Mods:

Please close this thread at your leisure - voting has gone on long enough and I'm amply satisfied that I've gotten a wide sampling of opinions.

Imo not cheese, Ghaz is great but he's not fearless and he is killable on his WAAAGH turn. Since you didn't use him with Snikrot (did that loophole close or was it really ever there?) but with reg boyz in a trukk. Sound like they just didn't know how to deal with your list.

Just remeber your not running duel nob bikers with grots as your other troops, or lash....

The ork codex is made out of cheese.

Casper wrote:Imo not cheese, Ghaz is great but he's not fearless and he is killable on his WAAAGH turn. Since you didn't use him with Snikrot (did that loophole close or was it really ever there?) but with reg boyz in a trukk. Sound like they just didn't know how to deal with your list.

Just remeber your not running duel nob bikers with grots as your other troops, or lash....

Ghazghkull is killable, but its *hard* to kill him during his Waaaugh! turn because his 2+ armor goes to 2+ invulnerable. There was only one game during the RTT where he shined, and it happened like this:

My opponent had a terminator list; a squad of scouts, one space marine squad and a bunch of terminators along with an HQ terminator guy or something. He deployed his space marines next to his terminators. I got to go first. Turn 1, Ghazghkull and nobs (and everything else) zoomed up the board. His turn, he blew up my trukks, and my one of my other trukk boyz squads (3-4 left) run away. My turn 2, Ghazghkull detatched from the nobs, moved 2D6 towards his terminators and the Nobs went after his space marines. Those termies were scary: All power weapons, a few power fists, storm shields, other craziness: Any unit I assaulted them with would have died, AND they were in cover.

Ghazghkull waaughed and assaulted the terminators alone. The nobs went after his space marines. Ghazghkull minced up some terminators, the Nobs ate the space marines, and for turn 3, he had terminators (locked in combat) and his scout squad left alive, but they were on the other side of the board. Assault phase I killed a couple more terminators, then on my turn, my Nobs jumped into the assault, but most of his stuff was dead. Right about then is when the cries of cheese started.

You mentioned using Ghazghkull with Snikrot and something about a loophole....what is that? Deploying Ghazghkull with Kommandos? Something weird? Something else?

I dont see how that would be any worse than the hordes of low point 'zilla players.

Cheese, that is the rallying cry of the cry baby, I swear.

If they say you don't understand the hobby, what they mean is you don't understand their interpretation of the hobby and wont play the game the way they want to play it and therefore you are bad.

Tell them to grow up and stop being a bunch of girlymen. Everyone is entitled to play the game they want to, and if a list is legal per the codex then its ok to use.

Anyone who tells you you shouldn't bring x, y, z arbitrarily without codex support is cheating. They are making up rules to suit themselves. That is cheese.

Dashofpepper wrote:
You mentioned using Ghazghkull with Snikrot and something about a loophole....what is that? Deploying Ghazghkull with Kommandos? Something weird? Something else?

Well there is this school of thought that since Snikrot's Amubsh ability would not be lost if an IC joined the unit (as it technically isn't infiltrate). Bascially people believed you could hold snikront in reserve (for ambush) and then attach Ghaz w/Snikront and 15 kommandos. When you pass reserves he comes in on any table edge and boom theres Ghaz on your backline, waaghing and krumping whatever else he wanted (after he deattacked form kommandos cuz he's slow).

Thats what I was referencing - its more of a YMDC argument that shouldn't be started again. I have both Ghaz and Sinkrot and never have tried this (It reaks of imo).

I think you are asking the wrong question; cheesy or not will never lead to any type of consensus. Rather, would folks lower your army comp score at an RTT.

What you seem to have left out of this list is that your Nob unit was also all differently equipped to take advantage of the multi wound model wound allocation rules. This is an area, while perfectly legal, can rub folks the wrong way- whether rightfully or not is immaterial. Also, bringing Ghazkgull to a 1300 point RTT is another point of contention which appears to also have been the case.

Personally, take whatever you want as long as the list is legal. However, what appears to the real problem is that you suffered hits to army comp on what people called a cheesy list. Army comp is a subjective score in which you need to be familiar with the area in which you are playing. What is considered a good solid army in one area may be considered a cheesy WAAC army at another.

For RTT's, it is fairly common to earn points on the following

win/loss/tie
army composition (subjective)
army appearance (subjective)
sportsmanship (subjective)

It never hurts to check with a tourney organizer before a tourney to see how the breakdown of each category will be.

Having played an RTT where you had this issue, I don't think they play hard lists in general. Typical powerlists (Nob Bikers/Dual Lash Plague Marine spam for example) will probably garner lower army comp scores at that location.

But, to be fair, this just doesn't happen at that one store only; it's something I've encountered at various tourneys all over the U.S. Good luck in the future.

Charlie

I always say that cheese and whine go well together.

People who think ANYTHING is cheesy are certain to bring the whine.

There is no cheese. There are only whiny players.

Centurian99 wrote:There is no cheese. There are only whiny players.

I SECOND THAT 100%!

Tell them to quit F'N crying!

They can't make lists to counter Ghaz or Snikrot?

Time to find a new gaming group.

There is no cheese. There are only whiny players.

Thank you centurian! God, I hate the whining. If you can't beat a list, be an adult and instead of throwing a temper tantrum, use your brain to come up with a counter.

It's a tough list, but not borken. Two good HQs, a tough elite unit, and a bunch of crunchy ork trukks and small mobs - that's not cheese.

Well, it's important to remember that most Dakkites are pretty seasoned tournament gamers, and so they tend to have different notions of both what is cheese and if cheese is bad (or even if it can exist at all).

That's not the nastiest 1300pt lists possible, but 1300 is a weird point level, and if it was on 4x4 tables and you had some good draws you could clean up with a list like that in an environment without a lot of really hard lists.

The part that sticks in my craw is the allegation that you don't understand the hobby. What they meant was that you didn't understand how they played 40k, and there's nothing wrong with having a sort of unwritten code about stuff like that. It may lead to you having to stop gaming there, but you can't make them accept your tactics.

In short, while I don't think it was cheesy, I think people that don't like to face anything more challenging than a battleforce army would feel free to call it cheese, especially if it wins. The real question is if you want to put up with their comments, tone down your lists, or find new players.

What ever happened to the Dakka Motto: "Play Better Next Time"?

When I lose, I figure I just screwed up somewhere.

Iorek wrote:What ever happened to the Dakka Motto: "Play Better Next Time"?

When I lose, I figure I just screwed up somewhere.

Along with, "read more, post less..."

I miss mauleed...

There is no cheese iff (if and only if) 40K is a well balanced game. It is possible for a game to be in an imbalanced state, therefore giving certain forces/armies a distinct advantage.

So if you truly think 40K is always a balanced game even when codicies are of different ages and written for different versions of the core rules - then the "no cheese" claim may have merit.

I tend to believe that the designers of the game aren't that skilled to have balance across 10 years of codices and 3 versions of the rules.

YMMV

willydstyle wrote:The ork codex is made out of cheese.

QFT

Democratus wrote:There is no cheese iff (if and only if) 40K is a well balanced game. It is possible for a game to be in an imbalanced state, therefore giving certain forces/armies a distinct advantage.

So if you truly think 40K is always a balanced game even when codicies are of different ages and written for different versions of the core rules - then the "no cheese" claim may have merit.

I tend to believe that the designers of the game aren't that skilled to have balance across 10 years of codices and 3 versions of the rules.

YMMV

Nob Bikers being a good example.

Nob Bikers are over-rated.

As I am told I am on old timer with outdated views, take this with a grain of salt. Also, i do not speak for all old timers, just myself. (And so much for customer loyalty being valued.)

Once upon a time special characters were, well, special. You would have to ask your opponents permission to use them. Some would argue was because they were very overpowered, but i don't see them being any less or more powerful now as they were. The limited use was designed to keep them SPECIAL, used for special games and for special occasions, not everyday use. Gazkull doesn't show up to every little waaag, he runs them, big ones. Abbadon is not personally involved with every single chaos attack. Vulcan does not protect every single imperial citizen at the same time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1; if you were to play against another ork player who also had Gazkull and Snikrot, what would you do? there is only one of each, as they are unique individuals. Would you roll off to see who got to use which? (that only seams fair to me).

2; What if you took out the special characters from your list and played with regular HQ choices? Would your opponents still call cheese? (could you still win?) If they ceased, then you know that they only have a distaste for special characters in everyday use. If they persist, well then they're lame and probable just sore losers, validating/redeeming you.

willydstyle wrote:The ork codex is made out of cheese.

That would be why it's so tasty...

Iorek wrote:What ever happened to the Dakka Motto: "Play Better Next Time"?

We need new generation of Dakka Tough Guys, I guess.

Centurian99 wrote:Along with, "read more, post less..."

I miss mauleed...

As should we all.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:As I am told I am on old timer with outdated views, take this with a grain of salt. Also, i do not speak for all old timers, just myself. (And so much for customer loyalty being valued.)

Once upon a time special characters were, well, special. You would have to ask your opponents permission to use them. Some would argue was because they were very overpowered, but i don't see them being any less or more powerful now as they were. The limited use was designed to keep them SPECIAL, used for special games and for special occasions, not everyday use. Gazkull doesn't show up to every little waaag, he runs them, big ones. Abbadon is not personally involved with every single chaos attack. Vulcan does not protect every single imperial citizen at the same time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1; if you were to play against another ork player who also had Gazkull and Snikrot, what would you do? there is only one of each, as they are unique individuals. Would you roll off to see who got to use which? (that only seams fair to me).

2; What if you took out the special characters from your list and played with regular HQ choices? Would your opponents still call cheese? (could you still win?) If they ceased, then you know that they only have a distaste for special characters in everyday use. If they persist, well then they're lame and probable just sore losers, validating/redeeming you.

I also started 40k back in those days, the problem is that GW have made the codex's more Special Character centric, especially in a tournament setting for example i can take Ghazgkull or a Warboss in a tournament setting i would take Ghazgkull purely so that i know that when i Waaagh i am guaranteed 6inch run moves so my orks can hit units comfortably and not have to leave things down to chance, etc same thing applies for Vulkan or any of them.

On Topic, the list isn't cheesy its just a strong Ork build in a tournament setting, if they whine then they clearly don't understand the meaning of a tournament (I got whined at in a 1000pt tournament in my local store because i bought Shrike and 2 Vindicators and won, however if i hadn't have won would the army list still have been called cheesy, in some respects yes and in some no).

Really just ignore them and don't concern yourself with it and by saying you don't understand the hobby shows how they are just annoyed that you won and they didn't and are trying to justify their viewpoint by picking on you for playing an army to its potential instead of taking things like Flashgitz (which lets face it are crap).

I was lucky when I started 40k, it was at a store with a league going on at a low point level. This allowed me to play a great many games quickly and partly due to this and partly due to my predisposition to adapt quickly I progressed quickly through the learning curve of the game.
One thing I have noticed though, is that those who're lower in the learning curve either lack the experience to adapt to the tactical and list building changes necessary to win or simply lack the desire to do so, even to the point of digging their heels in to avoid it.
And in my experience, it's been roughly 80% of the players I've found that cry cheese are amongst this group...

Well, the vast majority of everyone thus far doesn't side with the cheese factory, so I'm glad. I don't want to have an army list that people don't want to play against because its unfun - but I want to be competitive and win.

Centurian99 wrote:

Iorek wrote:What ever happened to the Dakka Motto: "Play Better Next Time"?

When I lose, I figure I just screwed up somewhere.

Along with, "read more, post less..."

I miss mauleed...

It was - "Next time play better." Ed's doing the Fantasy scene with the Warmongers...boy I miss that guy.

nikeforever22 wrote:It was - "Next time play better." Ed's doing the Fantasy scene with the Warmongers...boy I miss that guy.

I think Ed realized there are fewer whiners in Fantasy.

I do find that more WHFB players are willing to go "wow, that's.. powerful. Well, let's play" instead of going "WTF!?! High Elves have ASF and it even works with their GW's?!?! OMG! Don't be TFG, and just play your Ogres".
I think it has more to do with the complexities of the movement phase in fantasy that forces a bit more brain power to pull anything fancy on your opponent so there's at least a hope you can outmaneuver your opponent and overcome their "cheese"

themandudeperson wrote:I do find that more WHFB players are willing to go "wow, that's.. powerful. Well, let's play" instead of going "WTF!?! High Elves have ASF and it even works with their GW's?!?! OMG! Don't be TFG, and just play your Ogres".
I think it has more to do with the complexities of the movement phase in fantasy that forces a bit more brain power to pull anything fancy on your opponent so there's at least a hope you can outmaneuver your opponent and overcome their "cheese"

Okay, I have to completely agree.

The reason that cheese in 40k generally is more annoying than cheese in fantasy is the whole movement and facing thing.

In fantasy, people can't shoot backwards. In 40k, shoot every direction max range, etc.

In fantasy, getting charged from behind can destroy even a super unit. In 40k, no.

In fantasy, charging makes you strike first. In 40k, you charge a unit of genestealers with something, and they attack you first. That puts the importance on the squad, not on the movement or the charging or strategic things.

It'd be interesting if someone made a fantasy-like ruleset for 40k with changes like these, just to see how it'd compare on fun.

I'm personally not a fan of named characters in lists in general. But that list is not cheesy. I could think of 100 other ways to make a more cheesy list using a ork codex

I guess since two players have commented on my "the ork codex is made of cheese comment" I'll have to back it up with some actual reasoning.

Here's the deal, for most players, even knowing intimately how the ork codex works, Ghazkulls special Waaagh is simply too much to handle. It virtually gives Trukk boyz and unstoppable 2nd turn charge, with a wide enough range that they can choose to charge units that you really don't want them to, rather than the units you might otherwise have set up as decoys.

Then on top of that, it gives boyz on foot an 18" charge range, barring difficult terrain roles. Top that first turn move+run, and you've got a full-army charge that's very difficult to counter or maneuver around, especially since two of the deployment scenarios almost force the armies to be closer than 24" from each other at the start of the game.

Against many CC armies you can shoot the transports to give yourself more time. Against orks if you blow up a truck, there's a very very good chance it will simply drop off its payload of boyz closer to you.

So it forces the enemy player into CC with a very likely superior CC force with very, very little chance for them to have weakened it significantly by shooting. Couple this with two turns of very competent ork shooting by things such as lootas and shoota boyz, and it's a mix that many lists just can't beat unless the ork player flubbs many many rolls. But since orks generally roll so many dice, they're much more likely to roll closer to statistic mean, so even that's not something that happens often.

So that's why people get frustrated fighting orks, and why Ghazkull just makes it even worse. Maybe I am a whiny little B when it comes to orks, but last month in my 40k league a guy was running Ghazkull all month (from 1000 points to 1750) and I honestly didn't want to play him.

That's very similar to the army I'm planning, I don't really think it's fair that someone calls a legal army cheese. You can build it however you want.

Personnally i go with the old rule of no named characters unless the army is 1500pts+ otherwise not cheesy at all.

I'm not familiar so much with the way things "used to work" or previous editions. I didn't start playing Warhammer 40k until after 5th edition came out. The only rules I know are these.

willydstyle wrote:Here's the deal, for most players, even knowing intimately how the ork codex works, Ghazkulls special Waaagh is simply too much to handle. It virtually gives Trukk boyz and unstoppable 2nd turn charge, with a wide enough range that they can choose to charge units that you really don't want them to, rather than the units you might otherwise have set up as decoys.

I'm failing to see the problem as this isn't really any different or worse than Turn 1 Hormagaunt charges.

Because boyz with a klaw nob are waaaaaay more destructive than hormagaunts. Hormagaunts can hope to hold units up, trukk boyz mobs destroy things.

Face it...5th Edition 40K is all about using Special Characters to theme your army. There's no way around it...if you want to run an army that's different than the stock army list, you HAVE to use special characters. Holding a prejudice against them is severely unfair and a ridiculous holdover from previous editions. You're not playing 40K 3, or 40K 4...you're playing 40K 5 now. It's time to make a change.

EXACTLY. I am in agreement with Centurion yet again.

If you play a "rule" stating that someone can't use a named character you are flat out, no questions asked, making gak up. That is not a rule nor has it been for years.

When someone is making up a rule, THEY ARE CHEATING. Flat out. The game has evolved, accept it, rethink your tactics and move on.

Cheese is nonexistent, there are only legal and illegal lists.

When ever you ask the question is X army cheesy, you will get all kinds of answers.

The normal ones are:
“No list is cheesy.”
“No army is cheesy, only players”.
“If it is in the rulebook, then it is legal”.
“Any list with X% (normally 40%+) in Troops is not cheesy”
Etc.

Dakkaittes for the most part do not believe in cheese.



Of those that do believe in cheese, then you can have a debate.

I am of the impression that almost any Ork army is cheesy. They are the “Easy Button” of armies. They are so easy that they make a poor generals hard to beat, and a good general impossible to beat.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:As I am told I am on old timer with outdated views, take this with a grain of salt. Also, i do not speak for all old timers, just myself. (And so much for customer loyalty being valued.)

Once upon a time special characters were, well, special. You would have to ask your opponents permission to use them. Some would argue was because they were very overpowered, but i don't see them being any less or more powerful now as they were. The limited use was designed to keep them SPECIAL, used for special games and for special occasions, not everyday use. Gazkull doesn't show up to every little waaag, he runs them, big ones. Abbadon is not personally involved with every single chaos attack. Vulcan does not protect every single imperial citizen at the same time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1; if you were to play against another ork player who also had Gazkull and Snikrot, what would you do? there is only one of each, as they are unique individuals. Would you roll off to see who got to use which? (that only seams fair to me).

2; What if you took out the special characters from your list and played with regular HQ choices? Would your opponents still call cheese? (could you still win?) If they ceased, then you know that they only have a distaste for special characters in everyday use. If they persist, well then they're lame and probable just sore losers, validating/redeeming you.

I couldn't agree with this more. I despise using special characters exactly because of that reason. I have never played against or with a special character because I don't feel it to be fun. The character is obviously better than anything anything else you could make for the points cost. He has special rules and special equipment not normally available... which is why he is special and not normal. In large games I wouldn't mind as much but I would prefer not to play against them. In my little circle of gaming we don't allow special characters, and we enforce characterful and themed army lists (hooray for story!). We have a couple friends that just joined and he's having a hard time adapting since at the local GW all they do is play against lists made specifically to win by taking advantage of the rules (as opposed to a balanced list). Examples: Tyranid monster lists, pure Ork boyz lists etc. If you can't lose, it's cheesy. 'Nuff said.

As I said, personally I don't like playing against people with special characters so quite simply, I don't. As for the OPs list, I wouldn't play against it anyways since he has special characters. If he took them out, I suppose I would. I mean it lacks variety and I would in all honesty place it on the less balanced side, but as mentioned by someone else, there's definitely other ways to make an Ork list cheesier. Just note that this is my opinion and I'm kind of picky about how I play (I play to have fun).

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:
I have 2 questions for you:

1; if you were to play against another ork player who also had Gazkull and Snikrot, what would you do? there is only one of each, as they are unique individuals. Would you roll off to see who got to use which? (that only seams fair to me).

2; What if you took out the special characters from your list and played with regular HQ choices? Would your opponents still call cheese? (could you still win?) If they ceased, then you know that they only have a distaste for special characters in everyday use. If they persist, well then they're lame and probable just sore losers, validating/redeeming you.

1. Simple. One person has Ghazghkull and Snikrot, the other has Uberwarboss Giant McHuge and Boss Kommando von Sneaky Git, or whatever they wanna name them if they even care.

2. Simple enough to say, but some of us(Deathwing and Ravenwing players, for example) don't have that choice, as a Special Character is required to even field the army.

I personally don't think the issue is "special characters." Look at the Chaos Codex, none of the special characters (except Bile) really have any effects that change your army, or give you army-wide special abilities.

If there were a non-special character that gave Gazkhull's version of Waagh, it would be just as cheesy, regardless of whether or not the ability is on a SC.

The reason why people had a problem with that particular army is because there's very little that many armies can do to defend themselves from that.

It's no fun playing when all you do is remove your models from the table and can't fight back.

Platuan4th wrote:2. Simple enough to say, but some of us(Deathwing and Ravenwing players, for example) don't have that choice, as a Special Character is required to even field the army.

Make a house rule with your buddies where you use the rule that allows this but not take the special character. We're doing that for our Salamander player (bad example, I know, but still ). Of course that may not work where you play regularly... or tournies, haha.

It's no fun playing when all you do is remove your models from the table and can't fight back.

Infinitely true. What's the point of "playing" against something like that?

The point is that you come up with a way to win instead of rolling over and playing dead. By complaining you change nothing, the rules are what they are. By not playing someone because of the list they bring, you are only limiting your pool of friends to play against. If someons is a jerk then by all means do not play them, but don't judge someone because of the list they bring, they can play however they want to.

It is fun to try to brainstorm ways to beat lists. What is better, to be guy number X crying about a "broken" list and having a temper tantrum or the guy that figures out a way to beat it?

If you play in a limited circle of friends then come up with whatever house rules you want to. In which case, you have nothing to complain about if others disagree with your game philosophy as you will not be playing them.

But when playing pick up games or in tournies then expect people to come to the table with different ideas on what is fun or how the game should be played. You can't expect anyone to do anything but follow the rules as they are written.

As for having two of the same named character, unless you are playing a narative or fluff driven campaign, who cares? If someone brings 2,000 points to the table (or whatever size) and that is the models they have, you can't honestly expect him to not play with their favorite guy because you both have him (or her).

@Blackmoor
I am surprised to here you say that, Alan. I figured you would not ride the cheese wagon, I know you are a good player. I play against Orks all the time and while I agree they are tough, they are by no means unbeatable. Even uber lash Chaos is beatable (who trump orks, IMO), if admitedly annoying. It makes for good games in my opinion, I like facing a tough list that requires all of my tricks and tactics to earn a win.

The problem with fluff driven lists is that they usually suck terribly. I played a marine player a while back with an "out of the pictures in the codex" army, and absolutely reamed him with my Guard (who are in no way a power gamer list), it was lame for both of us. I would rather see a "cheesey" army across from me than a kick the baby list. At least with a "WAAC" list you have a challenge and feel engaged in the game.

What are these "Special Characters" you talk about?
Surely there must be some rules to differentiate them from any other HQ-choice (or upgrade)?

I think some people need to understand that the game has changed.

Cheese, no. Overcompetitive or poor form, maybe.

There is a difference in mentality between building a competitive army and building a powerstack of special characters.

Some people just try to build an effective all-comers list with no spec charaters(unless mandatory). Then use their ability as a general as their competitive edge. This, currently, is considered as good sportsmanship in most gaming circles.

Others will try, as any real general would, to purchase an edge with superior units and combinations of such. Nothing wrong with this in a limited manner, but overdo it you'll end up with problems.
You combine this style of army building with what seems to be a prevalent and maybe justifiable bias against Special characters and cheese comments and TFG accusations may follow. Whether these comments are right vary greatly depending on both parties sportsmanship and the situation.

Where you run into a problem is when you mix the two types of players. When this happens you end up being already down a sportsman pt, in a lot of players eyes, for over-competitiveness by using a special character.
So the other people present are more likely to side with the first type of player. They'll tend to lean that way even if your opponents not really that type but not using special characters.
What's funny is that if the guy makes a cheese comment in any other way than as friendly jesting(Even then could be seen as questionable) he's definitely guilty of poor sportsmanship himself.


The real problem here how the tourny was apparently organized.
The use of special characters is the Tourny organizers responsibility.
If it's allowed then your opponent and the others who made such comments are the poor sports and you should alert the tourny organizers.
Now I have to ask were they just lightly joking or rather nasty about how they said such? Just lightly joking, I'd say don't be oversensitine.
If they were nasty about it, well, wasn't to long ago someone would get into trouble for behaving in such a manner. Saw a guy asked to leave for the day over statements along these lines. But then standards may not be what they used to be.

Without being there I can't really say anything other than, "There is no cheese only greater levels of challenge."

Thinking about this, Has there ever been a tournament where you just bring your army to show off and instead draw generic armies. Or maybe draw codexes and have half an hour to build the points limit.

Heck, I'd love to build an army list, bring it, and then it goes into a turn by turn draw. That would be challenging and fun.

Just an Idea. Think it thread worthy?

focusedfire wrote:Cheese, no. Overcompetitive or poor form, maybe.

There is a difference in mentality between building a competitive army and building a powerstack of special characters.

Some people just try to build an effective all-comers list with no spec charaters(unless mandatory). Then use their ability as a general as their competitive edge. This, currently, is considered as good sportsmanship in most gaming circles.

Others will try, as any real general would, to purchase an edge with superior units and combinations of such. Nothing wrong with this in a limited manner, but overdo it you'll end up with problems.
You combine this style of army building with what seems to be a prevalent and maybe justifiable bias against Special characters and cheese comments and TFG accusations may follow. Whether these comments are right vary greatly depending on both parties sportsmanship and the situation.

Where you run into a problem is when you mix the two types of players. When this happens you end up being already down a sportsman pt, in a lot of players eyes, for over-competitiveness by using a special character.
So the other people present are more likely to side with the first type of player. They'll tend to lean that way even if your opponents not really that type but not using special characters.
What's funny is that if the guy makes a cheese comment in any other way than as friendly jesting(Even then could be seen as questionable) he's definitely guilty of poor sportsmanship himself.


The real problem here how the tourny was apparently organized.
The use of special characters is the Tourny organizers responsibility.
If it's allowed then your opponent and the others who made such comments are the poor sports and you should alert the tourny organizers.
Now I have to ask were they just lightly joking or rather nasty about how they said such? Just lightly joking, I'd say don't be oversensitine.
If they were nasty about it, well, wasn't to long ago someone would get into trouble for behaving in such a manner. Saw a guy asked to leave for the day over statements along these lines. But then standards may not be what they used to be.

Without being there I can't really say anything other than, "There is no cheese only greater levels of challenge."

Totally agree with you FF, in my gaming group many of us are GT regulars, their are times when we have good fun clean games but most of the time we are testing out units or builds for tournaments etc, even at the FLGS many of the kids and people that play their actively state that next week they want to play my lash list just because its more of a fun challenge because whilst we bring hard lists its all about fun and not winning all the time, the fact that most of us are evenly matched with hard lists makes the game even more fun.

Of course this is just one side of the spectrum, at GT's i have run across people that complain about my list the minute they see the army, others rub their hands together and say oo this is going to go one way or the other but its gunna be good.

This of course as you say is an inherent problem with tourny play, many people go along knowing what a tournament will be like, others go with certain ideas on how they and their friends build lists and are appalled to see Nob Bikers or Lash, you get it anywhere, but crying cheese because you won is not the right thing to do, they should go away from the game and analyze why they lost and what their weaknesses were, not how hard your list was, as Lash is by no means unbeatable and the fact that I only have 30 models in my army means i get swamped by Orks, i know these weaknesses and do my best to avoid being caught out by them.

After reading various threads specifically about what occurred at this particular RTT (Jax is my home town and I still keep up with what's going on there), I think there are some underlying issues that may correlate why the army was called cheesy.

Was every model you used WYSIWYG? Was every Nob clearly modeled differently as you armed each one differently to take advantage of the complex unit rule. Did you use any models that were a proxy in the army IE: Snikrot and Kommandos or a Warboss that wasn't actually in Mega Armor. Were your vehicles modelled with the proper equipment (IE Boarding Plank, reinforced rams etc...).

Was the army fully painted? It may sound trivial, but folks who show up to a tourney with a plastic colored army and it is min/maxed can draw other people's ire.

When one looks on the table at an army, it makes for a more enjoyable experience for both parties when they can easily tell what they are facing. It can be quite annoying when you look down and really aren't sure what model has what.

If these types of things occur during a game, these can compound a person's feeling towards your army. This can be especially true if it is the first time you show up at a location for a tourney.

Personally, I don't believe in cheese. If the list is legal, then it's fine. But, I'd be more critical when I score sportsmanship and army comp if someone showed up with a non WYSIWYG, non painted army.

Just remember, an RTT is a very different tourney than Ard Boyz where sportsmanship, army comp and painting are a non factor. Always be mindful about the tourney rules before entering. Hopefully, you'll have better luck next time.

I couldn't agree more with you 99MDeery, those are the words of a mature gamer who also has a lot of experience under his belt.

When playing with buddies, I often bring fun lists, or fluff oriented lists just for laughs. But the most fun games I have ever played are against skilled generals using their hardest list, vs my hardest list in a competetive enviornment such as a league or tourny.

Its all a matter of attitude. You can't control what other people bring and so long as the list is legal then he is fine to bring it. As Deery said, if someone starts bitching right away, you know the game is going to suck. If the other guy gets fired up at a challenge, you know you are in for a very engaging and challenging game.

@focusedfire
that is a cool idea I think, but it would be weird a bit as I wouldn't like the idea of someone else using my models!

Reecius wrote:I couldn't agree more with you 99MDeery, those are the words of a mature gamer who also has a lot of experience under his belt.

When playing with buddies, I often bring fun lists, or fluff oriented lists just for laughs. But the most fun games I have ever played are against skilled generals using their hardest list, vs my hardest list in a competetive enviornment such as a league or tourny.

Its all a matter of attitude. You can't control what other people bring and so long as the list is legal then he is fine to bring it. As Deery said, if someone starts bitching right away, you know the game is going to suck. If the other guy gets fired up at a challenge, you know you are in for a very engaging and challenging game.

@focusedfire
that is a cool idea I think, but it would be weird a bit as I wouldn't like the idea of someone else using my models!

thanks man I agree with you fully, just after xmas i was round a mates having a game, on the other table everyone was whooping and shouting over my mates orks destroying anothers sisters army, but me and the other guy were very quiet (something they commented on several times) but i had one of the most fun games ever because it was challenging for the both of us and the game was always on a knife edge waiting for a mistake to be exploited (it was my Marines vs Guard) and despite the fact of the two armies involved the game swung both ways until the end from a couple of crappy rolls and a few good shots the guard won 3 - 2, i couldn't care that i lost because it was massive amounts of fun.

Same thing a few days ago, a guy that frequents another store rang up and asked if their was any GT players as he was looking for some practice for the finals in a months or so time, that asked me to play and i told they guy i was using lash and he said fine game on, he came down with his daemons and it was a blast, the game ended in a draw but it went right down to turn 7 for him to force that draw out of me, I would gladly play him again, it was like a GT game as i didnt know they guy from adam and we just played our lists and had fun, he even didn't mind explaining most of the daemon rules as it was the 3rd time i'd played against them.

Maybe its just me, i've been playing 40k since the grand old days of second ed so my viewpoint is slightly tainted i just dont think cheese exists, its just bad play or exploiting your opponents weaknesses in full, I mean if you think the special characters are cheese now, Abaddon is not as good as he was back then, he's tame today, same with most of the other SC you see knocking about that have survived all the way through until 5th ed.

Anyway I sound like HBMC and i apologize for the rant, it just really gets my back up when i hear people complain about crap like this with no good god damn reason.

99MDeery wrote:
Maybe its just me, i've been playing 40k since the grand old days of second ed so my viewpoint is slightly tainted i just dont think cheese exists, its just bad play or exploiting your opponents weaknesses in full, I mean if you think the special characters are cheese now, Abaddon is not as good as he was back then, he's tame today, same with most of the other SC you see knocking about that have survived all the way through until 5th ed.

Hear hear. I remember when I first got into the game, at the tail end of 2nd Edition, and my buddy regularly fielded a character who essentially won the game by himself (some sort of Slaaneshi Chaos Lord, IIRC).

I actually like and hope to see the current GW trend continue, where HQ characters really lead and influence how your army is played.

Sarigar:

My army was fully painted, and everything was WYSIWYG except for my warboss, who was in mega-armor without it being represented. I made a point of pointing it out before each game though, just in case.

The cries of "cheese" started my second game. I was playing against a terminator army, and he had...very few models. A squad of space marines next to a blob of terminators, and a squad of scouts halfway down his deployment zone sitting on an objective. The terminators were REALLY nasty. All powerweapons, fists, lightning klaws...led by a terminator captain or something - it was freakish. They were in cover too, so no matter how I assaulted them, my orks would all die before getting any swings off.

Ghazghkull broke off from the nobs, declared a Waaugh! and assaulted the terminators alone. Powerweapons don't mean much against a 2+ invulnerable.

The nobs assaulted his space marine, and the rest of my army...didn't do much. Got shot up and was running and stuff.

Ghazghkull with 7 powerklaw attacks and a 2+ invulnerable....he ate some terminators for lunch. That's when the "cheese" calls started coming in, starting with him. He complained to the judge, who looked at him kind of incredulously and shook his head.


I mean...I'm mainly Tau; I play Orks when my wife isn't playing. I have 3 special characters and to be honest, they all suck. Half of what they can do doesn't even apply in 5th edition anymore, and half of the remainder of what they can do is so overwhelmed by negative trade-offs (Being able to use an ethereal's leadership in line of sight is mildly useful, but compared to having your ENTIRE ARMY RUN OFF THE BOARD IF HE DIES, its not worth having.

Its so nice to have useful characters.

To try and get this post back on track, (as it is in the tactics section) what army-list and tactics would everybody use to try to defeat such an Ork army? Dashofpepper, how would you fight this list with your Tau? You said that the orks are your wife's, have you ever played against her when she was using this list?

Sorry to derail again Peturbo, but I had to chime in on the 2nd ed Hero Hammer.

I started playing when 2nd ed first came out, and good god, the special characters back then were stupid. Bloodthirster had almost straight 10's for stats. The Deathjester (who no longer exists sadly, coolest character in the game for my money) was death on wheels, they guy could kill nearly anything (and for those who don't know, he was a harlequin character).

I used an inquisitor in termie armor that could kill ANYTHING in the game with one psychic power, no saves of any sort allowed. That was when termie armor was a 3+ on TWO dice. Plus, after that you got a 3+ invul save. It was stupid. The special characters now are nothing compared to then, but the game is far better now.

Anyway, back on track,

To beat the orks ever, the game is hugely dependent on set up and manuevre. Target priority for me is fast movers and trasports, lootas, then everything else.

Its easier said than done, as it always is, but you just need to play smart, keep out of charge radius and stick to your targeting. you have to set up smart and you will win, dice willing.

Tau have it good as they are mobile and shoot like mad. Vs. Horde orks you drop pie on them and JSJ as you always do. Against Nob Bikers you spam broadsides as Centurian suggested in another thread, and use pathfinders.

Orks are beatable, for sure, they are just really good right now.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sarigar:

The terminators were REALLY nasty. All powerweapons, fists, lightning klaws...led by a terminator captain or something - it was freakish. They were in cover too

Ghazghkull broke off from the nobs, declared a Waaugh! and assaulted the terminators alone. Powerweapons don't mean much against a 2+ invulnerable.

Ghazghkull with 7 powerklaw attacks and a 2+ invulnerable....he ate some terminators for lunch.

Its so nice to have useful characters.

Seems to me, "useful" isn't a strong enough word for a single character running off on his own and decimating an entire terminator assault squad well-embedded in terrain with a captain or possibly a character in the squad.

At that point, when the main strength of his army is removed by a single one of your guys, there's very little skill involved in the game.

Why has cheese turned into this:

"Nothings cheesey if its legal"
"I don't think its cheesey if its legal"
"It CANT be cheesey, he just used his army book"

Cheesey has never, and will never, implied illegality in a list.

Thats called cheating. A very different word, universally un-accepted in the gaming community.

CHEESY means something different to everyone, however it never means "illegal" or even implied illegality.

The most general definition is, if it:

1) Makes the game very skewed in your favor no matter what you face

2) "Abuses" a codex to make lists that by most peoples minds weren't intended

3) Makes the game less fun for your opponent, and not in a "God, I have to play the reigning chess champ!" sort of sense, more like the "God, that guy is allowed to use 4 queens when I only get one!" sort of way.

4) Is just another powerbuild that the guy obviously ripped off the internet to play.

And would everyone here stop getting a hard-on for mauleed and fantasy players. Trust me, their scene is absolutely no different than 40k.

Mauleed is generally either loved or hated, because he's a big proponent of trying as hard as he can to earn 0-1 comp. Some thing thats great, you're railing against comp. Some people just have absolutely no fun playing his stank list is the downside, and thats not the best for the hobby all the time. (And yes, I've played him, and no, I don't mind it)

Their players whine constantly about double slann, about stank armies, about fateweaver armies, about flamers, about ASF on high elves, etc etc. Its the exact same thing we see in 40k, the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence. It's still just grass.

TheBloodGod wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Sarigar:

The terminators were REALLY nasty. All powerweapons, fists, lightning klaws...led by a terminator captain or something - it was freakish. They were in cover too

Ghazghkull broke off from the nobs, declared a Waaugh! and assaulted the terminators alone. Powerweapons don't mean much against a 2+ invulnerable.

Ghazghkull with 7 powerklaw attacks and a 2+ invulnerable....he ate some terminators for lunch.

Its so nice to have useful characters.

Seems to me, "useful" isn't a strong enough word for a single character running off on his own and decimating an entire terminator assault squad well-embedded in terrain with a captain or possibly a character in the squad.

At that point, when the main strength of his army is removed by a single one of your guys, there's very little skill involved in the game.

However, the assault termie squad sitting in cover that no other unit of his could possibly handle was just fine...

Slugga boyz handle assault terminators just fine. Probably too good for their points, actually.

Assault termies only weakness, if you can call it that, is torrent of fire/attacks, orks do both of those just fine.


All of their models have plenty of attacks, their shooters are all about bad ap values and just making your opponent make a lot of saves (shoota boyz?, lootas?)

Slugga boyz handle assault termies just fine....I didn't have any squads of 30 boyz to try it with. I had squads of 12 boyz, and his terminator squad was...I don't know how big. 7 or 8 I think, plus the HQ guy attached. My squads of 12 would die trying to assault it. Ghazghkull and my nobs would have died trying to assault it.

Ghazghkull gets a Waaugh! once per game. Its a one trick pony and it lasts for one turn. He didn't kill them all by any means, but he did lay into them, and it took me a turn to handle his space marines next door with my Nobs. When they were dead, my Nobs charged into the terminators too, with some hope of surviving because there were less terminators now.

Now...in regard to special characters, I have to say again - I didn't start the hobby until after 5th edition came out. I don't care whether other people think 5th edition or more fair or less fair, or earlier editions were better or worse...I wasn't around for them and if GW thought that something from a previous edition was better, they wouldn't have changed it. I kind of agree with the "adapt and deal with" camp; the guy who posted that his FLGS doesn't allow people to play who have special characters in their list and other attempts to stay in 3rd/4th, whatever edition...I don't think that would be fun. Making up house rules is just fine...but don't call it 40k if you're not going to follow the 40k rulebook. =p

willydstyle wrote:Slugga boyz handle assault terminators just fine. Probably too good for their points, actually.

And assault terminators handle nobs too good for their points.

Units have strengths and weaknesses, that's how the game is.


Same thing with Ghazghkull; oh no, an expensive special character had to use his once-per-game ability making him more resilient against power weapons to destroy a squad that had all power weapons.

Why is plopping terminators in terrain and just sitting there some sort great tactic, that was unfairly invalidated by breaking Ghazghkull from his squad and using his ability to kill them?

I have to consider that a pretty good move, personally, and far more "tactical" than camping there in the woods with terminators.

Then you get into the argument that its cheesy because point for point one thing is superior to another. Again I do not like the word cheesy. I prefer overcompetitive or if my opponents behavior does indeed warrant such, I'll forever remember him as TFG.

As to the ghazkull vs assault termie squad. Just good use of tactics. The assault termies were just sitting(something they were not designed to do). Their strength is on the assault just like ghaz's. The fact that the player left them in a position to be charged/assaulted rather than assaulting himself was poor generalship.

Would it have made that much difference if Ghaz had taken the whole squad with him?
Would the termies have faired any better?
Would keeping ghaz with the squad have prevented him from assaulting the termies?
Was the opponent unaware of ghaz's presence in the army?

The answer to all of these is no. And the answer to the question is no it is not cheesy to outplay your opponent.


@ OP, I also play Tau and have grown accustomed to underpowered special characters. They seem to do this as part of the collective everyone is equal theme of the army(which I think is fluff BS).
I, too, would love more effective leaders at times, But then, I take down an army with a hero in it with my vanilla army and you just can't beat that feeling in a gaming sense.

My personal experience has led me to not use special charcters as much because of their points sink. Also, I usually find that the type of guy that tries to win through overwhelming power-stacks rather than through tactics and movement is annoying as hell(just my opinion).
IMHO and personal experience (your mileage may vary)He's more likely to be the guy who says things like, "you didn't beat me, my dice let me down". This type of player,also just my experience, generally shows a lower level of sportsmanship and is more of a lazy general(I'm less likely to learn anything tactics-wise).

It's because of this issue that when going to a tournament at a new store, with a new group, or in a different area I make it a point to always ask if special characters are allowed. I then ask if they are used prevalently in this area or group. By adjusting to the area I find that I have a more enjoyable experience.


edited for sentence stucture

I think it would help if the tournament advertised itself as what it A) allowed, and B) wanted.

All special characters and equipment choices encouraged

Limited use of Special characters appropriate. Using unique equipment to take advantage of mulitple wounds is frowned upon and likely to result in loss of fair-play points

No Special characters.

I also think it would be AWESOME to have a tournament where you bring your own army, but each game you play, you use your OPPONENTS army and they use yours. (As long as you trusted your opponents to not build crap armies)

EVEN BETTER, if you trusted the venue and other players, you could even swap armies and keep one other army for the whole day and maybe not even play against your own army. That way there would be no incentive to make it crap.

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:As I am told I am on old timer with outdated views, take this with a grain of salt. Also, i do not speak for all old timers, just myself. (And so much for customer loyalty being valued.)

Once upon a time special characters were, well, special. You would have to ask your opponents permission to use them. Some would argue was because they were very overpowered, but i don't see them being any less or more powerful now as they were. The limited use was designed to keep them SPECIAL, used for special games and for special occasions, not everyday use. Gazkull doesn't show up to every little waaag, he runs them, big ones. Abbadon is not personally involved with every single chaos attack. Vulcan does not protect every single imperial citizen at the same time.

I have 2 questions for you:

1; if you were to play against another ork player who also had Gazkull and Snikrot, what would you do? there is only one of each, as they are unique individuals. Would you roll off to see who got to use which? (that only seams fair to me).

2; What if you took out the special characters from your list and played with regular HQ choices? Would your opponents still call cheese? (could you still win?) If they ceased, then you know that they only have a distaste for special characters in everyday use. If they persist, well then they're lame and probable just sore losers, validating/redeeming you.

QFT

Not the hardest list you could possibly build, but I'd be suspicious of anyone using two special characters in such a small game. They're meant to be SPECIAL, right?

They are just a collection of rules and stats, that is all. THere is NO reason anyone could not use as many special characters as they chose to.

And peopl have been saying cheese is subjective, then they turn around and say most people think this, or the majority of gaming groups feel this.

Unless you have personally talked to MOST people who play 40K in the world, you are not justified in making that kind of statement, you are just generalizing based on your own feelings.

Cheese is subjective, period. There is no definition of cheese, and there never will be. In other countries people play lists that fluff monkeys in the states would cry about and in their country they think it is normal.

So, this is a dead horse we are beating for the umpteenth time. Just play the game the way you like to play it, and when yo go to a competetive game (if you do) expect a competetive army, not a fluff list and everything will be ok.


p.s. if anyone caught it, I meant a Solitaire in my previous post, not a death jester!

ima have to say cheese but only cuz gaz is an OP character in general. orks in general have a lot of OP stuff (gaz, the Green Tide formation, stompas, a general underpointed army, etc.) your opponent should have kept his thought to himself tho. personally, i feel the solid set of stats the orks have (WS4 and T4 and furious charge) should b more points.

Stompas are overpowered?

Not disagreeing with you there, but just about every super heavy is overpowered compared to non-superheavies.

It's an apoc thing, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

TheBloodGod wrote:


Seems to me, "useful" isn't a strong enough word for a single character running off on his own and decimating an entire terminator assault squad well-embedded in terrain with a captain or possibly a character in the squad.

At that point, when the main strength of his army is removed by a single one of your guys, there's very little skill involved in the game.

???

Ghazkull versus 5 assault Termis with TH/SS loadout: Charge into cover, doesn't matter because everyone's I1. Ghazkull swings 7 times, hits slightly more than four. Total of 3.88 wounds = 1.3 dead Assault Termis average after saves.

Termis swing back, total of 10 attacks, hit 5, wound 4.2 times, it's Ghaz's Waagh turn so he only takes .7 wounds, let's just call it no wounds. Ghaz wins combat by 1. One dead Terminator.

Next turn: Ghaz swings 5 times, hits slightly more than three, wounds 2.9, average of .9 (let's just call it 1) after invuln saves. 4 Termis swing back, hitting 4 times, wounding slightly more than 3, by averages Ghazkull would have failed at least one 2+ invuln by now so let's say he's got 1 wound off, Termis lose, 1 more dead Terminator and a tied combat.

Third assault round Ghaz swings 5 times, all the same stuff happens, 3 Termis swing back, hit 3 times, wound more than 2, Ghazkull kills another Termi and is probably still alive with 2 wounds left.

Fourth round Ghaz kills one more Terminator and takes another wound.

Fifth round Ghaz and the Terminator probably kill each other. 225 point Ghazkull trades his life for 240 points' worth of Assault Terminators.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd say what actually happened is that the Terminator player had nothing but anti-horde shooty terminators or Lightning-claw Terminators (meaning his list was badly set up from the get-go) and didn't screen them properly from Ghaz's invulnerable Waaagh. 5th edition doesn't favor armies with 20 models on the table. His fault for assembling a less than average list played with less than average tactics and expecting above average results.

That's my opinion, at least.

hahaha, well put sourclams! If only people would look to their own mistakes before trying to accuse someone else of cheese!

Reecius wrote:They are just a collection of rules and stats, that is all. THere is NO reason anyone could not use as many special characters as they chose to.

Yes, you are right that they can use as many specials as within the rules, but when overdone it can hurt the game as a whole. It's the same reason that people abandon epic level characters in rpg's to start new ones.
I, also, feel that respecting the desires of the local gaming community are a part of the game. They may put up house rules for what they feel are good reasons. Reasons like, keeping some players buying wins because of greater personal wealth.
As long as all players are made aware of such rules from the start, I personally have no problem with house ruled theme tournaments. I.E. An infantry themed limited SC for newer or under-funded players and seperate mech tournies for more well established players. Then the winners can go heads to head if they want.

Reecius wrote:And peopl have been saying cheese is subjective, then they turn around and say most people think this, or the majority of gaming groups feel this.

Unless you have personally talked to MOST people who play 40K in the world, you are not justified in making that kind of statement, you are just generalizing based on your own feelings.

Is this targeted at my my posts. If so, I think that I've been pretty good about stating that my comments are based upon my personal experinces. My opinions are based by personal physical experince from traveling the country year round and reading how many poeple seek to rules lawyer on the forums but, they are still only my opinions and have stated so.

Reecius wrote:Cheese is subjective, period. There is no definition of cheese, and there never will be. In other countries people play lists that fluff monkeys in the states would cry about and in their country they think it is normal.

Once again play according to the customes of your local group until you find ones willing to play the style that you want. This hurts nothing. I still feel there is really no cheese but once again this is only my opinion.

Reecius wrote:So, this is a dead horse we are beating for the umpteenth time. Just play the game the way you like to play it, and when yo go to a competetive game (if you do) expect a competetive army, not a fluff list and everything will be ok..

Yes play the way you like but if your not considerate of the other players you may find pick-up games a little harder to come by. Once again I feel the key is communication. The responsibility for informing the tournament entrants as to local customs and house rules goes to the Tourney organizer. If they do a poor job then politely let them know. If they seem dismissive then don't enter their tournaments and don't buy from there store unless there is no other choice.

edited for sentence structure

Hey focusedfire, I understand where you are coming from and I was speaking in general not just to you. I know I come across sounding more harsh than I would like to, but that is the internet for you. In real life I am pretty mellow. Well, most of the time!
You are correct, people should play how they choose to and not seek to piss others off, I know I do not.
The reason I get mad about it is that I used to game in a city where there was a big gaming club who shall remain unnamed that were a great bunch of guys, fun to play, great painters, etc. but were seriously cheese Nazis. They would purposely bring weak lists because they felt they were more fluffy. Now, if that is how you want to play then fine, but when you are participating in a competitive league or tournament and complain endlessly about everyone else being cheesy, it’s just annoying. They would try to impose all kinds of unwritten rules such as only taking 2 of any non troop choice unit, or not taking certain characters, etc. It was all arbitrary and limited what other people felt like they could bring, which is totally unfair to others. Cheese is such a crutch in some ways to people like that that if they form the majority it’s like walking on egg shells in your gaming community. If someone called you cheesy in the area in question it was like a flipping witch trial, and little clicks would gossip about each other like old women at a knitting club.
Now I have always played armies that are powerful but not what joe blow average would say is a WAAC list so I never got flak, but my buddies who did enjoy power gaming got hell for it. Guys would come to play them and just act like total cry babies instead of at least playing a game and having a good go. It annoyed me and I never even had to hear about it personally. Like I said, great guys on a personal level and I mean no disrespect to them at all, but in my opinion they were changing the rules to fit their game philosophy and were making the scene less enjoyable for everyone else.
I moved to another area where the overall skill and power level was higher and where the cries of cheese were minimal and I found myself enjoying my games SO much more. People brought what they wanted to bring, we had a huge gaming community and everyone had fun. Once in a while you would hear someone who was angry about losing call cheese, but nothing more than that. I found myself improving vastly in skill and it changed my attitude even further to the side of play what you want to play and play it well. Do not complain about another guys army until you are sure you made no mistakes that cost you the game.
The more competitive games I played, the more I realized you just had to use your brain to come up with ways to win, not more ways to complain about something.
I have since gamed in two other gaming communities and in both of them people were really relaxed on cries of cheese or what not and everyone just enjoys themselves. If you play a buddy and he says, hey would you mind not bringing your double lash list, I’d like to take a crack at your tzeentch list or whatever, then cool. But to ostracize people because of some arbitrary decision on what is or is not “fair” and not based on what kind of person they are is foolish and limiting.
So, hahah, if anyone read all that, that is why I hate the concept of cheese.

Reecius wrote:Hey focusedfire, I understand where you are coming from and I was speaking in general not just to you. I know I come across sounding more harsh than I would like to, but that is the internet for you. In real life I am pretty mellow. Well, most of the time!

TRUTH!

So, hahah, if anyone read all that, that is why I hate the concept of cheese.

QFT, obviously, just trying not to get 2 huge posts in a row.

Reecius wrote:The reason I get mad about it is that I used to game in a city where there was a big gaming club who shall remain unnamed that were a great bunch of guys, fun to play, great painters, etc. but were seriously cheese Nazis. They would purposely bring weak lists because they felt they were more fluffy. Now, if that is how you want to play then fine, but when you are participating in a competitive league or tournament and complain endlessly about everyone else being cheesy, it’s just annoying. They would try to impose all kinds of unwritten rules such as only taking 2 of any non troop choice unit, or not taking certain characters, etc. It was all arbitrary and limited what other people felt like they could bring, which is totally unfair to others. Cheese is such a crutch in some ways to people like that that if they form the majority it’s like walking on egg shells in your gaming community. If someone called you cheesy in the area in question it was like a flipping witch trial, and little clicks would gossip about each other like old women at a knitting club.

And this is the biggest problem with the constant cries of cheese. It got so bad in the local community here that it is too much stress to even bother to play...I was constantly worried about being called names because of the list that I brought...I think of something to try in an army list and instantly go from 'Hey, that would be cool to try' to 'people will hate me if I bring that'. I got shouted down (Online) as a waac player about a list I thought would be fun that was basically combat squadded marines using the 4th ed codex. When the new edition came around and I didn't like it's direction, it was a nice excuse not to play any more regardless of how much I love the idea of 40k.

In short, the bullies that cry 'cheese' or 'rules lawyer' at anyone that doesn't play the way they think the game 'should' be played are ruining the hobby. Instead of just saying that they don't enjoy playing that way, it's always the shouting down and piling on that the other person is a bad person out to ruin everyone's enjoyment.

Whatever happened to just bringing a list and having fun?

skyth wrote:

TheBloodGod wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Sarigar:

The terminators were REALLY nasty. All powerweapons, fists, lightning klaws...led by a terminator captain or something - it was freakish. They were in cover too

Ghazghkull broke off from the nobs, declared a Waaugh! and assaulted the terminators alone. Powerweapons don't mean much against a 2+ invulnerable.

Ghazghkull with 7 powerklaw attacks and a 2+ invulnerable....he ate some terminators for lunch.

Its so nice to have useful characters.

Seems to me, "useful" isn't a strong enough word for a single character running off on his own and decimating an entire terminator assault squad well-embedded in terrain with a captain or possibly a character in the squad.

At that point, when the main strength of his army is removed by a single one of your guys, there's very little skill involved in the game.

However, the assault termie squad sitting in cover that no other unit of his could possibly handle was just fine...

Uhm, the entire ork codex is full of things that can handle assault termies just fine.

A squad of 10 hammer and shield termies isn't killing anything while it's stuck in a patch of trees. A smart player could just whittle it away with small guns fire, lootas, etc. A 4+ cover save against shooting doesn't mean much when you have a 3+ invulnerable already.

Not to mention that the 10-man termie squad is 400 points without even adding a SM HQ which might've been in there too.

That's enough to buy 66 Ork boyz w/ sluggas or shootas. 4 S4 attacks for each of those 66 would bring down termies just by sheer volume.

Don't forget, defending cover is MEANT TO be a bonus.

Unless the ork player lost 400 points of boys (must be very bad at rolling dice) then it's nothing to compare to losing 400 points of terminators that were being used intelligently.

Was the answer the ork player used anything smart? Anything strategic? Did he lure him out with gunfire or some fodder or something? No. He simply tossed one super character in to win the game.

I have to agree with the marine player.

Edit: Apparently they weren't shield termies, so they were even easier kills for him.

skyth wrote:In short, the bullies that cry 'cheese' or 'rules lawyer' at anyone that doesn't play the way they think the game 'should' be played are ruining the hobby. Instead of just saying that they don't enjoy playing that way, it's always the shouting down and piling on that the other person is a bad person out to ruin everyone's enjoyment.

Whatever happened to just bringing a list and having fun?

Note the bolded sentence. I think that is the key thing here. Personally I bought a massive load of stuff so I could have the options and try out different lists... even if they are a bit on the "cheese" side. It's certainly fun to experiment and I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I do have a problem with though, is exactly what skyth said; when people start belittling the player and calling them names. The point of this GAME is to have fun. That is the very first rule in the rulebook even before it tells you what a D6 is! On that same token though, if someone wants to play a fluffy list then that's fine. If they want to play a WAAC (or tournament, etc) list, that's also fine. Just don't insult your would-be opponent for politely declining. If they don't want to play against that particular list because it won't be enjoyable for them, then that is perfectly acceptable.

I am glad to hear others have experienced the same thing. Well, I am mad to hear but glad i was not alone in that.

And thebloodgod, do the math man. If you ever want to know what will most likely happen in a given situation, run the numbers in your head before you make a gamin decision. Its called being a good general.

If you know Ghaz will likely kill your super squad on the turn he WAAGHS!! then stay away form him until he does it. Make it your number one priority to take out his transport, I mean the guy is slow and purposeful for crying out loud, anything can outrun him!

If the other guy was too poor of a player to do that then he deserved to get hammered. And if the dummy had assault termies in cover then he extra deserved to get hammered.

We dont know what happened as we were not there, but it sounds like he played a gak game and got owned as you should when you play a gak game. Don't blame it on the model; the OP had to get Ghaz in the right place which is not as easy as people make it sound when you play a general who knows what he is doing. Its easy when you play a crappy general and then you hear people cry cheese.

anticitizen013 wrote:

skyth wrote:In short, the bullies that cry 'cheese' or 'rules lawyer' at anyone that doesn't play the way they think the game 'should' be played are ruining the hobby. Instead of just saying that they don't enjoy playing that way, it's always the shouting down and piling on that the other person is a bad person out to ruin everyone's enjoyment.

Whatever happened to just bringing a list and having fun?

Note the bolded sentence. I think that is the key thing here. Personally I bought a massive load of stuff so I could have the options and try out different lists... even if they are a bit on the "cheese" side. It's certainly fun to experiment and I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I do have a problem with though, is exactly what skyth said; when people start belittling the player and calling them names. The point of this GAME is to have fun. That is the very first rule in the rulebook even before it tells you what a D6 is! On that same token though, if someone wants to play a fluffy list then that's fine. If they want to play a WAAC (or tournament, etc) list, that's also fine. Just don't insult your would-be opponent for politely declining. If they don't want to play against that particular list because it won't be enjoyable for them, then that is perfectly acceptable.

Yeah, that's the important thing.

So many people act like if someone won't play against their super tooled (Unbeatable Win-at-all-Costs list) then that person is a "sissy" and a "cry baby" and a "whiner" who can't "think for himself" and is "just too lazy to win", but it's a game, and it's about having fun. It won't help things if they complain about being called "cheesy" by calling everyone else names.

It might be a good idea if you're randomly playing someone who you don't have experience with if you hold back from bringing that 45 Loota no-fun-for-other-guy army list until you've played several games together.

For those guys who say "Just enjoy being the underdog and enjoy a challenge" would you act the same way if you agreed to a 1500 point game and your opponent showed up with a 2000 point army to fight your 1500 point one?
There's a good chance yah wouldn't be saying "War isn't fair" or "Just improve yourself instead of complaining" or all those things when You were on the receiving end of an inevitable killfest. Then again, some people might. It's a hobby, so people are allowed to have different things they enjoy about it.

TheBloodGod wrote:Was the answer the ork player used anything smart? Anything strategic? Did he lure him out with gunfire or some fodder or something? No. He simply tossed one super character in to win the game.

He broke Ghaz off from his squad and used his invulnerable giving ability at a crucial moment, against the perfect enemy to be using it.

I don't know what kind of crazy, Ender's Game tactics go on in your games, but in my games that's about the extent of what you can do to win this game.

And how is "camp in trees for great justice" so much more tactical? Or is it just the ork player who needs to be using all sorts of brilliant tactics while the space marine player just sits there with his terminators?

@Reecius, no problems dude. Was working from the point of balance and that a lot of this is like what you said about the word, "subjective". So when in doubt refer to the First rule.


@Everyone,All of this negativity stems in part from the use of a word. A subjective term that is difficult to quantify. The term "cheesy" can be used in jest but a lot of the time its not used so. It is a statement that seems to have more of a personal onus than being simple critique.

This is why I prefer to not use the term. If I tell you that I feel that your list is a little over-competitive for what I brought that day, you understand as it is a reasonable statement(personally I'd still have a go to see how well I do and if I could find a weakness to exploit). It's not so if I were to say cheesy. I know that over time and with misuse that the term over-competitive might degenerate to the same thing. But, as it is a more quantifiable and less vague statement I think it will hold up.

Then there is the matter of timing. If you say something before the game starts it gives a chance(outside of tourney) to come too a meeting of the minds. But when used during or after a game it is unquestionably poor sportsmanship and should probably be pointed out as such.
The same goes for people who pressure someone to play a game they're not up for(obviously a non-tourney setting). Mind you I'm not totally opposed to some friendly smack-talk or taking a shot if its TFG trying to duck out with his "unbeatable"list when he sees that you have his number. Even then I'm not proud of myself but sometimes just can't help it. (*sigh* Someday I'll be a better person.) Otherwise, I agree that its best to respect the other persons feelings.

TheBloodGod wrote:
It might be a good idea if you're randomly playing someone who you don't have experience with if you hold back from bringing that 45 Loota no-fun-for-other-guy army list until you've played several games together.

Granted, I don't play Orks and I wouldn't play Lootas if I did probably, but the general gist of the message that I'm getting is that I am expect to bring a list that I consider less fun to play.

The gist is that your not playing by yourself, what you may consider fun he may not.

Thats why you communicate before hand, so both of you will enjoy yourselves. It may be less fun but it is still more fun than no game and when you get to know one another you will get to play the games way you want because you'll help him come up to another level. It's about fair trades.


Edited for premature cat entry.

This is simply my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

My best friend and I played 40k together for over 2 years, in which he never won. No matter what army I was playing or which edition of rules he couldn't beat me. And after every game we would critique one another's game, and yes i made a lot of mistakes too. Suddenly he quit playing 40k, switched to Fantasy. I asked him why, more or less thinking I knew the answer, he didn't win. But because he didn't win he didn't like the rules, they were stupid. Blah Blah Blah. Then he hit me with something I wasn't expecting, he told me all my lists were cheesy.

Yes thats right, over the past 2 years and 2 editions of rules I never failed to write up a cheesy 40k list. Even ones that I literally spent less than 5 mins on was still, according to him, cheesy.

Regardless to say he sucked at the game, given that he WAS my best friend I didn't believe it and tried to make him better, but all my attempts were in vain.

This just goes to prove that crappy players will always find a way to blame their failings on something other than themselves. ALWAYS!

Needless to say we don't speak anymore, and the douche bag has stopped playing fantasy cause he couldn't win at that either.

So you got rid of a best friend because he said your lists were cheesy?

Oh the loyalty...you guys knew it was a game right?

focusedfire wrote:The gist is that your not playing by yourself, what you may consider fun he may not.

And vice versa. I don't think it's fun playing with only a couple huge squads of Troops.

Thats why you communicate before hand, so both of you will enjoy yourselves. It may be less fun but it is still more fun than no game and when you get to know one another you will get to play the games way you want because you'll help him come up to another level. It's about fair trades.

Sometimes no game is more fun than playing against someone who doesn't like playing the same way. Not to mention that there are quite a few people that will not enter into the 'fair trades'. It's only thier way to play or they start labeling you a bad person.

Then do you really want to game with those people? If they are really that way then they'll find a way to make the game miserable.

It's like I said, talk with them. At some point you'll find some like minded individuals that you'll end up making a gaming group with. The rest you'll only have to listen to them whine during a tournament.

Acutally, I decided that I didn't want to game with them, so I quit 40k.

Sounds like a mature well thought out response to people being a bit annoying....quitting your hobby...

If I'm not going to have fun...If every game is just stressful, then what is the point of playing?

Sounds like a mature well thought out response to people being a bit annoying....quitting your hobby...

It's a social hobby. What do you do when the only people that maintain that hobby are total Woops! A Swear! Don't do that, you naughty little boy! that wreck the game for you?

Case in point, Dungeons and Dragons. I'm an avid D&D fan, have been for years going back to a group of my best friends through grade school. We rocked out hardcore in AD&D and 3rd-3.5 edition. Now we've all moved away, I'm in a new town, and the only gaming groups I've found are made up of 30-50 somethings that weigh, literally, 300+ pounds, are part-time employed, have no acting skills but insist they do, and create shallow, railroad-shooter style adventures with plots thinner than clear chicken broth. To put it lightly, that gaming scene is weak and it's all there is.

The result, I haven't played D&D in a very long time.

Look for a new gaming group? Unless you're in a truly desolate, desolate location, there are more gamers than you think around.

If I was really into my hobby (which I am) I'd simply look for different people to play with.

I've had times where I do dislike the local shop, so I'll drive 30 minutes to an hour once a week to go hang out with decent folks.

D&D...eh...well...can't help you there...

@Skyth, Not trying to be insulting but your comments bring to mind something my mom once said to me.

I was 20 and going off about why my relationships weren't working out because this, that, and the other.
Mom picked that moment to ask me did I really think it was everyone else or could it just possibly be me that was the problem.

When I argued, she pointed out that if the same problem happened everytime that the odds were that I was the problem not the world. God I always hated it when she was right, like that, but I did grow on a personal level.

Edited for clarification

targetawg wrote:Look for a new gaming group? Unless you're in a truly desolate, desolate location, there are more gamers than you think around.

Actually, I switched to Fantasy...Better group of people to play with here, where you can just bring a list and play and not worry about being called names for it.

If I was really into my hobby (which I am) I'd simply look for different people to play with.

With the switch to the new edition and all the changes that would make the game less fun for me...It makes me not too into the 'hobby' any more anyways.

"Cheese is the battlecry of the unprepared."

I don't think anything is really cheese. You're either playing within the rules or you are cheating.

Back to the original situation of a tournament setting, my strictness on composition scores would mostly be based on my opinion of the player. If the guy brings a hard list, but he's cool and actually trying to keep the game fun, i'll more than likely be very lenient and not dock him anything. However if he's being a TFG and complaining about every little thing and basically making the game a chore, I won't hesitate to dock him extra when it comes time to hand out the subjective scores. If people care more about winning a toy soldier game, then having fun playing a toy soldier game, they're breaking the first and greatest rule in the rulebook and deserved to be penalized. The best players are the ones who can stomp the crap out of you, but still let you have fun while they're doing it.

focusedfire wrote:The gist is that your not playing by yourself, what you may consider fun he may not.

Exactly.

I see a lot of people acting like it's only their enjoyment of the game that matters, and not that of anyone they play against ever.

If I felt like that I'd go out of my way to buy whatever army was #1 competitively and then spam nothing but the #1 units.

I think I'd find myself without any friends or anyone to play with if I had that attitude though.

I think bringing 45 S7 D3 shot lootas and nob bikers w/ the wound-juggling might be fun for me, but it'd be one miserable afternoon for the other player.

I've played quite a bit and have played 40k from one side of the US to the other. Sir your list was not chesse.

On a side note what happened to mauleed could some one PM

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:Back to the original situation of a tournament setting, my strictness on composition scores would mostly be based on my opinion of the player. If the guy brings a hard list, but he's cool and actually trying to keep the game fun, i'll more than likely be very lenient and not dock him anything. However if he's being a TFG and complaining about every little thing and basically making the game a chore, I won't hesitate to dock him extra when it comes time to hand out the subjective scores. If people care more about winning a toy soldier game, then having fun playing a toy soldier game, they're breaking the first and greatest rule in the rulebook and deserved to be penalized. The best players are the ones who can stomp the crap out of you, but still let you have fun while they're doing it.

And this is one reason comp doesn't work. People confuse COMP and SPORTS.

If he's TFG you dock his SPORTS
If his list is hard (in a comp setting) you dock his COMP

Not docking comp for an un-compy list means people who brought the flavor of the week power army have a leg up on the rest of the field who brought purposefully "softer" army lists to participate in a comp-environment.

targetawg wrote:

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:Back to the original situation of a tournament setting, my strictness on composition scores would mostly be based on my opinion of the player. If the guy brings a hard list, but he's cool and actually trying to keep the game fun, i'll more than likely be very lenient and not dock him anything. However if he's being a TFG and complaining about every little thing and basically making the game a chore, I won't hesitate to dock him extra when it comes time to hand out the subjective scores. If people care more about winning a toy soldier game, then having fun playing a toy soldier game, they're breaking the first and greatest rule in the rulebook and deserved to be penalized. The best players are the ones who can stomp the crap out of you, but still let you have fun while they're doing it.

And this is one reason comp doesn't work. People confuse COMP and SPORTS.

If he's TFG you dock his SPORTS
If his list is hard (in a comp setting) you dock his COMP

Not docking comp for an un-compy list means people who brought the flavor of the week power army have a leg up on the rest of the field who brought purposefully "softer" army lists to participate in a comp-environment.

I can't really tell what your saying here, but I believe you just said. People who have strong lists should get docked points. Which is incredibly unfair, unless the person was being annoying and obnoxious throughout the game. Really if it's in the rules, who are you to say, "your army is too strong I'm marking you down." Some people are just competitive.

1) What I'm saying is obvious

2) Yes, I did say "hard lists should get docked points" in a comp environment.

It's like playing in a doubles tournament and complaining when they don't let you play because you didn't show up with a partner.

Its a comp tournament. You knew that when you decided to show up and enter. List composition is therefore part of the event. Don't be so arrogant as to think your particular view on comp should be forced upon the tournament organizers of the event that is being run for you.

In a non-comp environment, its totally inappropriate for people to dock your sports based on your list composition ie, "what a jerk, nidzilla again? thats a 0 sports". Just as inappropriate as showing up to a comp tournament and saying "my nob biker shouldn't get low comp, I'm just competitive!"

And "Who am i to say". I'm your opponent. In a tournament with composition scores. Therefore, I will mark down your composition score. Don't expect it to be max for nob biker, nidzilla, or dual lash.

Don't like it? Don't show up to an event with comp scores and whine about it. The rest of us showed up to play a tournament with comp, and we're going to.

Edit: Removed caps, used em to emphasize the message, turned out just looking like i was yelling. bolded for emphasis, think it works better

I will also say that i'm not trying to speak to whether comp belongs in events or not, thats a whole other debate.

Just if it IS in an event, you can't call foul when nob biker doesn't hit 20/20 on the comp scores, and hits more in the 0-1 range, regardless of it being legal.

Comp events are actually quite understanding to the player base if you think about it, they want a comp event, they run one, but they also include an award based independently of comp, Best General, which is one of the biggest awards, based solely on battle points.

Except when they have best general combining comp and battle points. Especially when comp is judged by things other than the raw power of the list.

Simple answer then: Don't go to the comp event.

And I've never seen Best General combine comb and BP, that sounds like more of an exception than the norm

Comp is always subjective, just like painting, you know its a crap shoot walking in to an event.

@ OP, I still stand with my vote that the list was not cheesy and the majority of the vote feels the same way.

Still, you can see how this is somewhat controversial just by reading this thread. Which is why I suggest finding out the gaming customes for each particular store or event.
You respect the local custom or philosophy, then getting support in shutting up the poor sports that bring their whine and cheesy will be a lot easier. This should also improve the gaming atmosphere at said places. If not, then certainly don't reward them with any of your money being spent there.

targetawg wrote:Simple answer then: Don't go to the comp event.

And I've never seen Best General combine comb and BP, that sounds like more of an exception than the norm

Comp is always subjective, just like painting, you know its a crap shoot walking in to an event.

In a tournament series I used to attend in Sacramento they just started to combine Comp and Battle Score for the Best General award.

And in that series comp is hard-scored, and NOT subjective.

What kind of hard-scoring system do they use? I'd like to attend an event where comp isnt just "judge opinion" as I typically find in east-coast tournies.

Great Escape Games in Sacramento. Some of the locals are pricks, but the guy who organizes the tourney and runs the store is great and unbiased.

Here's the link to the comp scoring for their "Contest of Champions."

Contest of Champions Comp

It's alright, but...isnt whoever made that subjective? Whoever made that made it based on what they determined was and was not appropriate for an army.

Mech armies are punished because the creator feels infantry should outweigh by a factor of 10?

Taking more troops is rewarded, what about the fact that plenty of armies have bad troop selections, and some have amazing ones?

Etc etc, all comp is pretty subjective, imo. Even hard systems had to be created at some point.

But the point is that the comp system is not left up to the opposing player: it's set so that everyone has guidelines, and the option of following those specific guidelines or not. I'm personally not a fan of comp systems, but at least that comp system doesn't allow players to tank their opponents comp on whim.

Ah ok, thats what you meant. The events I've been to the judges score it for everyone, however they don't release how they score it, and it still ends up feeling subjective.

I received a 6 with mechanized heavy imperial guard, and a dual lash CSM guy with the oblits and normal trappings scored a 6 as well.

Im not a huge comp fan, but I'll play it when I go, although it usually leaves a bad taste in my mouth afterwards I must say.

targetawg wrote:It's alright, but...isnt whoever made that subjective? Whoever made that made it based on what they determined was and was not appropriate for an army.

At least it's open and honest about exactly what is and is not expected. That being said, I don't think this specific comp system is a very good way of judging the power of the lists.

I agree. It penalizes many builds that are just fine and balanced, or even underpowered, and doesn't do anything to deal with some specific over-powered builds. You can make a super-nasty ork list, but Guard lists of all kinda are heavily penalized, except for drop-guard, which is the nastiest guard build available.

Well, speaking of witch trials...

If anyone is up for some interesting reading, my "cheesy" list and the results of the tournament spawned a "witch trial" so to speak....

There's a 12 page thread here, with several previous threads in several different of our local gaming forums that spawned because of it. Personally, I'm moving out of the area at the end of the month so...I don't care anymore. But you can read some of the drama and flaming here:

http://karakgorbard.createforum.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=404

Dakka has enough pointless drama and stupid flames, don't bring your flame wars from elsewhere here.

You went into that thread, it seems, rehashing an old issue and talking down to people in a forum set aside for flaming.

Surprise.

You got flamed.

Its a lame list. Its got Ghazzie. Its got snikrot and his kommandos. Its a 1300 point game. If you'd simply of admitted it was a lame list instead of sitting on a high horse, I doubt people would have cared.

If I brought Eldrad/Seer council/Avatar or some such to that event, I'd expect the same treatment.

I happen to like Ghazzie.

I made some army lists that didn't have him to try other things and since its my wife's army and the lists were sort of "general lists" for her to try, she wanted Ghazghkull in all of them. The end result is that he shows up in every army list.

I happen to like eldrad, doesn't mean he belongs in that points level.

And its not just ghazzie, you took snikrot and his kommandos, with ghazzie, at that points level.

Your list was a bit lame, the real issue seems to be that when told that, you argued it wasn't. If you'd of just admitted that it was a pretty power-gamer army for a 1300 point tourney, I doubt anyone would have batted an eye.

Well, that's why this thread exists. Relatively speaking, I'm still pretty damn new (5th edition+) to 40k, and have very limited experience with the game that's limited to a small group of gamers in one store. This tournament was my first time gaming out of "that circle" of people.

That "circle" said that the list wasn't overpowered, the other people did, figured I'd come here for a neutral 3rd assessment.

In my opinion, you erased the possibility of a neutral 3rd assessment when you dragged in old issues, issues that were completely unrelated to this forum in whole. I'm not taking pot shots at you. Just saying...don't start stuff, won't be stuff. I get the impression that most don't give a damn about the background story.

I see a lot of people acting like it's only their enjoyment of the game that matters, and not that of anyone they play against ever.

If I felt like that I'd go out of my way to buy whatever army was #1 competitively and then spam nothing but the #1 units.

So someone that likes to play hard lists doesn't want their opponent to enjoy the game? And someone who doesn't play a hard list is somehow a saint who just wants everyone to have fun? Bee Essss

If you get in someones face cause they have a cheesy list, then does that 'cheesemongers' enjoyment of the game really matter to you? Of course not, all that matters is that you feel you won't have fun playing against such a list.

To the TO, no your list was not cheesy IMHO but there's a number of things taht would make it so to others. Hopefully you are learning how subjective cheese is and how much nerd rage can come from discussing it on both sides of the discussion.

Best way to be is open either way. I have fun whether its a no comp, hard ass all the way event or a comp event full of soft scores. Accpet other peoples opinions for what they are, adapt to each store/tournaments rules and quirks and have a good time with your toy soldiers.

willydstyle wrote:Great Escape Games in Sacramento. Some of the locals are pricks, but the guy who organizes the tourney and runs the store is great and unbiased.

Here's the link to the comp scoring for their "Contest of Champions."

Contest of Champions Comp

Marines of almost any flavor get boned, especially if you take a "hero character", and if you take Lysander, then your "hero character" is also a "power character".

Orks, on the other hand....

Big Mek with KFF
Killa Kan with Grotzooka x9
Deff Dread w/2x Skorcha
20 Boyzx4 w/ PK Nob
9 Trukk Boyz w/ PK Nob and Trukk
3x Nobs (for battlewagon)
Battlewagon dedicated to Nobs
15 Lootaz

~1750 point list with 12 vehicles (18 S6 blasts a turn from Grotzookas) that get 4+ saves from KFF with a Big Mek safe inside the Battlewagon alongside 90 Boyz and 15 Lootas with 5 squad-based power klaws

Full points for fluffy composition.

Now, mind you, I don't think there's anything wrong with the above list from a Comp perspective. Death Skulls or Bad Moonz could both run this list and be fully within their background characterizations, but I'm pretty sure if you showed me another non-Ork tourney list that could score full Comp points, this one would smash it into the dirt 19 times out of 20.

It's great that they tried to codify their composition into an objective document, but all that really does is tell you what armies are at an automatic disadvantage.

winterman wrote:

I see a lot of people acting like it's only their enjoyment of the game that matters, and not that of anyone they play against ever.

If I felt like that I'd go out of my way to buy whatever army was #1 competitively and then spam nothing but the #1 units.

So someone that likes to play cheesy lists doesn't want their opponent to enjoy the game?

There's no requirement that someone who likes to play cheesy win-at-all-cost lists wants other people to not have any fun, but it's definite that that person doesn't care about allowing other people to have just as much fun.

I'm only talking about the extremes. The majority of people make lists that are balanced. My friend has always been a nid player but he's never felt a compulsion to run with like 3-6 carnifexes and 2 hive tyrants in a low-points game.

Would it be more fun for you to have nobz bikers + 45 lootas and fight someone else with the exact same list because his other lists are less competitive? I think that might get boring after a while.

If you're as good as everyone who says "everyone is whiners, I'm just such a great general" then you should be able to win games even without spamming units that like half the gamers think are overly-lethal.

In my opinion nob biker and lash whip lists are the only real cheese lists. Your opponents are just suprised and angry that they lost. Cheers Ghaz is a beast, i would field him if i had the model, Who wouldn't? he is awesome incarnate

Those comp guidelines are about the silliest thing I've ever seen. Second, of course, to the comp guidelines from the GT circuit in 2001 or 2002.

The fact is that its simply impossible to come up with a comp guideline that actually works for all armies, or that isn't abusable.

***

Cheese is simply a player whining because they can't win without changing their lists. They've bought into the "everything should be equally good in a codex" meme. It's actually something of a contradiction...people who claim "cheese" say they just want to have fun playing the game...but at the same time, they obviously want to win. They just don't want to either use more effective units themselves (or not use ineffective units), or they want some sort of handicap.

Comp scores are simply a (bad) means of handicapping players to try and level the playing field. Mission design is a much more effective means of levelling the playing field, especially missions where players have to achieve multiple, unrelated objectives.

Having said that...there's also a world of difference between tournament games (where the objective, is, of course, to win), and your normal friendly pickup games. Sometimes, in pickup games, we're doing "tournament prep" where we're testing stuff out for future tournament play. Other times, we're just taking some random stuff and playing out a game. Both are fun, but you just need to know ahead of time what you're doing. Heck, sometimes in pickup games I'll ask my opponent which units he wants me to field.

Ok, to that guy before, like I said I couldn't understand the way you wrote out your post. I see now you meant composition, which it would be fair, I guess. Though personally I think having that as a way to score generals is unfair.

But personally I think anyone can take what list they like, some people seem to have this idea that "power gamers", better referred to as competitive people, want no one to have fun. Which is completely ridiculous. They just enjoy competition or are a perfectionist when it comes to lists etc. They don't want to make purposefully weaker armies as that would reduce THEIR enjoyment.

Well, I think we (those that do think the list is "cheesy") need to specify what about or what part of the list makes it "cheesy." Let's not make assumptions about people who have "cheesy" lists or those who call other people's lists "cheesy". Let's re-focus on what constitutes "cheese," why people take/make said lists, and why people complain/don't want to play against "cheesy" lists.

TheBloodGod wrote:

There's no requirement that someone who likes to play cheesy win-at-all-cost lists wants other people to not have any fun, but it's definite that that person doesn't care about allowing other people to have just as much fun.

And you obviously don't care about the person who likes to play powerful lists ability to have fun either.

TheBloodGod wrote:
There's no requirement that someone who likes to play cheesy win-at-all-cost lists wants other people to not have any fun, but it's definite that that person doesn't care about allowing other people to have just as much fun.

"Cheesy win-at-all-cost" people (which I probably am one by your definition) like to play other cheesy, win-at-all-cost people because they put up a tough game that is challenging, intellectually stimulating, and fun.

I have 0 fun when I stomp the yard with some crappy battle box list that was poorly deployed and badly commanded. 0. That person doesn't care about my enjoyment of the game when they arrive unprepared and execute poorly.

Dearest mods, I've gotten what I wanted from this thread - some 100 people have chimed in and voted, and the percentages have stayed pretty much the same throughout the voting.

Please close this thread at your convenience.

As I read the these last entries where power-players thump their chest and discover fire to flame with in what has been a fairly well-behaved thread. I, sadly, find that my what will probably be my last post before the thread closes is going to probably throw fuel on that fire. Sorry

To all who scream, "what about my enjoyment of playing an uber-list" and"It's not fair because they don't want to play my over-powered list".

Pleases to read definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

And the people who whine about 'cheesy' lists, not wanting to play against them and that people who use them are bad people are using the exact same argument. That is the point that Sourclams and I are making.
Your post should be directed at them just as much as it was us.

Personal Anecdote:

There's a mid-thirty-something guy that plays Eldar exclusively and has for years at my local gaming store. For a long time, he sucked. By sucked, I mean that he never won games. He'd make bogus lists that would have a couple mediocre turns, then he'd scoop his dice and go "GOD I SUCK THIS IS SO CRAP YOUR LIST IS CHEEZ MAN" and walk away from the table. He was a decent guy, but he exhibited a complete quitter complex. After awhile, a few individuals manged to convince Ted to simply play the game to the end, good or bad. He found himself tying a few games, then began tweaking his list, and now he's reckoned one of the 'Arder players to run up against. He has a lot more fun, and is a lot more fun to play with. In short, he shut up and put up. Now he's a more interesting hobbyist.

@ focusedfire:

Competitiveness and possibly Perfectionism are much more apt personality traits than Narcissism to describe power players. It's quite likely that some power players are narcissists, but it would be virtually impossible to include all min/maxer gamers in that group. Narcissism in the detrimental or derogatory sense that you're implying would refer to an inability to admit error/failure/implement change, which is actually impossible if you are a min/maxer gamer; the Narcissistic Eldar player, for example, would insist that Harlequins are unbeatable mystical combatants, capable of dissecting any unit simply because of their uberness. When the unit inevitably loses a combat, it's the fault of the other player for being "cheap", or the dice for rolling "suck", or in short anything and everything except his Harlie-centric tactics. The Min/maxer on the other hand realizes that 5th ed rending and combat engagement rules lessen the power of Harlequins and instead runs Seer Council Jetbikes.

How does one get their thread closed?

Say something inappropriate enough to get it shitcanned.

Think offensive.

Theres also that exclamation point in the yellow triangle at the top left of every post that alerts a mod, suppose you could just use it to ask for it to be closed.

But think offensive.

More fun for us.

@Skyth, Haven't seen a lot of cheesy cries here. Directed comments the way I did because when offered the option of a moderate response, some could only cry about how it wasn't fair to them as opposed to looking at whats fair for both.

If these players are so unchallenging then why the need for such highly competitive lists. If the level of play isn't a challenge for you then handi-cap yourself with a weak list and then beat these people you say always cry cheese.

You do this, it shuts them up and a few will start asking you for advice. Within three to six months some will be playing closer to the gamestyle you like instead of stagnating.

@ Sourclams, The intended use was more of the psychological sub-definition.

I intended it towards those whose veiw is so self-centered that they can only point to how they are being wronged as opposed to how they are wronging others.

I stand by the definition of narcissism. This is because someone who loves only themself, and works toward the elevation of the self, will indeed learn to use the tools which will help in their quest for self-aggrandizement. So I disagree as to your assesment of narcissistic nature.

Your story just above your reply points to what I've hinted at to the power players. If the games in your area aren't up to your standard then you can always help some of them to bring their gaming level up. Then your not alone, you show others that they can improve their level of play, and you will get games that are a challenge. You help them go from, "some crappy battle box list that was poorly deployed and badly commanded" to an effective player. When one stops thinking of self only and helps the community to improve then there is personal reward in that their are more skilled players available.

An over-competitive person goes for the win and then gripes about the poor level of compitition. He almost never takes time to discuss how the opponent could have adjusted and done better. If he does so it is usually in an overly patronizing tone that immediately turns the other persons ears off.

If your tired of the whining then you can take action. You look and you will find like minded individuals who would love to benefit from the experience of a seasoned player.



@Dashofpepper, Hit the exclamation point in the top right hand corner and ask for mod to close thread.


edit for punctuation

focusedfire wrote:@Skyth, Haven't seen a lot of cheesy cries here. Directed comments the way I did because when offered the option of a moderate response, some could only cry about how it wasn't fair to them as opposed to looking at whats fair for both.

Actually, TheBloodGod started in on the power gamers with the old canned bullying that they're bad people unless they play his way, which started the thread spiraling.

If these players are so unchallenging then why the need for such highly competitive lists. If the level of play isn't a challenge for you then handi-cap yourself with a weak list and then beat these people you say always cry cheese.

Playing the handicapped lists isn't fun for me.

You do this, it shuts them up and a few will start asking you for advice. Within three to six months some will be playing closer to the gamestyle you like instead of stagnating.

In my experience they just think that you finally saw the light, but won't compromise the other way. Doesn't matter what I play, I still get attacked and piled on on at the local group of 40k players.

Like I asked before, whatever happened to just bringing a list you want to play and having fun with a game? People should just worry about what they're bringing instead of trying to bully the other person into playing something else.

"Yes, the whole world is against you. You must be very important."........Words spoken to the side, to yours truly, by a REAL friend when I indulged in a very selfcentered point of view of why everyone was against me.

Again I ask the question, "Is it more likely everyone else or is it more likely something that your doing to precipitate such behavior?

Not trying to be a jerk. Just reminds me a little of me about 25 years ago and passing on the words that helped me.

Then let me put it this way:

Your point of view, if I adopted it, would result in me showing up at my game store with a list that the majority of people would consider "crappy". The regular people would stomp me into the dirt, and I'd be relegated to playing with the twelve year olds that glue GW bits onto old army toys to stretch their dollar further and the old grognards like yourself who just show up to push models around the table and talk about the good ol' days.

Adaptable players adapt and get better, crappy players quit the hobby or complain that it's unfair.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us unenlightened masses, but I think I'm going to side with your friends and family, I'm pretty sure all the problems you're having are because of you, not the rest of us.

Funny. Very very funny. A thread started about whether a list is chessy has degenerated into "You're the hater" "no, you're the hater."

I'm with sourclams on this one - the group that I play with play hard lists and the games are always competitive. Peoples' armies are always being updated and tested. Best group of players I've ever been around.

We also get lots of newcomers - young and old. Almost every game I have ever played (except for tournaments where there isn't time) has a post battle discussion about what each player could have done better, other units to try, ect.

Personally I find that a lot more enjoyable then just plunking down any old crap on the table. Heck, I've had games where it was obvious from the list and the inexperience of the player that I was going to crush them from the time he started deploying. I stepped away from the "how am I going to win" mindset to "how can I help this guy learn how to use what he has to best of his ability." Turned out to be a very fun game for him and a learning experience to boot. He's a much better player now.

There is no cheese - just asshats that want everyone to be like them.

Has this been locked yet? How long does this have to go on before people understand the argument. To clarify

Taking a Nob Biker list does NOT make you a better player, a better army-builder or a better general
Taking a Landraider spam list does NOT make you a better player, a better army-builder or a better general
Taking an Obliterator spam list does NOT make you a better player, a better army-builder or a better general
Taking a double-Lash Prince list does NOT make you a better player, a better army-builder or a better general
Taking tons of uber-special characters does NOT make you a better player, a better army-builder or a better general

It means you read the forums and got told that these are the power builds, and if you play them you are more likely to WIN! WIN! WIN! AT ALL COSTS!!!!

The reason they work so well is that they spam something that was never meant to be spammed, thus guaranteeing your opponent won't have enough of what he needs to defeat it. You guarantee this by not telling your opponent that you're gonna take spam, and trade on his good-nature and the fact that he's gonna take a balanced force (and that he doesn't know what he's up against)

If you play a second/third tier army, a fluffy army, or a non-power list and win a game YOU ARE A BETTER GENERAL than someone who plays a widely-regarded power list and wins a game.

If you play a balanced, reasonably chosen army, are magnanimous towards your opponent, allows rules queries more than arguing them and still win a game YOU ARE A BETTER GENERAL than someone with a ridiculously unbalanced army who quibbles for every rules advantage and wins a game.

Power lists require little skill, little imagination, and (because they make it EASIER to win games) little generalship. Would the WAAC uber-list powergamers please get off their high horse and stop telling us it makes them 'better players' than everyone else.

So play against other power lists. Now generalship and playstyle matters! WOW THE PLAYING FIELD JUST LEVELED.

I'm not on a high horse. Play how you want it. The original poster asked a question about a specific army build featuring Ghaz and Trukk Boyz and some Kommandos with Snikrot. He was playing against a Terminator Spam guy that got steamrolled. His opponent then went up to the TO and complained that he was "cheesey".

If you have a real problem with getting smashed by Internet Deck lists, make up your own hard list and kill people with it. Then you're a better player, general, AND list builder.

This thread seems to have run its course and the OP is asking for it to be locked, which I will now do.

If someone thinks it is worth unlocking, please PM me or another Moderator.