Here, I'd like to discuss about the conga line, which raises various comments.
The quotes below indicate several nuances from "acceptable" to "cheating".
Rabidnid wrote:Conga lines? why not?
Blaqkheart wrote:I play evil races. I do evil things.
EbonyPhoenix wrote:I haven't and won't use the conga line, but I see no problem with arranging my units to different widths based upon roles. 2-3 wide for mage hunters, 3-5 wide for flankers, or 7-wide for front or rear all seems valid tactics to me.
Il Maestro wrote:Personally, I think sometimes people use the 'cheap', 'powergamer' and 'cheese' nametags to justify to themselves why it is that they were not able to win. (...) I think the best way to approach anyone who plays hard lists or uses loopholes in the rules is to consider it as a challenge to overcome.
Dangerous Beans wrote:Narrower units? I think having a unit thats 4 models wide is still fine. In 6th edition this was common place - I have no issue with that. Conga lines are reserved for cheesy tournament play in the extreme. How anyone can go about justifying a black guard congo line with any kind of rational thinking needs to be shot.
Bitterman wrote:BG conga line? No. Stupid. Makes no sense and the "real" BG wouldn't do it.
masamune wrote:In terms of the conga line formation, I just wouldn't do it as, while legal in RAW, it's not in the spirit of the game.
[LLCT]Kain wrote:conga -> definitly (IMO) not in the intend of the game. But I would consider this not as cheese. It is rule abuse.
Thanee wrote:Conga lines are the single biggest rules abuse in the game. Right after outright cheating.
You should not rely on them ever.
A Dreadlord with Crown of Command added into the mix can do the same.
Mr. Anderson wrote:On the topic of conga lines, I think they are so close to cheating that in fact they are cheating. ...help you out with proper tactics, not rule abuse.
My opinion:
1. It is NOT cheating.
Nothing in the rules prevent it.
2. It is NOT a rule abuse:
Sure, it brings you an advantage of having less models in contact, in order:
- to have less hits on your unit (therefore survive longer, especially if stubborn)
- to force all the hits to be aimed at the model you choose rather than the R&F (your model in contact being "unkillable"). Even more effective if the single model in contact issues a challenge.
But it has several drawbacks:
- you hit less yourself (1 model on your side, 3 models on the opposing side).
- you forfeit any possibility to become steadfast
- you have no rank bonus
- your flank is immense
- your army has more difficulty to maneuvre
- you pay for many models, only one can fight.
IMO, it is rather a trade-off than an abuse.
I suppose that the people telling it is an abuse only see the advantage (deemed unfair) while not taking the drawback.
Indeed, it has such disadvantages that it is tactically sound only if one of the following conditions are met:
- the unit is naturally stubborn (BG, Shades/harpies in woods, unit with the crown)
- the front model is unkillable (PoK master)
- the front model cannot be removed (muso/pennant) in case there is a vulnerable character in the 2nd rank.
Of course, the advantage you get (the speed bump) must be justified by the cost.
3. It is no more cheap than other acceptable tricks.
Why would anyone consider that paying many pts for a mere speed bumper is cheap,
while it would be OK to field the Dreadlord “lone guardian build” (Cold One, Full Mundane Armour, Sword of Might, Dragonhelm, PoK, Crown of Command) which has more or less the same effects?
4. It can be justified by the fluff:
- 5 BG telling you: "Nooooone shall pass" (recall Monthy Python's BG).
- 10 BG bodyguarding a high sorceress. The sorceress stays in the 2nd rank while the valiant BG do nothing but boyguarding her, one at a time, until the last one dies.