[dok]

Originally Posted by killercactus

I'm at least glad that no one is bringing up the Valiant restriction on the 4th, because I think it's a pretty crappy argument.

Can I be the first, then?

Originally Posted by killercactus

Our last 2 NHSD's have been won by non-Valiant 4th, and last year both of the armies in the final were non-Valiant 4th.

I'll give you that Sarah (4thx4+Raelin+Hydra) and Brownsfan82 (4thx5+Taelord) were running non-valiant 4th. But Brad's army (4thx5+Nilfheim) is not really non-valiant 4th - it's valiant 4th after a kamikaze run by Nilfheim. Unless your opponent has Zelrig, the impact of Nilfheim's non-valiance is minimized (at least in terms of defense rolls - there's still a strategic cost since you are compelled to move Nilfheim out first). The same argument applies to the Clarissimus's and Pickle4192's army from GenCon (4thx4+Braxas). (Well, Pickle's army on day 2 was non-valiant all the way since he added Raelin.)

Originally Posted by killercactus

Also, Raelin is just as good with the 4th as she is with the 10th if you have other non-Valiant units. She's bad with the 4th as they're only non-Valiant unless you have a really solid Valiant hero (like Charos) to protect.

Provided you have no plans of losing your other non-valiant figures, I agree with this. (Although Sarah made even this look wrong at General Wars, but Raelin also has strong synergy with the Sentinels.)

Originally Posted by killercactus

I still think the 4th are better, but the 10th are close and they're more fun.

I agree the 4th are marginally better, but I really think you need to lean on the valiant defense bonus to come to that conclusion. Absent that, bayonets and melee defense are well worth 5 points. Sure, there will be point totals where those 5 points are a big issue, but there are also point totals where 4th builds end up playing light. It cuts both ways.