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.

Hello

In FAQ it is statet that:

Q: Where Detachments say that you may include 1 Dedicated
Transport for each other choice, what does that mean?
A: It means that for each unit you include in the
Detachment that does not have the Dedicated
Transport Battlefield Role, you can include one
Dedicated Transport.


So therefore let assume we have AM army.
Can I e.g.
1) Create spearhead detachment doctrine with 3 tank commanders and 3 lrbts and add to them 6 chimeras. being Tallarns (lack of penalty for firing heavy weapons)
2) Create battalion detachment with company commanders and 6 infantry squads being other regiment (e.g. Valhallan because why not)
3) Place Valhallan infantry into Tallarn transports

And if Yes, would this considered "cheesy"?
IMO it would be climatic to have massed assault of Valhallan Infantry supported by mechanized brigade from other regiment

1) Correct.
2) Correct.
3) Incorrect. Chimeras can only carry <REGIMENT> INFANTRY. If you want to carry the Valhallans, you need to take VALHALLAN Chimeras. Edit: I DRINK PAINT DISREGARD. 3 is correct, you can do that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

3) Incorrect. Chimeras can only carry <REGIMENT> INFANTRY. If you want to carry the Valhallans, you need to take VALHALLAN Chimeras.

Could You please point me to the page in RB/Codex/Errata where is it stated? Could not find this. In Codex it is written about Astra Militarum Infantry, nothing about regiment.

What in case of Valkyrie then? Valkyrie cannot take "ground troops" regiment. Is this airship able to transport other units from different regiments?

Gnollu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

3) Incorrect. Chimeras can only carry <REGIMENT> INFANTRY. If you want to carry the Valhallans, you need to take VALHALLAN Chimeras.

Could You please point me to the page in RB/Codex/Errata where is it stated? Could not find this. In Codex it is written about Astra Militarum Infantry, nothing about regiment.

What in case of Valkyrie then? Valkyrie cannot take "ground troops" regiment. Is this airship able to transport other units from different regiments?

My apologies. I thought it was only Valkyries that said "ASTRA MILITARUM INFANTRY", but it is indeed Chimeras and all the other Transports as well! More evidence I'm going senile.

So yes, your plan is perfectly legal. I say go for it! As for being considered "Cheesy", who cares? It's legal, so you should do it, especially since it lets you optimise the doctrines.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So yes, your plan is perfectly legal. I say go for it! As for being considered "Cheesy", who cares? It's legal, so you should do it, especially since it lets you optimise the doctrines.

Gnollu apparently cares, so here's a proper answer: Yeah, it's pretty cheesy I'd say.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So yes, your plan is perfectly legal. I say go for it! As for being considered "Cheesy", who cares? It's legal, so you should do it, especially since it lets you optimise the doctrines.

Gnollu apparently cares, so here's a proper answer: Yeah, it's pretty cheesy I'd say.

Might as well say screening your units is "cheesy", or that using your Queen in chess is "cheesy". All "cheesy" means is "I don't like that my opponent is using the rules to their advantage", which is beyond ridiculous because that's the ENTIRE point of a competitive game.

So, to be a bit more clear, I don't think it's "cheesy" because you aren't breaking any rules.

It's not cheesy. It's using the rules as they are written. It's fine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So yes, your plan is perfectly legal. I say go for it! As for being considered "Cheesy", who cares? It's legal, so you should do it, especially since it lets you optimise the doctrines.

Gnollu apparently cares, so here's a proper answer: Yeah, it's pretty cheesy I'd say.

Might as well say screening your units is "cheesy", or that using your Queen in chess is "cheesy". All "cheesy" means is "I don't like that my opponent is using the rules to their advantage", which is beyond ridiculous because that's the ENTIRE point of a competitive game.

So, to be a bit more clear, I don't think it's "cheesy" because you aren't breaking any rules.

"Cheesy" by definition doesn't break any rules. The word is used for when you're staying within the letters of the rules, but not within the spirit of the rules. At least that's how I always understood that term.

And 40k isn't a "competitive game", it's a game. You can play it competitively, sure. But it's not designed purely for that.
I don't have a problem with cheesy tactics in a competitive match, but I wouldn't appreciate it in a friendly one.

final edit (sorry, a bit scatterbrained today): Breaking the rules would be "cheating", not "cheesy", wouldn't it?

nekooni wrote:
And 40k isn't a "competitive game", it's a game. You can play it competitively, sure. But it's not designed purely for that.

I am using the term competitive to mean a game where the goal is to achieve a win state in opposition to another player, as opposed to a cooperative game vs either a computer controlled player or some other set of pre-determined steps. A good example of a cooperative board game is the Pathfinder card game, where you cooperate vs a pre-made "enemy" deck that uses procedural rules to achieve a win state. 40k is a competitive game, no matter "how" you play it (following the rulebook version in any case), because the goal of the game is to win the game (or more precisely, not lose) whatever that win state may be. If you're not playing the game to try and win whatever goal your game type has, you might as well just spend 4 hours throwing dice at a wall instead.

If it doesn't have a failure state, then it's not a game. <Ork>Yoo iz jus' mukkin' abaut.</Ork>

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So yes, your plan is perfectly legal. I say go for it! As for being considered "Cheesy", who cares? It's legal, so you should do it, especially since it lets you optimise the doctrines.

Gnollu apparently cares, so here's a proper answer: Yeah, it's pretty cheesy I'd say.

Might as well say screening your units is "cheesy", or that using your Queen in chess is "cheesy". All "cheesy" means is "I don't like that my opponent is using the rules to their advantage", which is beyond ridiculous because that's the ENTIRE point of a competitive game.

So, to be a bit more clear, I don't think it's "cheesy" because you aren't breaking any rules.

"Cheesy" by definition doesn't break any rules. The word is used for when you're staying within the letters of the rules, but not within the spirit of the rules. At least that's how I always understood that term.

And 40k isn't a "competitive game", it's a game. You can play it competitively, sure. But it's not designed purely for that.
I don't have a problem with cheesy tactics in a competitive match, but I wouldn't appreciate it in a friendly one.

final edit (sorry, a bit scatterbrained today): Breaking the rules would be "cheating", not "cheesy", wouldn't it?

A game where you have two sides playing against each other is by definition a competitive game.

ITo use rulebook terminology, this would be a good Matched Play choice, but rather cheesy in Narrative Play.

Ah, okay. I use "competitive" for a style of play where it's all about winning, such as in professional (e)sports, as opposed to a "casual" approach where it's more about the enjoyment of the game, regardless of who wins. I thought that's the commonly used definition for that term, but apparently you meant something else, that's fair.

Going back to what you defined as "cheesy":

"I don't like that my opponent is using the rules to their advantage"

That's a pretty good definition I think, although it lacks the "because it's not really appropriate to do that" - for example setting a Land Raider on it's side instead of setting it up on it's tracks is (as far as I can tell) legal, but I'd still object to it in a casual match.

Of course this whole thing is very subjective and there's never a "correct" answer.

I consider Valhallan infantry pouring out of Tallarn Chimeras to be cheesy. Tallarn Chimeras filled with Tallarn infantry, accompanied by Valhallan infantry footslogging it, however, sounds good to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it doesn't have a failure state, then it's not a game. <Ork>Yoo iz jus' mukkin' abaut.</Ork>

I'd disagree, all you need is a goal.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it doesn't have a failure state, then it's not a game. <Ork>Yoo iz jus' mukkin' abaut.</Ork>

I'd disagree, all you need is a goal.

And if you don't achieve the goal? You have failure.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If it doesn't have a failure state, then it's not a game. <Ork>Yoo iz jus' mukkin' abaut.</Ork>

I'd disagree, all you need is a goal.

And if you don't achieve the goal? You have failure.

Or you continue playing until you reach the goal, if there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that (e.g. a turn limit).
I'm not saying most games don't have a failure state, I'm just saying that you can have a game without a failure state.

nekooni wrote:
Or you continue playing until you reach the goal, if there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that (e.g. a turn limit).
I'm not saying most games don't have a failure state, I'm just saying that you can have a game without a failure state.

If it doesn't have a failure state then it's not a game IMHO, it's just mucking about or a walking simulator.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or you continue playing until you reach the goal, if there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that (e.g. a turn limit).
I'm not saying most games don't have a failure state, I'm just saying that you can have a game without a failure state.

If it doesn't have a failure state then it's not a game IMHO, it's just mucking about or a walking simulator.

What exactly is the failure state of lets say World of Warcraft? Or is your opinion that that's not a game?

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or you continue playing until you reach the goal, if there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that (e.g. a turn limit).
I'm not saying most games don't have a failure state, I'm just saying that you can have a game without a failure state.

If it doesn't have a failure state then it's not a game IMHO, it's just mucking about or a walking simulator.

What exactly is the failure state of lets say World of Warcraft? Or is your opinion that that's not a game?

The failure state is not getting items or experience in order to progress though the game. If you attack a boss and wipe, that's a failure state right there. Just because mumorpugers have "non traditional" or self imposed goals doesn't mean they don't have goals.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Or you continue playing until you reach the goal, if there's nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing that (e.g. a turn limit).
I'm not saying most games don't have a failure state, I'm just saying that you can have a game without a failure state.

If it doesn't have a failure state then it's not a game IMHO, it's just mucking about or a walking simulator.

What exactly is the failure state of lets say World of Warcraft? Or is your opinion that that's not a game?

The failure state is not getting items or experience in order to progress though the game. If you attack a boss and wipe, that's a failure state right there. Just because mumorpugers have "non traditional" or self imposed goals doesn't mean they don't have goals.

OK, if you count "not progressing" as a failure state (which I don't), your claim works. But we're way off-topic now I'd say.

Yep, we are . Nonetheless thank You for answering my questions