage and shoot.