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.

i heard that stealing opponents HQ model is good tactic

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

I don't really understand what you mean. One list can't work against everything. Tailoring is a completely reasonable thing to do. If I can't beat tyranids because I don't have enough templates, I'll tailor my list. If I can't beat guard because I don't have enough tank hunting stuff, I'll tailor my list. It certainly does NOT make a bad player. Any half competent person tailors their list for every game.

List tailoring is making a list when you know your facing a certain list. Needing to make a new list for each opponent is a crutch.

Ah, the quintessential fzorgle thread. It's been some time since our last one, so I guess it's due.

It's retro Tuesday. Nerf harlequins!

Everyone tailors - mech is strong so bring melta... its a metgame.Then you meta the meta, then you meta the meta-meta, but I being clever will meta your meta-meta-meta until the next guy meta-meta-meta-meta-meta games me the metagaming bastard!

Basically make an army, play smart. If someone wins because tehy have a better list they pulled off the internet they are not necesarily a better player.

At tournaments people tailor - not much terrain and saturation of mech and marines? PLAZMA AND MELTAZ PLZ!

The fact that LoS cheeze was compared to 'BA get re-rolls to hit' is a bit lame. BA cheeze is the fact that they get FNP bubbles and cheaper dev squads and are basically *better* than normal marines at almost everything rather than just at assault.

Every codex has its advantages and disadvantages. I agree that Lash was pretty broken when it first came out, in the context of the 4th ed rules and codices available at that point. In 5th ed and against the current range of codices, it's no big deal at all.

List tailoring is its own debate.

Folks who mostly play with a few friends often do it and enjoy it. Folks who mostly play competitive tournament games or pickup games with strangers usually prefer to design a take-all-comers list, and consider that challenge part of the skill of list design. List tailoring is neither wrong nor bad, although it's poor form to do it if your opponent's not also able to.

silpheedpilot wrote:Until I joined dakkadakka I hadn't really heard of 'lash lists' and all that. Since I'm one of the only Chaos players in the area I game in this was new news to me. I read into it and it seems, to me, that 'lash lists' are a bit on the cheesy side. I get the draw but I just can't bring myself to do it.

What are your thoughts, Dakka?

If your doing well in your FLGS on a regular basis and don't want to use it, then don't. If your struggling, then try some lash lists to see how they do.

Lash is pretty awesome against people who don't have/like transports or Psychic defenses. So basically if your opponents are still in 4th Ed. land than Lash can really punish them.

I still used it frequently, even in the land of tanks. Chaos had no other power worth taking, and I liked having the option in case a situation presented itself.

It's definitely not "cheesy" though... I don't believe in "cheese". There are certain units and abilities that happen to be better than others, sometimes by a wide margin; it's just the nature of the game.

silpheedpilot wrote:I mean, I agree that winning is winning but since my buddies and I play pretty casually (things get heated sometimes!) it's never fun when someone brings something to the table that could be considered 'cheesy', 'cheap', 'unfair', and so on.
I guess it's all part of the game, though, right?

Don't worry about the accusations of cheese. People who accuse others of cheese only do so because they are unable or unwilling to come to grips with their own tactical incompetence, and would rather assign blame for their inability to grasp strategy on someone else for being too powerful instead of themselves for learning how to manage tactically shifting situations.

When I played Tau, I got accused of playing cheesy Tau (which in hindsight is ludicrous given the codex). When I played Orks, I got accused of running cheesy orks. My Dark Eldar get accused of being cheese. I even started Necrons - who can call Necrons cheese? And they've been accused of being cheesy too.

To illustrate a point, I had a game against a Tau player with my Dark Eldar. I tabled him in the third turn. He plays Dark Eldar too, and told me that I only won because my list was pure cheese. I asked him for a rematch, with the exact same armies, but with me piloting his Tau and him piloting my Dark Eldar. I tabled him again, but in the 5th turn.

And you know what he said when I offered to help him with his army tactics? "You only won because you got lucky that time."

I get a little enraged when people accuse me of cheese these days, because the issue is never cheese, it is incompetence. Back before I realized how thin most peoples' skin is, I would practice for tournaments by going to a local store, asking one of the locals for a game, presenting them my army list, telling them how I run it, and then asking them to build the meanest list they could that would take me down. I'm at the point in my gaming career now where I *know* what I'm afraid of in which codexes, and don't need help figuring it out, so I don't need to go through those kind of exercises anymore. Nonetheless, at that time and place, such exercises made me an unpopular with locals - a lot of people think getting your face beaten in on the table is an excuse to dislike someone and accuse them of cheese instead of as a learning opportunity to improve your gaming.

Where I live now, the same exercise with locals (at two of my three fairly local stores) gets positive results - people build lists that they think can beat me and ASK me for a chance to prove it - and I'm happy for the challenge. I'm headed to a tournament this weekend at a store where I won "Best Overall" last month with a flawless victory - full battlepoints, tabled all three opponents for full victory points...given the chat during my subsequent visit for friendly gaming, I'm expecting several folks to be there this weekend with lists designed purely to try taking down my "cheese."
--------------------------------------------
That was a rambling way of saying this: OP, cheese people are regional. Some areas of the country have crappy gamers, others have exceptional gamers. Don't presume your locals are crappy and will accuse you of cheese just because you've seen so much discussion of it on Dakka. Hold to your confidence, make the best army list you can and do the best you can with it. If someone levies a cry of "cheese" at you for what you've done, either dismiss them, or if you're feeling generous try explaining to them all the methods to counter what they feel is cheese in your list.

Stand fast!

jmurph wrote:Because if they have a plasma vet squad or LF missile pack around, or SM PFists it doesn't care about T6 so much? Because templates (obliterator, vindicator, defiler) are much more useful when you can bunch the target? Because pulling people out of cover is a Good Thing?

Nurgle DPs are great, but they are just a (big) beatstick. Lash is a valuable tactical tool.

Plasma DOES care. Wounds T6 on a 3 not a 2. Why are you worried about a powerfist? 2 Swings at I 1. 1 hit, 5/6 of a wound 55% chance to wound. The missiles you are so afraid of will kill a lash prince equally well as a nurgle prince from outside lashs range.

I'll give you the cover thing but I feel it is a moot point when I could force them to roll 6's to wound instead of 5's & 6's. But against shooting it is more useful.

Vindicators - why you are using them, I will never know. I find them less than effective with a short range & paper thin side armor.

Defilers I feel are best used to charge forward. They do much better in CC than at range but ok.

Oblits - should be popping open tanks. If it's so late in the game that you still have a prince & your opponent is out of his transports you should have already won.

I feel the extra survivability of T6 more than makes up for the lack of lash. I have never seen a lash list that made me think twice about what to do or been trouble to beat. Wings MoN & warptime is significantly scarier.

EDIT:

DashofPepper wrote:
Don't worry about the accusations of cheese. People who accuse others of cheese only do so because they are unable or unwilling to come to grips with their own tactical incompetence, and would rather assign blame for their inability to grasp strategy on someone else for being too powerful instead of themselves for learning how to manage tactically shifting situations.

Mind if I steal that dash?

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

I don't really understand what you mean. One list can't work against everything. Tailoring is a completely reasonable thing to do. If I can't beat tyranids because I don't have enough templates, I'll tailor my list. If I can't beat guard because I don't have enough tank hunting stuff, I'll tailor my list. It certainly does NOT make a bad player. Any half competent person tailors their list for every game.

Samus, you're off your rocker. Any half-competent player tailors their list for every game....that's a true statement. Another true statement is this one: "FULLY competent players do not need to tailor their lists for ANY game."

I've taken my "take all comers" Orks around the country and beaten face with them. The exact same list - to the point where I showed up at the Nova Open GT last August and half of my opponents didn't even need to see my list because they were very familiar with what I was running. One of them even already had a copy of my list from here on Dakka.

In the last 13 months, my Dark Eldar have gone around the country and taken 50 wins to 2 losses. One of those losses was to Dave Fay last March in California, the other one was in December in Georgia against Alan Blakeborough. You won't find any player in the world besides those two claiming to have won against me in a tournament. I tell you this: A competent player *can* take a single army that is balanced and capable of taking on all comers in every different metagame around the country.

I don't mean to sound hostile, or a braggart, but tailoring is *not* a reasonable thing to do unless you're an absolute beginner and don't know better - I use myself as an example because otherwise its just two anonymous internet people arguing over something with no proof to the contrary of the others' argument. There are plenty of us who don't tailor lists. I'm lucky enough to count among my friends some of what I consider to be the most talented gamers in the world. None of them (that I know of) tailor their lists. Professional pride kicks in somewhere when you decide to elevate your gaming status beyond "noob" and you build a list that can stand its ground against anyone. That list will take months of tweaking, but eventually you'll have it right, personalized for you, and it will perform for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'O Dorian wrote: EDIT:

DashofPepper wrote:
Don't worry about the accusations of cheese. People who accuse others of cheese only do so because they are unable or unwilling to come to grips with their own tactical incompetence, and would rather assign blame for their inability to grasp strategy on someone else for being too powerful instead of themselves for learning how to manage tactically shifting situations.

Mind if I steal that dash?

Steal away.

There is no such thing as "cheese." Cheese is an expression of a personal, subjective opinion that something is overpowered.

People who cry cheese, to me, are more often than not being lazy gamers. It is rare that something truly is overpowered to the point of breaking the game (7th edition Daemons in Fantasy comes to mind). Typically what happens is a player loses to something new, and instead of trying to find a way to counter it, they tell the other person then are being "cheesy" in an attempt to get them to stop using it.

This is being lazy.

A smart gamer finds a way to overcome the new tactic. You can't simply expect to do the same thing over and over again and win.

So, short answer: no. Lash is not cheesy. Is it undercosted and very powerful? Yes, it sure is, but not game breaking at all. I play against dual lash chaos lists all the time and I have yet to actually be lashed in a tournament game.

Remember, it is only 24" range, usually mounted on an easily killed Daemon Prince, can be stopped by psychic defense, and it doesn't work on vehicles.

Lash is a nice tool in the chaos tool box. Stick it on a sorcerer and put him in a unit of Zerkers or PMs and you have a nice way to improve your army's performance.

Spellbound wrote:Yeah I think in the NEXT edition of the chaos codex we should get rid of the only powerful thing they have left! Why should they have any kind of unique advantage, just water down every single thing they have and make sure it's all worse than the stuff the other armies have gotten.

Fine then, let's not change anything, and let's not add anything at all either. People might get upset! Let CSM keep their 4th ed dex and everyone is happy.

Every army has "the list": that one competitive build that makes it worth playing. Unfortunately, the Chaos Dex sucks, and 9 Oblits + 2 Lash Sorcerors + min/max Plague Marines in Rhinos is "the list". It's good for killing MEQs, specifically unmounted MEQs, and that's about it.

"The list" for guard is mech-vets, and it works as an all-comers list because the codex is simply better in every way. They get better units, for fewer points, in a force organization chart that allows it to scale down to 500 and up to whatever.


It's not cheesy in any way, shape, or form. If someone doesn't want you to touch their models, then after you've cast the power and figured out how far you're going to move them, measure to a point, put your finger down and say "Bunch up this unit here". And if they aren't bunching them up enough, just say "closer" until they do.

Actually some armies have several lists. IG have mech vets, mass infantry, air cav, and others.

SW have Wolfstar, Wolf Legion, Razorback spam, and others.

Chaos has Dual Lash Rhino spam, which is a competent build, but by no means an OP build.

Lash tends to do well in casual settings. Against 'ard lists, it barely ranks. Good lash players can and do still perform well, but Lash is not at all the IWIN button it used to be.

Leave Lash as is please, nothing makes me giggle more then watching a last DP's head explode it runs headlong into Runes of Warding from a Farseer

Reecius wrote:So, short answer: no. Lash is not cheesy. Is it undercosted and very powerful? Yes, it sure is, but not game breaking at all. I play against dual lash chaos lists all the time and I have yet to actually be lashed in a tournament game.

Remember, it is only 24" range, usually mounted on an easily killed Daemon Prince, can be stopped by psychic defense, and it doesn't work on vehicles.

It's also fairly unpleasant for Tyranids, with their lack of vehicles, short range weapons, and pathetic psychic defense. *sigh*

That's not to say you can't win, just that dual-lash CSM remains fairly potent against one entire codex, as well as various army builds from the others.

BlueDagger wrote:Leave Lash as is please, nothing makes me giggle more then watching a last DP's head explode it runs headlong into Runes of Warding from a Farseer

Indeed.

Play 2 lash oblitz versus mechanized Eldraad, and then tell me how cheezy it is.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I don't really understand what you mean. One list can't work against everything. Tailoring is a completely reasonable thing to do. If I can't beat tyranids because I don't have enough templates, I'll tailor my list. If I can't beat guard because I don't have enough tank hunting stuff, I'll tailor my list. It certainly does NOT make a bad player. Any half competent person tailors their list for every game.

Hahahahaha you're terrible.

People started to mech up in a lot of tourny's because of how effective lash was against them. If you want to balance it maybe a roll off on LD to get the unit to dance, or drop the range a bit. Lash is a good tool, but not overpowered in any way. Mech armies laugh at lash.

Janthkin wrote:

Reecius wrote:So, short answer: no. Lash is not cheesy. Is it undercosted and very powerful? Yes, it sure is, but not game breaking at all. I play against dual lash chaos lists all the time and I have yet to actually be lashed in a tournament game.

Remember, it is only 24" range, usually mounted on an easily killed Daemon Prince, can be stopped by psychic defense, and it doesn't work on vehicles.

It's also fairly unpleasant for Tyranids, with their lack of vehicles, short range weapons, and pathetic psychic defense. *sigh*

That's not to say you can't win, just that dual-lash CSM remains fairly potent against one entire codex, as well as various army builds from the others.

Orks, other Chaos armies, Daemons, etc. Lash should have been only 1d6".

Lash is still great, dual lash lists still kick ass at 1500, but a fully meched shooty army owns Chaos at 2K in most match-ups.

I used to ask myself this question... then when my friends brought there 3 trygon lists, and there mephistons... I stopped feeling bad about my twin lash gunline EC. Beat them both with a smile on my face. lol

If you compare it to things in the later codices, you can hardly call lash lists cheesy.

Although to be honest the last codex that held any form of balance (nob bikers being an exception) was the Ork codex, yes there is some evil stuff in there, but with crap BS and normally some random element involved it's not like your firing JotWW or a Blood Lance every turn

If you feel bad/dirty about using that tactic then dont. Save it for a WAAC/TFG player or if you play against someone that is just REALLY good and you need any chance to try and win.

Im the same way about sticking Ghaz w/Snikrot. Is it legal? Supposedly, most tournies let you do it. Do I? No, it feels pretty cheesy. I mean, how do you sneak a 20ft tall, 10ton monster through the bush un noticed? But if I were playing a tourny or against a really tough player, then yea Id consider it more.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

I don't really understand what you mean. One list can't work against everything. Tailoring is a completely reasonable thing to do. If I can't beat tyranids because I don't have enough templates, I'll tailor my list. If I can't beat guard because I don't have enough tank hunting stuff, I'll tailor my list. It certainly does NOT make a bad player. Any half competent person tailors their list for every game.

Samus, you're off your rocker. Any half-competent player tailors their list for every game....that's a true statement. Another true statement is this one: "FULLY competent players do not need to tailor their lists for ANY game."

I've taken my "take all comers" Orks around the country and beaten face with them. The exact same list - to the point where I showed up at the Nova Open GT last August and half of my opponents didn't even need to see my list because they were very familiar with what I was running. One of them even already had a copy of my list from here on Dakka.

In the last 13 months, my Dark Eldar have gone around the country and taken 50 wins to 2 losses. One of those losses was to Dave Fay last March in California, the other one was in December in Georgia against Alan Blakeborough. You won't find any player in the world besides those two claiming to have won against me in a tournament. I tell you this: A competent player *can* take a single army that is balanced and capable of taking on all comers in every different metagame around the country.

I don't mean to sound hostile, or a braggart, but tailoring is *not* a reasonable thing to do unless you're an absolute beginner and don't know better - I use myself as an example because otherwise its just two anonymous internet people arguing over something with no proof to the contrary of the others' argument. There are plenty of us who don't tailor lists. I'm lucky enough to count among my friends some of what I consider to be the most talented gamers in the world. None of them (that I know of) tailor their lists. Professional pride kicks in somewhere when you decide to elevate your gaming status beyond "noob" and you build a list that can stand its ground against anyone. That list will take months of tweaking, but eventually you'll have it right, personalized for you, and it will perform for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shas'O Dorian wrote: EDIT:

DashofPepper wrote:
Don't worry about the accusations of cheese. People who accuse others of cheese only do so because they are unable or unwilling to come to grips with their own tactical incompetence, and would rather assign blame for their inability to grasp strategy on someone else for being too powerful instead of themselves for learning how to manage tactically shifting situations.

Mind if I steal that dash?

Steal away.

I see your points; for sure! I don't EVER do any serious talioring to my lists. I don't believe I've ever just torn apart a list and rebuilt it just to handle IG Chimera spam/ boyz swarm/ Dreadnoughts/ whatever. I just don't do that. My lists are always relatively all-comers, so tailoring isn't even nessesary..

I've never really come up against any serious 'tailorers', so I can't say if it's unfair/ annoying. I have no idea. I only play friendly games, and if I swap all my meltas for flamers, I don't think my opponent would care, because they know that it's simply a good idea, and they would do the same.

Illumini wrote:Tailoring is the sign of a poor player, and it is much worse than having a good list, even a "cheesy" list

I have to agree with Samus here by saying huh? I can almost understand what you are trying to say but no, your just wrong. While I'll agree that using a list "tailored" to be used against a specific army against a new player just to destroy them on the table is a good sign of an a** hole. Tailoring your list to get ready against a good opponent who you know you will be fighting is anything but being a poor player.

Why on earth would I make a list to fight a Tryanid army that I know is going to perform poorly against that army. Even fluff wise, why would Marines prepare to fight Orcs but forget to bring anything to handle hordes?

Edit: After being Ninja'd Ill just go off by agreeing with the post above. Making modifications to a list that will perform better against a particular army is not a sign of a bad player. Why bring stuff that isn't going to work?

Now I have also not completely re-made lists from scratch just to defeat an EXACT list that I knew an opponent would bring. If thats the kind of tailoring your talking about then I would agree with that being the sign of a poor player

I think I'm just getting confused with the terms here. Swapping meltas for flamers and stuff like that isn't really tailoring, I don't think.

Oh, and to get a little but more on-topic...

Personally, I find DPs with wings and warptime (and MON, usually) tend to do a lot better than lash princes. I see no reason to take a lash prince when I can have a T6 beatstick with re-rolls to basically everything. Cheese is relative to whoever you're playing against. People use as a crutch to try to persuade players from not using a certain thing (peer pressure, basically. "What? You're using lash princes? That's pretty cheesy, don't do that.")

Tailoring is knowing you're playing the Horde Ork guy and dumping all of the meltaguns in your normal IG list to take flamers. Thus Horde Ork guy shows up for your "friendly" game against 6 heavy flamer chimeras with hull heavy flamers loaded with vet squads carrying 18 flamers and three full Hellhound squadrons with 9 inferno cannons and 9 heavy flamers...

This list sucks against 95% of armies, but you're playing Horde Ork guy, so you know you're good.

Preparing for a local tournament on Saturday you take 6 chimeras with hull heavy flamers in case you run into a horde player (like Ork Guy who you know will be there), but split the vets' loadout between 3 meltaguns and 3 plasma guns because you need to deal with mech, but figure 75% of the players are foot Marines so and you'll need to deal with mass power armor saves--this is not tailoring. This is building a list that works in your local meta, for a competition, against other people you suspect will be doing the same thing.

The first example is douchebaggery. The second example is just good list building.

Yep, what he said

Lash is fine. It has its own place. Move your foes 30 boy mob into a perfect sphere and then land a Vinidicator shot right on top. Priceless.