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.

Niiai wrote:I tryed to follow this must be put in the front this whole time and you lost me:

Characters have to be in the front unles you have a champion, musician and standarbearer and are 3 wide (sueside) or if you have sead retuine and 2 more heroes in the front (so that is a bus 5 wide, 3 special people in the front, 2 characters and a 1rd character behind.)

Hva I understood it?

Yes.

What people used to do before the new FAQ was to start the unit 3 wide with the character in the second rank becuase of the champion, SB and musician. They would then reform the unit 5 wide and leave the character in the second rank because nothing in the rules stated that you must move him up. The new FAQ prevents this kind of abuse.

But you can still leave the hirophant in the second rank as long as you have a tomb prince and a standabearer/necro arcitect in the first rank in a 5 wide buss?

Yes, characters need to be as close to the front rank as possible, but they will stay in the second rank if the first rank is full up.

@DukeRustField: Well, by "build", I mean "a type of army", not "this specific list".
As I said; some items/units/spells/etc. basically always get taken. Many almost never do.

And how does your opponent or the terrain effect what kind of a list you bring to a typical game?
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. Or maybe I'm just making general statements on a very broad topic.

Because you said "best list" and that implies...well, that there is a best. And some are going to be garbage against certain opponents or random terrain. Same with your term of "typical game."

A game of soccer (football) is a lot more typical. There will be guys with shoes on a field kicking a ball. Sure, some will be faster, slower or better passers or tacklers or whatever, but there won't be a random river in between or catapults or spells that turn all your players into turds.

Because I don't think there is such a thing as a typical opponent, I don't think there's a typical best build.

(In 40K there's a typical opponent because it's likely going to be some kind of Space Marine...)

...Best. As in "the most favourable, considering all variables".

A list that is "the best" it can be will have problems. It'll be vulnerable to this or that. But it will be, overall, better than most other possibilities.

A "typical" game is one where your list isn't designed to beat your opponents, like at a tournament. In a "typical game", you won't know what kind of terrain is going to be on the table before you play.

There isn't one list that's easily above all others. But each army has a few tendencies; part of that is in the inherit specialties of the Book. Part of it is in our ability to recognize what's good and what's not.

A good list will either be ready for as much as it can be, or be so good at its one thing that nothing else will matter. Of course, the other list would be good if it can catch this one unawares, or take advantage of its weakness.

Don't mince words with me.

You're making your words mincy because you're throwing out completely subjective terms.

...Mince- "to finely chop".

Yes, the terms are subjective. My hope, though, is that they are used in suitably broad, sweeping ways that people will get the point. No one has to agree with anything specific here. All I'm saying is "there are a limited number of competitive builds/army book".

Questioning what, exactly, I meant by "limited", "competitive", and "build" isn't doing anything. I don't mean "2-3", "win always and forever", and "list". Obviously.

Basically, if something I posted doesn't add up, consider how, if viewed differently, it might. Assume that's what I was going for.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't let that definition of cheese bother me. I just try to think of ways around it. As I said before, there is a counter for everything in 8th ed, you just have to look for it.

I also don't build my armies based on fluff. I play to win and I bulid lists that are competative, but I'm not a "WAAC" player as I have seen it defined on here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a list that is competative/hard and playing to win. I take issue with playing people with bad attitudes or people who get so upset they can't control themselves (i.e. throw dice, cuss, etc) or who are just buttholes.

But I don't have any issue playing against someone who tooled their list to be optimized and who plays hard.

Agreed, man.

If you're having problems with lifeslaan, or chosen star, start running TWO grey seers, both with the 13th.

Not a lot can stand up to pick up 8D6 models. With warp stone tokens, you've got a good shot at getting them both off. It's not bad for 480 points.

-Matt