Last night, for the first time in many years, i was accused of being beardy, and bringing a cheesy over powered army...

I was playing necrons, with 3 nightscythes, a doomscythe, and my foot units were all sporting veils so i could teleport round the board. As Zahndrehk was my overlord, i deliberately left my wraiths, scarabs and deathmarks at home, and used my fliers and veils to focus my entire armies firepower on individual squads on a turn by turn basis. This was not a flier spam army, i had a very healthy number of strong units on the board, including Lychguard (who are regarded as being fairly weak for their cost), and the list is what i consider to be fairly 'fluffy'

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy? I'll admit that i play to win, but i do try to avoid things like wraith spam and flier spam with necrons. In order to avoid the label of 'beardy' or TFG, am i forced to bring (what i would consider) sub-par lists?
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them, saying as it were, 'i'm bringing a weaker army, because you aren't worth my complete effort'

I am a competitive gamer, i do try to play fluffy armies, but i do play to win. How do you strike the right balance? how do you make judgements on what your opponent expects from a fight? I know talking to them beforehand is the obvious answer, and as a rule i do that, and discuss any rules clashes that might arise, but often i've met people who said they are competitive, and then brought out a totally underpowered fluffy army, and met fluffy gamers who have had the most WAAC guys i've ever met.

Should i stay a competitive player, and indicate to them to man up? or should i try to turn down my playstyle a notch or two?

An army is only "cheesy" if it exploits a flaw in game design to win by doing something that wasn't intended to be possible. A powerful, well-optimized list is just a good list.

I find it funny how people only seem to lose to beardy/cheesy lists.
I rarely hear of someone losing to a balanced or underpowered list.
A few abusive lists aside, even the most spammed list can have some claim to a fluff bias.

People don't like to lose and will find any excuse other than admitting they didnt play well or built a flawed list.

I have watched enough battle reports on youtube where the loosing player whines about the army he faced being OP or codex creep etc.

Having said this, flyers are a new toy that not every army has and not every army can counter well.

If these are friendly games, offer up a handicap same point value army and you will comp him and Aegis with quadgun. If its just pick up games at the LGS just play someone else. you may get a rep as WAAC or TFG but it will only be a subset of the gamers.

The only line that a list can cross for me into cheese territory is when you show up with a list that prevents your opponent from doing anything. The fewer options you give your opponent, the worse the list is. 40k is a game between two players, not a game where one person shows up and does stuff while the other person sits there bored.

So, MSM units are a good example. You get to use your movement phase, your shooting phase, and your assault phase. Your opponent, on his turn, has no targets. He can do a bit of movement, but he can't shoot or assault your stuff. Talk about a terrible game for your opponent.

Another one that can cross the line for me is gunlines. Gunlines drag the game down to the tactical complexity of yahtzee. Both players show up at a table and roll dice, and that more or less alone determines who wins. If I wanted to play a game that was basically pure randomness, I wouldn't have gone to the effort to make a 40k army. Worse, gunlines often stop your opponent from doing anything. Done properly, your opponent isn't going to be able to do much movement, as it's likely suicide, and they're never getting anything into close combat, so you're forcing your opponent to play your super-boring version of the game.

Fliers do fit into this a little bit, but you can get around this by focusing on the ground game (fliers can't take objectives, for example), and you still can technically hurt fliers. As such, I wouldn't worry TOO badly about making a list cheesy with too many fliers. If you put all of your scoring units in them, though, then you're really limiting your opponent's options, and dragging the game down to the level of "can you roll 6's?" which is pretty drab.

Powerful lists are just that - powerful. They're not cheesy per-se. Lists that shut down your opponent's ability to have fun playing, though, will pretty much guarantee you nobody to play against. Of course, if your point is to make lists that prevent your opponent from playing the game while they're playing the game, then you're probably already a horrible TFG anyways, so you'd probably just dismiss this advice anyways.

madtankbloke wrote:
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them?

No. And here's why.

People play the game, and build their armies, for different reasons. Some people really love the background, and want to build an army faithful to a particular piece of background they like. Some people just really like the models, so they add models to their army based purely on how much they like them. Other people don't really pay much attention, and collect armies like birds collecting shiny things.

Now, unfortunately GW's system isn't perfect. There's an argument to be made about not wanting the system to be perfect, as that merely encourages stagnancy, however GW errs too far the other way. As a result, despite the fact that four players might each have a 1,500 point army, the actual power of those armies can be wildly disproportionate.

If you're doing everything you can to mercilessly crush your enemies, you're effectively saying to them "You play wrong, and you have fun wrong, so you deserve to lose every game."

Now, this isn't to say the player who collects based purely on models or the background has no responsibility to build a strong list. He still has to make concessions, and do the best he can to build himself a list within the limitations he has set himself.

The thing is though, the competitive player can still enjoy a challenging game that pushes him to his limits when he handicaps his list. The player who builds his list out of models that look good won't be having as much fun if has to leave those models at home and take the ones which are better, but that he doesn't like.

So you have to ask yourself, do you like to be challenged, or do you like to win? Think of it this way: Building the most powerful list you can is playing on easy mode. Do you want to be playing on easy mode? Spare a thought for the players who consider the imagery, aesthetic and background of a force to be more important than how well it plays on the table.

The second you say "Screw those guys, I'm taking as many Necron fliers as I can!" you cross the line, and your army becomes cheesy.

Kaldor wrote:So you have to ask yourself, do you like to be challenged, or do you like to win?

I can not stress this enough.

Way, way too many people see "challenge" and "winning" as synonyms, when, in fact, they are usually opposites, at least when it comes to 40k.

 Kaldor wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them?

If you're doing everything you can to mercilessly crush your enemies, you're effectively saying to them "You play wrong, and you have fun wrong, so you deserve to lose every game."

The thing is though, the competitive player can still enjoy a challenging game that pushes him to his limits when he handicaps his list. The player who builds his list out of models that look good won't be having as much fun if has to leave those models at home and take the ones which are better, but that he doesn't like.

I'm not sure i've ever played a game where one side was trying to lose, i know some players prefer the narrative aspect of the game, and will limit themselves based on that, but thats a lot different from trying to lose.
My necron army has limits i have set it, as i take Zahndrehk, i don't take 'dishonourable' troops such as wraiths, deathmarks, and by infered extension, scarabs or spyders. I also steer away from warriors since in zahndrehks broken mind, they aren't soldiers.

Having set myself limits, and despite the artificial handicaps, once we get to the tabletop i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

Having discussed the matter with a few people irl, i find its not the army list i've chosen, but the army itself, and people who play certain armies (such as GK and crons) are generally held to be the WAAC types, this despite the fact that the majority of the troops i field are the 2nd eddition metal ones, so i've not actually picked up the army to win at all costs, i just felt i could actually use the models that have been sat in a box for over a decade.

If I continue to play with my necrons, i'm not sure how i can avoid the TFG label, i'm fairly certain that whatever composition i pick, just because its Necrons, its seen as being cheesy.

I'm at the point where i'm considering finding a new group to play with

 Peregrine wrote:
An army is only "cheesy" if it exploits a flaw in game design to win by doing something that wasn't intended to be possible. A powerful, well-optimized list is just a good list.

QFT

folks whine when they get soundly trounced and don't have an idea where they went wrong... however i'll admit necron scarabs are hightly annoying ing entropic strike


my Dark Eldar get the most accusations of being cheesy- but i always point out they are twisted pointy eared gits who will take pleasure in making a mockery of your army if given the chance .

however when you win you must point out where they went wrong- not killing my venoms is a common mistake However at a tournament thanks to having 2 turns of nightfighting (tourney rules... ) i stopped an ork army from shooting me for 2 turns, nighshields indeed i won rather disgusitngly in the end.

Knowing how to use your army is a large part of it as well, once you get a list that you like playing with you tend to do well with it, cheesy or not...

But going into the realms of which units are cheesy etc is hardly going to solve the problem

madtankbloke wrote:
i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

That's because you play competitive games. Or at least, you have a competitive vision of the game.
If your opponent has the same objectives as you, I mean "win the game", yes doing your best to win is a sign of respect, in a way. Like in sport competition. And that's perfectly fine.

But if you play like that in a friendly game, in a fun game or in a narrative game, you're doing wrong.
I personnally rather play "fun" games, and believe it or not, my Big Boss always tries to kill anything that's bigger than him. He has sort of hypersized ego problems, and will attempt at crushing whatever he can, the bigger the better. Yup, even when I'm almost certain he can't do it, he has a try.
And I don't care if he dies. Anyway, orkses never lose.


Building a strong list and playing it a competitive way when you opponent just wants to have fun, is like being that kid on the left, according to me :

LOL, that picture is GREAT!

madtankbloke wrote:
Last night, for the first time in many years, i was accused of being beardy, and bringing a cheesy over powered army...

I was playing necrons, with 3 nightscythes, a doomscythe, and my foot units were all sporting veils so i could teleport round the board. As Zahndrehk was my overlord, i deliberately left my wraiths, scarabs and deathmarks at home, and used my fliers and veils to focus my entire armies firepower on individual squads on a turn by turn basis. This was not a flier spam army, i had a very healthy number of strong units on the board, including Lychguard (who are regarded as being fairly weak for their cost), and the list is what i consider to be fairly 'fluffy'

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy? I'll admit that i play to win, but i do try to avoid things like wraith spam and flier spam with necrons. In order to avoid the label of 'beardy' or TFG, am i forced to bring (what i would consider) sub-par lists?
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them, saying as it were, 'i'm bringing a weaker army, because you aren't worth my complete effort'

I am a competitive gamer, i do try to play fluffy armies, but i do play to win. How do you strike the right balance? how do you make judgements on what your opponent expects from a fight? I know talking to them beforehand is the obvious answer, and as a rule i do that, and discuss any rules clashes that might arise, but often i've met people who said they are competitive, and then brought out a totally underpowered fluffy army, and met fluffy gamers who have had the most WAAC guys i've ever met.

Should i stay a competitive player, and indicate to them to man up? or should i try to turn down my playstyle a notch or two?

Look this is a pretty simple thing if you are playing someone who is a competitive gamer play competitively. Against others a more fluffy playstyle is called for.

I have the luck that my competitive army is not far from my fluffy army. (Deathwing). However because I am a player of ability and I have an army that is designed to crush 3+ save semi-elite armies people complain that my army is overpowered . But we all soldier on.

Its your hobby you should make yourself happy and if you feel you are stepping on toes ask if they would prefer if you use a fluffy or competitive list then go win.

Not being cheesy in this edition is a bit hard for some armies. With Necron, IG, Nids, and Orks having a decent array of available flyers (especially the first three in that list), any army going up against it that does not have access to other flyers make it a cheese to the opponent.

Yes, some armies have access to flyers and thusly have the choice to bring them or not. If a list with flyers go against codex marines, and the marines did not field storm talons, then they have no right to complain. But armies like eldar, sisters of battle, daemons, and Tau (which still makes no sense to me...) have no ability to take flyers or have any skyfire units for anti-flier control. Yes... I can take a defense line with a quad gun, but it is a single gun that can targeted independently in the first turn to prevent it doing any damage to their turn 2+ flyers.

I know why the person said it was cheesy: necron flyers are hard to deal with, muchless 4 of them with troops popping up behind any given unit with the veils.

My advice, just dont ask that person to play anymore. Either they will despise you, which means that you wont have an enjoyable game with them again, or they will ask you for a game to try and take out the army that obliterated them in the first place. At that point, they can not complain about the cheese for they already knew what they were up against.



PS, I did the same thing against the first 18 flamer deamon list. Double force org with 6 squads of 3 flamers. I called it cheese, and since then know how to set up my tourney list to handle that first wave of nasty flamers.

madtankbloke wrote:
i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

It's really not. It's often disrespectful. Now, I know you said you set yourself limits, but it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind. That's the only way to be respectful, and take your opponent seriously. Build your army with them in mind. Playing the best you can is obviously a given, but at the same time you still need to keep your opponent in mind. Explain what your units do, and what they're good at. If you see your opponent making a rookie mistake, ask them if that's what they meant to do. Help them to be better players, and they'll feel less butthurt when they lose. Don't play the game for them, but don't take advantage of their lack of rules knowledge to stomp them into the ground either.

To address your other issue: People are stupid. If they've formed the opinion that anyone who plays Necrons is a WAAC TFG then there is little that will dissuade them, especially if you're new to that group. And especially if you've been winning all/most of your games. You can throw a couple of games, I guess, but that's a gakky thing to do and I don't recommend it. Tabletop gaming always needs a social contract to make it work, to steal a phrase for Jervis. And if you and your current gaming group are approaching the game from opposite ends of the spectrum, it's going to take a lot of work on both ends before you can find some common ground to work with. Sometimes it's just easier to find a new group to play with.

 Ailaros wrote:
TSo, MSM units are a good example. You get to use your movement phase, your shooting phase, and your assault phase. Your opponent, on his turn, has no targets. He can do a bit of movement, but he can't shoot or assault your stuff. Talk about a terrible game for your opponent.

So what you're saying is that the entire Tau codex is cheesy and anyone who plays Tau is TFG?


PS: if you can't shoot at or assault JSJ units for the entire game it's because you're bad at 40k.

'Cheesy' or 'Beardy' lists tend to be those you lose to because the other guy did something you didn't foresee and you had no effective counters. These tend to come in two situations:
1. You built a highly-specialized list, and the other guy build a highly-specialized list that easily counters yours.
2. You build a generic list, and the other guy builds a highly-specialized list that you have no way to counter.

So, generally, the easiest way to avoid 'cheesiness' or 'beardiness' is for both sides to field varied, well-balanced lists instead of min/maxxing. Unfortunately, due to the 'magic bullet' mentality, not a lot of people do this. It's a problem.

jazzpaintball wrote:
But armies like eldar, sisters of battle, daemons, and Tau (which still makes no sense to me...) have no ability to take flyers or have any skyfire units for anti-flier control.

Flying Monstrous Creatures can be considered Flyers, and due to the latest BRB FAQ, they can choose to Skyfire. So Daemons aren't that bad off when it comes to both taking Flyers and dealing with them. We have options.

I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

I consider Draigo borderline cheese; he's not too bad when he's not in his "wing," and the draigowing can be defeated strategically (and I play Guard, so plasma and AP2 isn't hard to come by) mainly because he reduces the complexity of the game; he'll murder everyone in CC, very hard to hurt at range, but if you kill him, draigowing falls apart, if he survives, he'll do terrible things to you.

Again, it's a one-trick pony, and not very interesting to fight against. It also represents an inbalanced need for strategy. A player exploiting a poorly balanced part of the game, like screamers, imhotek or draigo doesn't require a great deal of thought to use effectively. How one defeats that requires enormous trial and error, tailored lists and so on. It took me a long time to figure out a good counter to Draigo, and all it takes for a GK player is to plop him in some Paladins with an apothecary, and from day one he'll do moderately well. Imhotek is another example, dump him in reserve and roll some dice and see what you blow up. Again, it reduces the enjoyment factor of the game, and that's the key thing, the game's supposed to be fun, any rule shenanigans or exploitation of unbalanced units damages that, and that I consider cheese. As long as you're playing for fun (and that can include an imhotek on imhotek lightning war, if both consider that fun, or some hot draigo on draigo action) then there's no issue, but when you're being a tabletop "troll," that is the issue.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

Really?! 16 Screamers + 12 Flamers is hardly cheese.
Now 20+ of each is downright nasty and not something to encourage in friendly gaming, but it's still easy'ish to counter even with a TAC's list. (castle-up your deployment, hide in transports and/or bubble wrap your main units with expendible chaff, etc...)

IG especially laughs at Flamer/Screamer spam, since it's designed mainly to eyerape MEQ's & TEQ's. The only armies which lack any solid counter would be Deathwing/Loganwing etc... since they don't have the model count OR the vital transports to hide in and avoid the worst of the first wave.

And if you really think it's just unbeatable, (which it isn't), then just take the easy road and ally in a pair of GK Strike Squads. Go first, and watch the Daemon player have 0 chance of doing anything remotely usefull while you sit back and gun him down piecemeal. (Now who's the tabletop Troll?!)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

Really?! 16 Screamers + 12 Flamers is hardly cheese.
Now 20+ of each is downright nasty and not something to encourage in friendly gaming, but it's still easy'ish to counter even with a TAC's list. (castle-up your deployment, hide in transports and/or bubble wrap your main units with expendible chaff, etc...)

IG especially laughs at Flamer/Screamer spam, since it's designed mainly to eyerape MEQ's & TEQ's. The only armies which lack any solid counter would be Deathwing/Loganwing etc... since they don't have the model count OR the vital transports to hide in and avoid the worst of the first wave.

And if you really think it's just unbeatable, (which it isn't), then just take the easy road and ally in a pair of GK Strike Squads. Go first, and watch the Daemon player have 0 chance of doing anything remotely usefull while you sit back and gun him down piecemeal. (Now who's the tabletop Troll?!)

Deathwing has a chance with extremely careful deployment and well balanced units. But demons are beatable you just shoot them before they get in range.

to me cheesy is a trick that just completly changes the game and you have no means to counter it. A.K. A. Warp Quake spam

Folks play this game for different reasons. The best games come from 2 people with similar outlooks and expectations.

If you're a competitive player, you're often better than the casuals that populate your FLGS on game night. They can't play up to your level, so you will have to put on the kid gloves to get a satisfying game. It can be a pain sometimes, but it beats watching them cry after losing at a game of toy soldiers. Plus, you can use silly units like Flash Gitz and Praetorians without gimping yourself.

People often cry cheese because they don't really know how to play the game. Yes, they play for different reasons than you....because they want to be "fluffy" or because they like certain models or because they don't have the funds to build a really competitive list or whatever. They can't compete because they never really learned how to compete or how to build a balanced TAC list. And maybe they don't want to. In any case, when such a player come up against an army that they just have no way of handling (i.e. even 4 flyers can overwhelm someone who doesn't have the "tools" to deal with flyers at all....heck, I won a tournament with just 4 necron flyers and once got tabled by an opponent with 4 necron flyers), their first reaction is to cry cheese because they don't know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, that's just how a lot of casual (and even some competitive) players are. Rather than to face up to the truth...that their army isn't good and their skill level sucks....they put the blame on others and especially on their opponent. With these people, you have basically 3 options: 1) to play other people more similar to yourself, 2) to dumb-down your own list or 3) to try to educate your opponent (assuming he wants to listen). Unfortunately, not everyone is receptive of constructive criticism and in your area, there may not be a lot of other similarly competitive players, so sometimes you're just stuck with option #2.

It's really not. It's often disrespectful. Now, I know you said you set yourself limits, but it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind. That's the only way to be respectful, and take your opponent seriously. Build your army with them in mind. Playing the best you can is obviously a given, but at the same time you still need to keep your opponent in mind. Explain what your units do, and what they're good at. If you see your opponent making a rookie mistake, ask them if that's what they meant to do.

wait .so people that start the game have to buy one game they want to play the game , another army to play against people which started , yet another army against those who started but which codex are bad , then buy another one to play against those who consider codex legal not fluffy enough , then yet another one for those who accept FW and one for those who dont . A god help them if they pick an army that just has no bad options or cant play sub optimal [GK in the 5th , SW in the 5th and now] , what are those suppose to do . Or are you automaticly donkey-cave just because you find SW cool and you dont have 4000$ to buy 7 different armies against 7 different opponents .

If someone wants to enjoy an army , then he should buy and play with an army which is good . If someone makes his diner out of mud and sand , he shouldnt expact it to be good . Now I cant stop him from doing that . It is his choice [imo a stupid one] . But he should not force me to eat it . Neither should the guy who loves shell fish which am alergic to .

I too have necrons and I have witnessed the hate thrown at them because as of right now, they are labeled the cheese army. If that is why people complain about you, then I'd just stay away from them.

The other thing I see, is your list has 4 fliers. In a tourney, I bet you would do well. But many people aren't equipped to deal with fliers at all. I know my Deathwing struggles. I don't have the number of shots to rely on a 6 to hit, but I don't have access to any fliers either. I would suggest making two lists. One list with your fliers, one without. Ask your opponent about his air capabilities. If he has some AA, then go ahead and bring the flier list. But if he has no fliers (either old army, or just doesn't have the new expensice flier models) I'd suggest taking a list without fliers. It is just no fun to play a game against models that you can do almost nothing about.

Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game? What happened to "Adapt or die"? Your opponent should thinking about that fact that he know might have to bring in anti flyers. I played my tou versus necrons. I didnt have any anti-air. Did i whine that the two Flyers where cheap? No i played that game

Nope. If I recall GW calls it a casual beer and pretzel game to be played amongst friends.

It has so much potential to be a good balanced (relatively) game but GW still sticks with there excuse, “modeling company first, games company second” which is just bull.

Though to the OP really anything goes at least in my book unless you are intentionally trying to break rules or out right cheating to win.

Unfortunately, there are a handful of armies that, no matter what build is used, will have the "CHEESE" label on them. Unfortunately for the OP, Necrons are one of those.

The Cheese label is almost always hung on an army book that features A)units that are undercosted based on effectiveness and comparable units in other books, B) units that frequently break the established rules and archtypes, and/or C) has a large number of extremely powerful units available to them. Unfortunately for the OP, Necrons tend to fall in all of these categories. So every time a Necron player wins, he will most likely hear a few grumblings about a cheesy army no matter what is actually fielded.

Is it the Necron players fault? Not always. I tend to blame the writers. Somebody at GW should have said, "Okay, all things considered, maybe nightscythes shouldn't be dedicated transports", or "Maybe Imhotek should be toned down just a smidgen", so on and so forth. The Necron player is just using whats in his book.

That being said, the Necron player might as well get used to some unjustified accusations of Cheese from time to time because the Necron army as a whole is simply far more powerful than many of the others. Here's hoping that the playing field gets leveled as more and more new codexes are released.

jazzpaintball wrote:

PS, I did the same thing against the first 18 flamer deamon list. Double force org with 6 squads of 3 flamers. I called it cheese, and since then know how to set up my tourney list to handle that first wave of nasty flamers.

This is not a cheese item, this is a silly waste of one of the best units in the game.

If this guy was smart, he would have run 3 squads of 6, much more effective. MSU spam for flamers is pretty stupid in the current meta. With the vast improvements to flamers, and the emphasis on shooting, large squads of flamers can march all over the board steamrolling things to their hearts' delight .

I think for me, at the moment, more than one or possibly two flyers in a list for a pickup game is probably overdoing it, simply because until all the armies have ready access to their own fliers or AA units they can be unreasonably difficult to deal with - you can either ignore them, and let them run amok, or you can dedicate an inordinate amount of effort to trying to roll 6s to bring them down, at the cost of ignoring the rest of the enemy army.

Once fliers, and especially AA units, are more common for all armies I think it will become much less of an issue. I know everyone has access to ADL & quad gun, but to me that seems a bit of a cop out with anything other than IG (who ironically have plenty of AA with Hydras, Valks and Vendettas).

That said, the army in the OP seems fairly reasonable and fluff driven, and if there were only 1 or 2 fliers rather than 4 it probably wouldn't have raised any eyebrows at all.

it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind.

We could really end the thread with that right there. People can blame the writers, company, shareholders, etc etc, but it all really comes down to thinking about your opponent. If my opponent is going to take a maxed out hyper-awesome Draigo-wing type list and really try to kick my head in, then maybe a Necron flying circus is in order. On the other hand, if I know for a fact that my opponent will likely bring an army that cannot deal with flyers, that same Necron flying circus list is now beardy imo. It's not that any armies in and of themselves are cheesy or beardy, it's that certain aspects of those armies get abused without regard for whether or not it will be a fun game for your opponent. That's really about it. If you're thinking about your opponent's enjoyment as well as your own then you should be good in my opinion.

Honestly, nothing about that list would bother me, but I have fully acclimated my armies to the new flyer-infused meta. None of my lists fail to include at least 1 air or anti-air unit, but someone who didn't would see that list as cheesy, I'm afraid.

In my mind, a list that is cheesy is one that includes models only included to exploit rules. The exames I'd give would be wound-spread nobs back when they were all characters, or in fifth with all different equipment. Or, perhaps the best example, a guy who brought some gk character who got an extra shot for every psyker near him, along with 40 IG psychic choir models who he swore up and down were all psykers. Anything not cheating like the latter or goofily exploitive like the former is fine.

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy?

When a player can't accept that they're not as good a player/don't have as good of a list as you do, your list is cheesy, and you're WAAC.

Good lists become cheese and good players become neckbeards when the meta can't accept that certain things are better than others.

-TheCaptain

If the game is one-sided then it shouldn't be fun for the one winning.
We have a saying in french that would apply here,there is probably the equivalent in english but here is a rough translation.

He who is victorious without perils,triumph whitout glory...

If it was real war (or tournament) then glory is irrelevant, only victory matters but since this is a (casual) game, glory (fun) is all there is to it.
Remember, if the game is only fun for you, you might run out of opponents...
I think that for people who play pick up, you should just have a tournament list, for others bringing their A game and a toned down version with the same core but with some fun units swapped with the best ones...
Chances are that if you present the choice you might have to play your B list the first few times with the same opponent but eventually they will try to beat your A list for the challenge.
Sure the list they bring to do so might be tailored to some degree but if it is not an anti-list then that might prove a challenge.
It might even be relevant for tournament training.

About the saying,i think that during ww2 the French tried to rob the German of glory...After all they only had a fluffy army who didn't stand a chance against the mechanised and outflanking German army...

Makumba wrote:
It is his choice [imo a stupid one]

As I said, building an army without taking your opponents enjoyment of the game into consideration is when you cross the line from friendly to cheesy.

If you want to embrace the cheese, that's your prerogative, but don't act like it doesn't exist. You shouldn't call someone stupid just because they build an army with a focus other than "build the most effective army I can." You, as a competitive player, can still enjoy a close, hard-fought game against people like that just by modifying your list. And no, you don't need to spend $4,000 and buy 14,000 points worth of models to keep everyone happy. Just tweak your list a bit.

Tycho wrote:
That's really about it. If you're thinking about your opponent's enjoyment as well as your own then you should be good in my opinion.

Exactly.

As I said, building an army without taking your opponents enjoyment of the game into consideration is when you cross the line from friendly to cheesy

still it means that someone who does a bad choice can just buy one bad army , while people who have normal armies have to buy two . one to play normal games and one to play against the dude with the bad army . And it is just 1 dude . What if there are two and one find mecha OP and the other one slogger or worse what if they find not builds , but whole armies OP . you would be forced to buy a whole new army , which you may not even want to play , just to make those people with bad armies happy . And how would one even transport all of this . Now I know that in the US being a teen and having a car is nothing special , but in Europe few teens own cars . I dont understand how you can say that is ok for the baddie to have "fun" at the cost of others [he isnt spending more money , nor time] and he can just drop a game by claiming he doesnt want to play against X [where X can be anything] and you just wasted a day of gaming , which you some people dont have an unlimited number of even durning school/work holydays.

Also what about the enjoyment of the people that have normal armies ? why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ? the models and everything cost a lot , puting an additional barrier to enter the hobby seems to be foolish . It would require a game group that doesnt care about money or something else what I cant realy imagine .

If you want to embrace the cheese, that's your prerogative, but don't act like it doesn't exist. You shouldn't call someone stupid just because they build an army with a focus other than "build the most effective army I can." You, as a competitive player, can still enjoy a close, hard-fought game against people like that just by modifying your list. And no, you don't need to spend $4,000 and buy 14,000 points worth of models to keep everyone happy. Just tweak your list a bit.

you know that would be as if someone made a bike with wheels that look like skulls , because skulls are cool and metal , and then he would find out that wheels in the shape of a skull dont rotate so well while driving and he would be suprised while people call him stupid .Normal armies are good , because they give fun no matter what level the player is . They will carry the weaker player , they will open new options to a better player and they realy shine in the hands of an amazing one . A bad army is just bad . It isnt fun on any level , be it casual or tournament . And there is no hard fought games with bad armies also , there is only random stuff that poped up . wining because one dude suddenly rolled 11x1 means nothing , because it wont happen again anytime soon . But seeing a well played necron scythwing or SW drop pod list is enjoyable . more one can learn something from those games with normal armies . one cant learn anything from games with bad armies , other then the dude with the better rolls wins . where is the fun in that .

And how do you know that a dude with bad army will be happy with "tweaking a bit" . what is a bit ? do I have to kick out the SW ally or maybe all the vendettas ? or how about the aegis gunline , that is "bad" too +3cover and I can stand up and shot after going to the ground . I probably should just take something where I can figurativly bend over to my opponent . with ogryns , granded launchers against meq/teq, hvy bolters against mecha . ah and to use those I would have to buy all of them , because I dont own a single pice of those models.

If my opponent is going to take a maxed out hyper-awesome Draigo-wing type list and really try to kick my head in, then maybe a Necron flying circus is in order.

but draig wing is bad against flyers , plus it isnt good anymore . It is if you were saying that playing good list isnt based on which army is actualy good/bad , but what people you like/dislike .

If you find it such a big deal playing people who you feel are beneath your standards then just don't play them

See the thing is I have no problems playing against anyone . As I said before , it is someone own choice to start an army . If he starts a bad army , I wont stop him . The choice maybe stupid , because he wont have much fun with it while paying the same money I paid for my army .

What I'm against is the idea that I should own countless armies to make other people with bad armies happy . someone with a good army , even if he has a bad match up against IG wont have problems playing against me . he wont make me buy extra armies/units . while the dude with the bad army , according to what Kaldor claims should happen , can. And that is stupid . One should not promote acting like that.

Makumba wrote:
still it means that someone who does a bad choice can just buy one bad army , while people who have normal armies have to buy two . one to play normal games and one to play against the dude with the bad army .

Why would his army be "BAD" ?
Does an army need to be over-cheesy to be good ? In a competitive game, maybe. But for some of the players, NO.

There are players that consider that an important point in their army is to respect the fluff, to follow a particular theme or to tell a story. There are players that build army with MODELS that they like (models, not rules). Who are you to tell them that their armies are BAD ? Who are you to tell that their choices are stupid ?
They're not. They're just different from what you would have done.


From this point, you have the following solutions :
- play your cheesy list against softer lists, and win all the time
- don't play with these guys, because they have "bad" armies
- change your list, since it is MUCH easier for you to take a cheesy list and make it softer, than it is for a guy who only plays the models he likes to make his army cheesy (without taking models he doesn't want to play because of his theme, fluff, tastes)

Make your choice.

If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! We had our hands full dealing with his list (which, as near as I can tell, was pretty similar to the tournament lists that are popular right now), but I enjoyed myself immensely. We played to a draw (game ended on a die roll at the end of turn 5).

I might be a bit naive, but I just saw his list as a tough one that I would have to work hard to beat--both because of the list and because I'm new to the game. I just tried to use what I had as well as I could and to enjoy myself. As a result, I had an awesome time.

My personal view is that a person can play a cheesy list or not. That's their choice. I'm going to play my list, try to have fun, and win if I can. I'd never ask someone to change their list just because I'm new to the game or play less tournament-oriented lists. I think that playing tough lists and going against players with more experience is how us new guys learn what to do/not to do.

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

ClassicCarraway wrote:Unfortunately, there are a handful of armies that, no matter what build is used, will have the "CHEESE" label on them. Unfortunately for the OP, Necrons are one of those.

Not really. I don't think I've ever considered a Necron army particularly 'cheesy' unless it features lots of flyers. Footcrons aren't considered particularly broken.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game?

Nope

Makumba wrote:If someone wants to enjoy an army , then he should buy and play with an army which is good.

So you don't enjoy modelling, converting, theme, background, painting? Someone should only expect to 'enjoy' Warhammer if he plays one of the big powerful armies? What about when those armies get nerfed?

jy2 wrote:People often cry cheese because they don't really know how to play the game. Yes, they play for different reasons than you....because they want to be "fluffy" or because they like certain models or because they don't have the funds to build a really competitive list or whatever. They can't compete because they never really learned how to compete or how to build a balanced TAC list. And maybe they don't want to. In any case, when such a player come up against an army that they just have no way of handling (i.e. even 4 flyers can overwhelm someone who doesn't have the "tools" to deal with flyers at all....heck, I won a tournament with just 4 necron flyers and once got tabled by an opponent with 4 necron flyers), their first reaction is to cry cheese because they don't know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, that's just how a lot of casual (and even some competitive) players are. Rather than to face up to the truth...that their army isn't good and their skill level sucks....they put the blame on others and especially on their opponent. With these people, you have basically 3 options: 1) to play other people more similar to yourself, 2) to dumb-down your own list or 3) to try to educate your opponent (assuming he wants to listen). Unfortunately, not everyone is receptive of constructive criticism and in your area, there may not be a lot of other similarly competitive players, so sometimes you're just stuck with option #2.

bs.

The inference that anyone who chooses to play a 'fluffy' or non-optimised list is actually just a bad player is merely arrogance. I've played 40k since it was invented, been through most of the armies, played powerful forces and not-so-powerful ones. I could walk into a GW right now and buy a tournament-winning force. I choose to build fun, fluffy armies, and handicap myself with theme, because I like to. It doesn't follow that this makes me less skilled, or incapable of playing in a competitive way. I just place 'liking the models' above 'picking the most effective models'.

If I bring a under optimised list to a competitive tournament, then I'll lose. Fair enough. Complaining would be silly.

But if you turn up to a beer-and-pretzels game, knowing that you'll be playing your friend's fun, fluffy army, and you turn up with a Necron Airforce, you certainly aren't winning because of superior skill...

Makumba wrote:
why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ?

The question is, do you enjoy winning? Or do you enjoy a challenge?

If you enjoy a challenge, then you can enjoy a game where you take 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders. If you only want to win, then taking 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders isn't going to give you an enjoyable game.

So which is it?

With regards to your model collection: If you only own exactly 1,850 points worth of models, then you are the only gamer I know of that does so. I personally have more than 4,000 points of Grey Knights, and I know most people have several extra units left over from previous editions or version of their list. And even if you did only have exactly 1,850 worth of models, you can always play games of 1,500 points of 1,000 points, restructuring your list with the models you have to make it less vicious.

A player who only enjoys using models that look cool or that fit his theme is not going to enjoy any game where he is required to use other models that look bad, or don't fit his theme. But a player who only wants a challenging game can enjoy any kind of list. However, a player that only wants to win, will only enjoy games where he can use the most powerful list he can.

At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ?

The question is, do you enjoy winning? Or do you enjoy a challenge?

If you enjoy a challenge, then you can enjoy a game where you take 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders. If you only want to win, then taking 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders isn't going to give you an enjoyable game.

So which is it?

To play devil's advocate here, that's a misleading question. You're asking if he enjoys the challenge of playing with 'bad' units. For him part of the challenge might be figuring out a solid list. Everyone's on a different scale here.

Let me try to be the mediator and put something in perspective for both sides. I remember in the (let's say 'controversial') thread on whether painting armies should be a requirement a while back, you took the stance that everyone should paint their armies, which is fine. Some people just don't like to paint, though, and would rather just play for whatever reason, 'legitimate' or not. These people should not play with you, and vice versa, as there will not be fun to be had for both sides.

Likewise, some people just don't like to optimize a list, and would rather play fluffy. These people should not play against highly competitive players, and vice versa, for the same reason. We can all coexist. As you said yourself, no one should say how someone else should have fun.

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

you, as a 'fluffy' gamer should choose a more 'competitive' army when you play me

and I, as a 'competitive' gamer should choose a more 'fluffy' army

I don't see any reason that just because you want to theme your army, that you shouldn't make the effort to make your army the most powerful themed army it can be. Just like i should try to theme my army when playing people who like a more fluffy approach to the game.

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the the same army again.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

madtankbloke wrote:

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the best i had.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

Awesome!

I play a lot of Starcraft 2. After a particularly heartrending loss many players will cry cheese or OP, but will often calm down and then actually look at what happened and how they can improve. Seeing a parallel there.

If he's asking for the gloves to come off, take the gloves off. Just make sure to warn him up front that that's what you're doing, just to make sure he knows what he's getting into.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

you, as a 'fluffy' gamer should choose a more 'competitive' army when you play me

and I, as a 'competitive' gamer should choose a more 'fluffy' army

I don't see any reason that just because you want to theme your army, that you shouldn't make the effort to make your army the most powerful themed army it can be. Just like i should try to theme my army when playing people who like a more fluffy approach to the game.

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the the same army again.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

Good for him i know i always play my best because unless I know I was outmaneuvered and outplayed I hate losing. I play against a kid who runs Necrons. Most people would not call him cheesy he uses units he likes (lychguard for example He only has 1 flyer) and is now trying make his list better little by little. He tells me he wants to fight my Meanest list everytime so he gets it. Against those who are not aware of the fact i like to beat face i will take a fluffier list and play with that. Its all in maximizing the enjoyment of every game for yourself.

Kevin48220 wrote:
If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! ...(snip for brevity)

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

All I can say that this hobby lives and dies based on players like you. As long as there are players that share your enthusiasm and openness to any obstacle, this hobby is in good shape.

There seems to be a common misconception here than anyone who plays a fluffy army lacks the ability to make a competitive list. I know lots of people that are very capable players who could easily make tournament-calibre lists and play them very well, but choose not to because they find just curb-stomping everyone into the ground boring. They purposely handicap themselves in order to play more interesting games. Just because they don't use a powerful list doesn't mean that they're bad players either. A really good player can play a "bad" list and still win against a TAC list, but when they fight a super competitive tourny list, they're gonna have a very small chance of victory. It's understandable that they'd be a little upset coming down to the FLGS for a friendly game with their fluffy list and then end up playing some dude with a hard-as-nails list where they're basically going to auto-lose. Does this make the other player a better player? Anyone can do well with one of these fire and forget lists, but only a good player can play a flawed list effectively.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

Yes.

 captain collius wrote:
I hate losing.

It could be said that the whole of 'being a good opponent' is not minding losing.

Makumba wrote:

It's really not. It's often disrespectful. Now, I know you said you set yourself limits, but it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind. That's the only way to be respectful, and take your opponent seriously. Build your army with them in mind. Playing the best you can is obviously a given, but at the same time you still need to keep your opponent in mind. Explain what your units do, and what they're good at. If you see your opponent making a rookie mistake, ask them if that's what they meant to do.

wait .so people that start the game have to buy one game they want to play the game , another army to play against people which started , yet another army against those who started but which codex are bad , then buy another one to play against those who consider codex legal not fluffy enough , then yet another one for those who accept FW and one for those who dont . A god help them if they pick an army that just has no bad options or cant play sub optimal [GK in the 5th , SW in the 5th and now] , what are those suppose to do . Or are you automaticly donkey-cave just because you find SW cool and you dont have 4000$ to buy 7 different armies against 7 different opponents .

If someone wants to enjoy an army , then he should buy and play with an army which is good . If someone makes his diner out of mud and sand , he shouldnt expact it to be good . Now I cant stop him from doing that . It is his choice [imo a stupid one] . But he should not force me to eat it . Neither should the guy who loves shell fish which am alergic to .

I don't think you understand how OP Grey Knights are!!!!

Grey Knights 20pts
storm bolter range 24" Str 5 AP 5 assault 2 ( mostly found on tanksin other armys )
force weapon Str 4(5) AP 3 ( mostly found on psykers worth over 100pts )

Berzerkers 19pts bolt pistol range 12" Str 4 AP 5 assault 1
ccw Str 4 (5) AP -

what i'm trying to say is you can tell if your codex is OP in one eazy step open the codex to page 1 was it written by Matt Ward your codex is OP

You're not helping. At all.

Hospy wrote:

All I can say that this hobby lives and dies based on players like you. As long as there are players that share your enthusiasm and openness to any obstacle, this hobby is in good shape.

That's most kind of you to say. I try to keep a positive attitude on things.

That's not to say that discussing units, books, or builds that are/may be abusive of game balance is complaining. It's not, IMO; there's value in looking at how the meta of any game evolves with new units or books. I look at that based on my experiences playing M:TG and Heroclix. In both of those games, there were/are builds or individual game components (cards, figs, whatever) that were cheese, or were used to make cheese. They ruled the roost--but only for a while. Something always comes along to dethrone them and become the new, um, Big Cheese--or people figure out how to deal with it. There are tough armies, and tough lists; but, there's no such thing as an unbeatable list.

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:

I don't think you understand how OP Grey Knights are!!!!...
(quotes rules)
...what i'm trying to say is you can tell if your codex is OP in one eazy step open the codex to page 1 was it written by Matt Ward your codex is OP

It's good to see some intelligent comments in this thread.

For starters, cheese list is just as fluffy as any other one in only war universe. It's killing potential is what reeks of 40k mood and if your pre heresy or only khorne or "fluff" sth army sucks then it's either GW incapable of anything resembling balance again or you just really ignored/ are bad at the game aspect and your army is unprepared on gaming terms. Options are: blame GW at last/ make a diorama and quit playing/ come playing and accept an uphill battle.

I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

And vice versa, I bring bad list (most of mine are as I field only what I like aestheticaly) and am loosing with fat cheese, the fun is in trying and potential reward from winning is so much more, a kind "hard" mode.

It's the nature of the game and it's up to GW to fix/ change it, not a player that likes cheese lists. If the guy tabled in two cries that's his problem not a player that tabled him. 40k has to be only game where people are pushed to not do their best to win, go to a casual table football match in the pub with good players as beginner and 99% of time you are going to see sth like 10 - 0 score. Who cares of painting and modeling side of this, if you show up to the game and accept the challenge, quit whining OP and play, the game part of it assumes list building and some builds are better than others. I don't cry that my painting is slow and subpar so my army looks worse, please next time bring a crappy painted army because I feel bad in comparision, wtf?

 ArbitorIan wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game?

Nope

Then what is point cost doing here? FOC? Expensive 100+ pages rulebooks and elaborate codiecs? How much of a waste it is to create a game with objectives to win and then make it non competitive (not in the tournament/ non tournament sense)?

It is a competitive game since 2nd edition.

My recommendation for the OP, if you are playing regular against a group of people that you are trying to be friendly with, just get to know them better. If you keep on beating them with your Necron fliers, and you see they are bringing sort of fluffy lists, and they complain that your list is OP and beardy, offer them some handicap points. If they are going to say that lists are unbalanced to begin with then shut them up by giving them an extra 50 or 100 points. You will get to bring your toys, they will bring more toys of their own, you have bragging rights if you win, and they can't complain nearly so much if they lose about Necron fliers being undercosted or whatever. Not to mention it is more challenging for you and if the lists are truly unbalanced then you will have a more fun, more balanced game. an extra 50 or 100 points can easily be meaningless considering the way luck goes in this game anyway.

 Kevin48220 wrote:
If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! We had our hands full dealing with his list (which, as near as I can tell, was pretty similar to the tournament lists that are popular right now), but I enjoyed myself immensely. We played to a draw (game ended on a die roll at the end of turn 5).

I might be a bit naive, but I just saw his list as a tough one that I would have to work hard to beat--both because of the list and because I'm new to the game. I just tried to use what I had as well as I could and to enjoy myself. As a result, I had an awesome time.

My personal view is that a person can play a cheesy list or not. That's their choice. I'm going to play my list, try to have fun, and win if I can. I'd never ask someone to change their list just because I'm new to the game or play less tournament-oriented lists. I think that playing tough lists and going against players with more experience is how us new guys learn what to do/not to do.

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

Give that man a cigar! Now that's the right attitude to carry towards the game. This is how 40k players should be (unfortunately though, all too often it isn't).

It all depends on the attitude. Have a good attitude and a "cheesy" list is just a challenge waiting for you to unlock and practice to increase your skill. Have a bad attitude and the "cheesy" list belongs to a WAAC player who must be a jerk just because he just beat you badly.

We need more people like Kevin in this game.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

jy2 wrote:People often cry cheese because they don't really know how to play the game. Yes, they play for different reasons than you....because they want to be "fluffy" or because they like certain models or because they don't have the funds to build a really competitive list or whatever. They can't compete because they never really learned how to compete or how to build a balanced TAC list. And maybe they don't want to. In any case, when such a player come up against an army that they just have no way of handling (i.e. even 4 flyers can overwhelm someone who doesn't have the "tools" to deal with flyers at all....heck, I won a tournament with just 4 necron flyers and once got tabled by an opponent with 4 necron flyers), their first reaction is to cry cheese because they don't know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, that's just how a lot of casual (and even some competitive) players are. Rather than to face up to the truth...that their army isn't good and their skill level sucks....they put the blame on others and especially on their opponent. With these people, you have basically 3 options: 1) to play other people more similar to yourself, 2) to dumb-down your own list or 3) to try to educate your opponent (assuming he wants to listen). Unfortunately, not everyone is receptive of constructive criticism and in your area, there may not be a lot of other similarly competitive players, so sometimes you're just stuck with option #2.

bs.

The inference that anyone who chooses to play a 'fluffy' or non-optimised list is actually just a bad player is merely arrogance. I've played 40k since it was invented, been through most of the armies, played powerful forces and not-so-powerful ones. I could walk into a GW right now and buy a tournament-winning force. I choose to build fun, fluffy armies, and handicap myself with theme, because I like to. It doesn't follow that this makes me less skilled, or incapable of playing in a competitive way. I just place 'liking the models' above 'picking the most effective models'.

If I bring a under optimised list to a competitive tournament, then I'll lose. Fair enough. Complaining would be silly.

But if you turn up to a beer-and-pretzels game, knowing that you'll be playing your friend's fun, fluffy army, and you turn up with a Necron Airforce, you certainly aren't winning because of superior skill...

Yes, not every fluffy player is a bad player. However, I can say from my experience that most people that I have seen/met who played more fluffy or non-optimized lists don't tend to do as well against the more competitive players with more optimized lists. Now once in a while, the tortoise may beat the hare, but don't expect that to be the norm. The fact of the matter is that the more casual players will tend to lose and sometimes lose bad to the more competitive players. It doesn't mean that all casual players are bad, just that building their armies to win games is not their priority.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

Because it doesn't take the other players enjoyment into consideration.

jy2 wrote:Yes, not every fluffy player is a bad player. However, I can say from my experience that most people that I have seen/met who played more fluffy or non-optimized lists don't tend to do as well against the more competitive players with more optimized lists. Now once in a while, the tortoise may beat the hare, but don't expect that to be the norm. The fact of the matter is that the more casual players will tend to lose and sometimes lose bad to the more competitive players. It doesn't mean that all casual players are bad, just that building their armies to win games is not their priority.

I completely agree. The casual player will almost certainly lose more games (and in many cases find it impossible to win) but tis doesn't mean they are 'less skilled' or that taking a top-tier list makes you 'more skilled'.

My point was rather that, if everyone just has a slight bit of awareness of what is OP, and chooses to play with roughly mid-tier lists, everyone in the FLGS/community/club can now play fairly. And, for the competitive player, there is more of a challenge (which is what he wants, right?), since the armies are more balanced.

The game is unbalanced. We can abuse this at every opportunity, or we can choose to put a bit of balance back in so that everyone can play with their toys fairly.

Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

Because it doesn't take the other players enjoyment into consideration.

Exactly. While I agree that I enjoy a challenge, there is no 'competition' in a completely unfair matchup, or in a game with no chance of winning. You can say 'he should enjoy being decimated' but all it takes is for the enemy player to go 'I didn't enjoy that' and the argument is broken.

So many posts in this thread with paragraphs trying to debate on what is cheese and what isn't. It is so much simpler than that.

Q: When does an army become cheesy or beardy?
A: When you win with it.

It really is that simple. I have had some of the worst units in the game called "overpowered" and been accused of having a busted list. I use to take a unit of pariahs in my necron army. Single attack low initiave high costing models that didn't add to my "necron' count and didn't have WBB. But because I wiped out a unit of 5 TH/SS terminators in a single round of combat due to some lucky dice that person still to this day claims they were an incredibly overpowered unit.

I bought a box of repentia like all old school sisters players before we found out how awful they are. (like seriously, worst unit in the entire game bad) And opponent knowing they were bad pretty much ignored them. They closed with his line, and then proceeded to hit multiple optimal targets. I think at the end of the game they had a kill tally of 2 carnifex and a unit of warriors before they were killed themselves. I am like 90% sure I even still lost that game too. And the person said something along the lines of "I can't believe I beat your overpowered army with my fluffy nids"

Because a sisters of battle player with repentia and penitent engines was overpowered but his nidzilla list was a-ok.

People don't like losing or admiting their own faults. When someone loses it isn't because they made bad tactical decisions. It is because your own units are too powerful, you abused a cheap tactic, you had amazing dice/they can't roll anything above a 1. There is always some external power at work that caused their lose.

It is human nature. Even I do it. It is one of the reasons why when playing a fighting game I record as many of my loses as possible. Because right when I lost. I am upset about losing. So I don't think rationally. I lost because he played a broken character or abused a broken move or there was lag or my controller didn't work. A little time and a shower after my matches though and I can go over the recordings. Suddenly that kick to the face hit me not because of lag but because I was trying for poke and missed it.

If warhammer games didn't take 2-3 hours I would love to record my games and then go over my loses here as well. Because I know I have on more than one occassion said something like "wow that unit is broken as all get out" And then the next day gone "oh i should have done such and such"

Of course I don't enter too many tournaments and when I do I am entering them for the chance to try out my newest concoction. If I go 0-4 in a warhammer tournament I still got to play my new list a few times and now I can go home and tweak it until im happy or want to play a different list. So deeper analysis usually isn't needed.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

jy2 wrote:Yes, not every fluffy player is a bad player. However, I can say from my experience that most people that I have seen/met who played more fluffy or non-optimized lists don't tend to do as well against the more competitive players with more optimized lists. Now once in a while, the tortoise may beat the hare, but don't expect that to be the norm. The fact of the matter is that the more casual players will tend to lose and sometimes lose bad to the more competitive players. It doesn't mean that all casual players are bad, just that building their armies to win games is not their priority.

I completely agree. The casual player will almost certainly lose more games (and in many cases find it impossible to win) but tis doesn't mean they are 'less skilled' or that taking a top-tier list makes you 'more skilled'.

My point was rather that, if everyone just has a slight bit of awareness of what is OP, and chooses to play with roughly mid-tier lists, everyone in the FLGS/community/club can now play fairly. And, for the competitive player, there is more of a challenge (which is what he wants, right?), since the armies are more balanced.

The game is unbalanced. We can abuse this at every opportunity, or we can choose to put a bit of balance back in so that everyone can play with their toys fairly.

Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

Because it doesn't take the other players enjoyment into consideration.

Exactly. While I agree that I enjoy a challenge, there is no 'competition' in a completely unfair matchup, or in a game with no chance of winning. You can say 'he should enjoy being decimated' but all it takes is for the enemy player to go 'I didn't enjoy that' and the argument is broken.

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

And, just as a guess, what does self-improvement involve? Getting rid of the army I like for an army I don't like, but which wins games? How have I improved MY skill level by doing this?

Picking the most OP army is not a skill, it's a google search.

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

And, just as a guess, what does self-improvement involve? Getting rid of the army I like for an army I don't like, but which wins games? How have I improved MY skill level by doing this?

Picking the most OP army is not a skill, it's a google search.

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

Well I actually said the opposite. So *pew*. Now that your words have been spat from my mouth, reread the post you quoted.

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations."

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

Never said anything about picking OP armies, changing lists, or really anything of the like. I said to make your list better, and get better. Problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

When?

I said if you can't enjoy self-improvement, then the gameplay might not be for you.

It's kindof ridiculous that I have to repeat myself online; especially when the quote is right there.

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

I could consider feeling bad if I ever had a cheese list but I don't and that sentence describes hypothetical situation to show my attitude on the subject. My Tyranid army has Carnifexes, others are CSM Nurgle no Epidemius, Black Templars and mechanised orkz. I'm a 40k hipster and will probably never come close to a cheese army.

It is it's not selfish, I care for my opponent by being polite and having fun with a game but I think forcing people to tame their lists is a terrible way to balance the game and a HAAC idea that helps GW slip by with their abysmal balance. Will you force random golf opponent to go buy worse clubs to match yours? 40k is a special snowflake with all the handicaping.

btw why are all the laid back, relaxed, fluffy beer and pretzels players so much not relaxed when it comes to take a beating from an OP list? Tabling is just another epic story of decesive victory, history is full of those.

Oh and here's a bit from Wikipedia entry on sportsmanship:

A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

And, just as a guess, what does self-improvement involve? Getting rid of the army I like for an army I don't like, but which wins games? How have I improved MY skill level by doing this?

Picking the most OP army is not a skill, it's a google search.

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

aha so the better option is to have the person with the normal army , buy crap stuff and play with stuff he doesnt want to just that someone who plays a bad army has fun? Man that is like saying that to have fun at any kind sport , everyone who arent overweight should play with extra weights or at least with a broken knee.

I dont understand why people like you dont understand it . No one with good armies tells you to play with something else .But we are not donkey-caves we do tell you , that you may not have fun playing the game against anyone . just like plumb or others said you can play against SoB or nids and claim they are OP. Your faction on the other hand wants us to spend our money on armies or models we dont want to play . you try to force us and the whole community to buy more then it is needed to play a game and have fun . I play IG . I have won games , I have lost games . yet I always had fun . But you and dudes like Kaldor seem to have problems with other players and other players armies all the time . So maybe it is you guys that are the problem , not us ?

the only time I could agree with you is if I owned shares in GW . Then yes I would want people to own 10+armies , because more sells would be more cash for share holders.

 TheCaptain wrote:

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

While that's generally true that a player simply whines for the sake of it when they lose, keep in mind there are those rare times that a losing player has every right to be p -off and have a go at their opponent.

For example, how do I 'look to improve my own skill' after a situation such as;
- GK player wins first turn, then casts Warp Quake with every squad and spreads their models out the full 2" coherency to ensure near total coverage of the entire table!.
- My Daemons now auto-mishap no matter where they try to land.
- Opponent uses a RAW argument to juggle the auto-mishapping units between quake zones to ensure either auto-wipe results or simply go back into reserves to auto-die later.

Litterly my only hope that game was 'will my opponent fail a Ld9 psychic test?'

It's not like I can really control the main issue of 'win first turn', well not unless I bring a loaded dice! I didn't learn anything that game about how to counter the GK's abilities besides, "don't play this hole again!" and "don't ever lose first turn if you play Daemons!"
I didn't get any chance to effect the outcome, try to change my tactics, see what unit choices worked and what didn't... I just got 100% hosed by an insanely OTT ability that perfectly hard-countered my entire army and was abused to the nines.



So really, I think the point at which an army becomes 'cheesey' and thus is decryed as OTT/broken is; an army in which your opponent cannot do anything to effect the outcome of the game.
ie: Warp Quake spam vs Daemons, 9+ flyers vs anyone without anti-flyer options, 100% tailored lists, etc...

TheCaptain wrote:"they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations."

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

Never said anything about picking OP armies, changing lists, or really anything of the like. I said to make your list better, and get better. Problem?

Um, you say people who get decimated 'should improve their skill and list' but you want me to 'improve my list' without changing my list? Amazing?

The point of the argument is that, because of imbalance in the game, people who get decimated may not actually be any less skilful. We don't know, because the armies aren't evenly matched. The assumption that anyone who gets decimated needs to 'improve their skill' is erroneous.

TheCaptain wrote:I said if you can't enjoy self-improvement, then the gameplay might not be for you.

While this is true, one of those posts was a hell of a lot more condescending in tone than the other.

Plumbumbarum wrote:A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

Makumba wrote:aha so the better option is to have the person with the normal army , buy crap stuff and play with stuff he doesnt want to just that someone who plays a bad army has fun? Man that is like saying that to have fun at any kind sport , everyone who arent overweight should play with extra weights or at least with a broken knee.

I dont understand why people like you dont understand it . No one with good armies tells you to play with something else .But we are not donkey-caves we do tell you , that you may not have fun playing the game against anyone . just like plumb or others said you can play against SoB or nids and claim they are OP. Your faction on the other hand wants us to spend our money on armies or models we dont want to play . you try to force us and the whole community to buy more then it is needed to play a game and have fun . I play IG . I have won games , I have lost games . yet I always had fun . But you and dudes like Kaldor seem to have problems with other players and other players armies all the time . So maybe it is you guys that are the problem , not us ?

the only time I could agree with you is if I owned shares in GW . Then yes I would want people to own 10+armies , because more sells would be more cash for share holders.

First, i disagree with your use of 'normal'. The majority of 40k players play casual games, with models they like, and build lists based on what models are in their collection, changing them as they want. A tiny minority built super-optimised lists, play tournaments, or spend ages tweaking a 1750pt 'perfect list' before finally spending the money on ONLY the models in it.

What you mean is

the better option is to have the person with the super optimised tournament army play with stuff he doesnt want to just so that the vast majority of players with mid-tier lists have fun?

In which case, YES. That is a better option. It's fairer for the most people.

But i agree with your point on principal - people can play however they want, and problems only arise when the armies themselves are unbalanced - leading to some people claiming that they lost because the other person took a vastly more powerful army (cheese!), and the other player claiming they they are somehow 'more skillful' because they managed the incredible feat of buying models that have better rules.

I've won and lost games and had fun both ways. But I think most people would agree that the most 'fun' games are the closest - where the two armies are evenly matched. So as a community we should try and make this happen.

One way to do this is for everyone to always take the most powerful lists, but that doesn't take into account codex creep, model preference, etc. The other way is for people to be aware of what sort of game they're playing and bring the right sort of list. Easy.

I'm aware that this means that a small minority of players might have to play a less powerful list, but if someone really only has one army/list and that happens to be a ridiculously powerful one, then he should at least let people know so that they can bring something fairly matched. And if he plays someone with a much less powerful force, he shouldn't have the gall to claim that the win was down to 'superior skill'.

EDIT for spelling

Makumba wrote:
or how about the aegis gunline , that is "bad" too +3cover and I can stand up and shot after going to the ground .

Just wanted to say an aegis defence line can never give a 3+ cover on it's own. It's 4+ or 2+ when GTG

 ArbitorIan wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:"they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations."

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

Never said anything about picking OP armies, changing lists, or really anything of the like. I said to make your list better, and get better. Problem?

Um, you say people who get decimated 'should improve their skill and list' but you want me to 'improve my list' without changing my list? Amazing?

Changing your list and picking up a different army are two different things. I'm sorry you don't get it, but it's quite black and white, what I've said. Improve YOUR list.

Ex:
You play imperial guard. You keep getting decimated. Take a better tank, or swap your Valkyrie for a Vendetta.

What you seem to think I'm saying:
You play imperial guard. You keep getting decimated. Take Necron Flyerspam.

Understand that I'm suggesting the former. I don't know how much more clearly I can put it.

TheCaptain wrote:I said if you can't enjoy self-improvement, then the gameplay might not be for you.

While this is true, one of those posts was a hell of a lot more condescending in tone than the other.

So?

The point of the argument is that, because of imbalance in the game, people who get decimated may not actually be any less skilful. We don't know, because the armies aren't evenly matched. The assumption that anyone who gets decimated needs to 'improve their skill' is erroneous.

No. No its not. If you get decimated, you've done something wrong. You may have taken the wrong units for good list synergy. You may have messed up target-choice. You may have used a unit the wrong way; or armed it the wrong way. Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful (again, you're placing your own meaning into my words). I only suggested that if you lose, you have room for improvement. In your list and gameplay.

Suggesting one is a perfect player with a perfect list is erroneous, bud.

 TheCaptain wrote:

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list....

 TheCaptain wrote:

Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful

???

I think Experiment626 above points out a pretty good example of a matchup where skill/choice of units has absolutely no part in deciding who wins, merely relative army balance (Daemons vs GK). I'd say the same goes for, say, my Tau against Necron Airforce.

I disagree that in every situation, just changing your list a bit will solve the problem. There are genuine matchups where one side effectively auto-wins.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

I think Experiment626 above points out a pretty good example of a matchup where skill/choice of units has absolutely no part in deciding who wins, merely relative army balance (Daemons vs GK). I'd say the same goes for, say, my Tau against Necron Airforce.

I disagree that in every situation, just changing your list a bit will solve the problem. There are genuine matchups where one side effectively auto-wins.

So your point is:

"I disagree, because there are extreme outliers that violate what you've said."

Not to mention; take more broadsides. Tau is one of the better armies for AA that doesn't itself have AA weaponry. Or take a barracuda.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list....

 TheCaptain wrote:

Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful

???

I think Experiment626 above points out a pretty good example of a matchup where skill/choice of units has absolutely no part in deciding who wins, merely relative army balance (Daemons vs GK). I'd say the same goes for, say, my Tau against Necron Airforce.

I disagree that in every situation, just changing your list a bit will solve the problem. There are genuine matchups where one side effectively auto-wins.

Now these are pretty extreme examples that you're talking about here. Most likely you will only encounter them in tournament play. Armies like the Necron Airforce just won't last in normal gamestores. Pretty soon, they will have no one to play against as most people just find it not fun to play against such extreme armies. And daemon players will just refuse to play against a interceptor-striker-GK army. Those armies just won't last in casual play because eventually, people won't want to play them (unless they are hardcore competitive as well).

But these lists are only just a small fraction of even the competitive gamers. After all, no matter how competitive you are, you can only play against the people around you. With the exception of taking your army to a tournament, if you go too extreme, you will be ostracized by your locals unless you have a group you play against who are just as competitive as you.

Armies like the Necron Airforce just won't last in normal gamestores.

what do you base this one ? we have 2 scyth wings here and I know people in other cities that play them too and there is no problems with playing those armies .

The majority of 40k players play casual games, with models they like, and build lists based on what models are in their collection, changing them as they want.

which are the best models for given faction . because bad models would mean a bad army and a bad army isnt fun to play , not matter if you play in a tournament or normal games at a shop.

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

wait . you guys own and use different armies for tournaments and games in shops ? So everyone of you owns 2 armies . Ok I get the difference now . Here few if anyone owns more then one army from a single faction, If we cab buy a different army or an army for another game , we would never put our army in to something bad.

Makumba wrote:

wait . you guys own and use different armies for tournaments and games in shops ?

Usually; yes.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

Not sure if something like a fair game in sport happens too often. You have skill disparity, injuries, differences in equipment and so on.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But i agree with your point on principal - people can play however they want, and problems only arise when the armies themselves are unbalanced - leading to some people claiming that they lost because the other person took a vastly more powerful army (cheese!), and the other player claiming they they are somehow 'more skillful' because they managed the incredible feat of buying models that have better rules.

But if they identified those models themselves and made the good list without Internet help, that is skill. Not as much a skill as it should be though, it's spoiled by GW crap balance that limits the number of viable builds and creates some obvious choices in the codieces. Claiming overal better skill (tactical) after winning a single game with list advantage in a system with fair amount of luck involved is far fetched to say the least but on the other hand, I as the loosing player wouldn't have a problem saying "you were better" to a guy that just have beaten me with Internet latest and greatest. It's better than going full sore not to mention still might be true, both Klitschkos are taller and have greater reach than 99% of their opponents and hardly anyone denies their superior skills.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I've won and lost games and had fun both ways. But I think most people would agree that the most 'fun' games are the closest - where the two armies are evenly matched. So as a community we should try and make this happen.

There is no better way to achieve that than GW doing their work with their ruleset.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
One way to do this is for everyone to always take the most powerful lists, but that doesn't take into account codex creep, model preference, etc. The other way is for people to be aware of what sort of game they're playing and bring the right sort of list. Easy.

Yep we are discussing a non specified situation, I assumed the pickup game and if you are steamrolling your friends last 3 months with the same list then it's probably about time to discuss the situation and it's either they decide to work on their lists or you handicap yourself somehow (and the former is so much a better option imo). Third option, noone changes a thing, you continue to steamroll them and if they don't want to play, you insult them through every chanel of comunication, make public fun of preferably with their girls around and constantly threaten with physical violence to force them to a game

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I'm aware that this means that a small minority of players might have to play a less powerful list, but if someone really only has one army/list and that happens to be a ridiculously powerful one, then he should at least let people know so that they can bring something fairly matched. And if he plays someone with a much less powerful force, he shouldn't have the gall to claim that the win was down to 'superior skill'.

Yep obviously, I actualy accidentaly deleted my first elaborate response to Kaldor where I stressed out that playing cheese I would admit having an edge thanks to a better list and generaly show "let's see what happens" attitude through the game.

 TheCaptain wrote:
If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

Leaving the skill issue aside, as we're talking about lists and it's only fair to assume skill is roughly equal, why should a player have to enjoy 'improving' their list? If having to take certain models in their list to remain competitive reduces their enjoyment of the game, then 'improving' their list would actually be making their list worse.

If a competitive player wants a challenge, then perhaps he might consider the enjoyment of his opponent when creating his list, and create a list with obvious weaknesses, or units that are sub-par, so that he might enjoy a more close and challenging game.

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG and who really cares about what is painful to him?

All I'm suggesting is that players take the enjoyment of their opponent into consideration when building their list. From both angles: the player who only takes models he likes should consider that some people might want to play a more brutal game, and the competitive player should consider that not everyone wants to play the way he does.

Everyone needs to think about why other people play the game, and do their best to make sure everyone has a good time, the way they want to.

I seem to have touched on a subject which is quite divisive, but i would like to thank everyone so far for your constructive criticisms and points of view.

For my part, i have been a wargamer now for the better part of 20 years, and my original gaming group (GW Plymouth 94-99) were on the whole a competitive bunch, and this has had something of an effect on my outlook.
I can still remember when i started playing, and i had lovingly painted my army, only to have it routinely wiped from the board by players with more skill than i had. The best piece of advice i was given was:

You learn more from a defeat, than you do from a victory.

A defeat will show you (if you stop to analyse what went wrong) what unit and wargear combinations work and don't work, the importance of maneuver and tactics, and when to use sacrifice plays and so forth. Whereas a victory will reinforce your oppinion of your own ability, and you will learn a fraction of what your open minded opponent has.

Having had my formative gaming years in a competitive environment does leave me looking on in perplexed amazement at some of the arguments and discussions i've read in this thread. There seems to be a belief that there is a qualitative divide between competitive and fluffy armies, that the players who have, for whatever reason, brought a better list than his opponent should throw away his advantage and play to a lower level.
Now i will go far as to say if i'm playing against a very new player i will use a list with a little bit of everything to get them familiar with the rules, and i will explain before the battle starts exactly what everything does. but whether you are a fluffy themed army type of guy, or a competitive super optimised list kind of guy, i've never ever met a single person, EVER, who in a TAC pick up game plays to lose.
Maybe i've been playing the wrong kinds of people, and i do now have a much clearer idea of what people consider cheesy, and the reasons for it.
So another question seems in order

Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Why. Why is running the most optimal list you can TFG.

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Some people actually find designing the perfect list an interesting part. I probably spend more time tinkering with points and units than I do playing. Why am I a TFG just because I like to optimise the units I bring to a game?

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

 Griddlelol wrote:

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art.

Perfected Models: "Artist"

Perfected List: "TFG, WAAC, jerkface cheater powergamer."

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art.

Perfected Models: "Artist"

Perfected List: "TFG, WAAC, jerkface cheater powergamer."

I think that goes to show that people care when they lose more than they say...

I've never heard an accurate description of cheese, as I always hear some player's dislike of a play style or units that are effective against their army.

Lots of Heavy Bolters? The Ork player calls it cheese, the Necron player laughs.

Lots of flamers (weapon, not the demon)? The IG player calls it cheese and the Tau player laughs.

Multiple armor units? The player who didn't bring anti-tank calls it cheese and the player who did laughs.

There are a few things like knowingly using units that a certain army has a lot of difficulty against in a tailored list that is jerk behavior, but not really cheese as described by the community.

madtankbloke wrote:


You learn more from a defeat, than you do from a victory.

So give your opponent some extra points to work with... gives you more chance to learn and shuts them up complaining it was your list that caused them to lose.

So another question seems in order

Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

Last tournament I attended, I brought a list that was not optimized to win, but to show off my coolest looking models. First game I ran into an optimized Daemons list that spammed screamers and flamers. I have to say, although I did much better in the later games (playing against those low in the ladder), that first round defeat was the one I learned from the most and I'm most thankful for.

So I did not deliberately play to lose, but you can say I made some choices in my list that I knew were not optimal. Was I playing to lose? Not in the game itself... but I was limiting myself. Does that count?

So if bringing a less than optimal list... or handicapping yourself.... counts as 'deliberately playing to lose'.... then you answer your own question, your opponent should 'deliberately play to lose' in order to be better educated.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Why. Why is running the most optimal list you can TFG.

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

You misunderstand me. Hard to see how you could do that when the quote is right there in front of you

I said "if all he cares about is winning, then he is TFG". Running the most optimal list he can is a different thing. Sometimes running the most optimal list you can is the best way to be respectful to your opponent. The key is, as I keep repeating, considering the enjoyment of your opponent. Not caring about the enjoyment of your opponent is what makes someone TFG, and what makes an army cheesy.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Some people actually find designing the perfect list an interesting part. I probably spend more time tinkering with points and units than I do playing. Why am I a TFG just because I like to optimise the units I bring to a game?

You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

Because painting is a solo activity. If your opponent made you sit and watch them while they painted, it'd be just as boring and obnoxious. When you're playing a game, there's someone else involved and it's just common courtesy to consider their enjoyment.

You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

I completely and wholeheartedly support this statement. It's usually very clear when army lists do the direct opposite of this, and those are what I call cheesy.

A Grey Knights armylist designed to stop Daemons from barely even deploying, and the latest flyer-spam lists are good examples of this. Players who field them know full well that their opponent is going to have a terrible time with no fun against them, but do so anyway because they are hungry for the win.

Also, certain army lists show up can (usually) only be countered in certain ways, or by taking certain units. I don't like it when it's shoved at me that I'll likely lose or at best have a terrible game trying to make headway unless I force myself to auto-include certain units, even if I don't want to, in a game that's all about each player customizing their own army.

madtankbloke wrote:
Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

If the guy I play with takes like 5th hard beating in a row despite fielding what I guess most people here would call a better list, then it gets uneasy and I start to not care at all for the win and just try new things on the table, maybe risk a bit more etc. Trouble is, the more laid back I am with the game the clearer my thinking gets and ussualy in the end I win even more decesivly (that's from experience not only with 40k but boardgames etc). I play light heartedly and field worse units but never sabotage the game on purpose, that's disrespectful and his potential win would be meaningless, sth like reversed cheating if that makes any sense.

 Kaldor wrote:
I said "if all he cares about is winning, then he is TFG". Running the most optimal list he can is a different thing. Sometimes running the most optimal list you can is the best way to be respectful to your opponent. The key is, as I keep repeating, considering the enjoyment of your opponent. Not caring about the enjoyment of your opponent is what makes someone TFG, and what makes an army cheesy.

Isn't TFG a cheater who argues about everything, is rude and arrogant when winning and heavily sore when loosing? I play boardgames with many types of people and some fit your description and will blast you mercilessly off the table as early as possible but I would never stereotype them like that, sure we make fun of each other a bit I would say his spine will break from the muscle tension next round and he would laugh at my more peaceful decision at the table but that's it. Some people are more ambitious than others, if they are ok otherwise do not cheat etc I see no problem.

 Kaldor wrote:
You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

I guess the problem is where do you draw a line. For me considering the enjoyment of my opponent is trying to have fun with a game, being polite etc. Being decimated is not exactly a pleasure but not the end of the world either and is to be expected in any game where you play against each other in order to win. So, I expect a little bit of maturity, distance to a game and understanding its nature from my opponent, if he builds a strongly themed army that lacks strenght, well that's his choice and not my fault that my current list is heavy for him. I understand where you're coming from and it also depends on the situation but I generaly disagree with the idea that caring for your opponents enjoyment goes as far as making the game easier for him. I may do it for my own challenge, or because it happenes too often or indeed his chances are bad as I'm hard countering him but that's my choice and imo not doing so does not make me a TFG.

btw what if the lists are equal but I am so much better tactician and he's in for a tabling, should I restrain myself or sabotage my win?

 Kaldor wrote:

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

Because painting is a solo activity. If your opponent made you sit and watch them while they painted, it'd be just as boring and obnoxious. When you're playing a game, there's someone else involved and it's just common courtesy to consider their enjoyment.

Stretching that a bit, you're not asking the opponent if it's ok to show with an army that will make his/ hers look like cheap chineese 3+ toys in comparision.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Why. Why is running the most optimal list you can TFG.

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

You misunderstand me. Hard to see how you could do that when the quote is right there in front of you

I said "if all he cares about is winning, then he is TFG". Running the most optimal list he can is a different thing. Sometimes running the most optimal list you can is the best way to be respectful to your opponent. The key is, as I keep repeating, considering the enjoyment of your opponent. Not caring about the enjoyment of your opponent is what makes someone TFG, and what makes an army cheesy.

The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

 TheCaptain wrote:
The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

To jump in, I agree that there is nothing wrong with powergaming. You can powergame and not be TFG. It all comes down to intent. I'm playing with a Necron army right now that is mostly still pre-update models and units. It's got a monolith (yeah). It's not even in the same room as powergaming, obviously. Now when I play, I usually play with some friends that have fairly new armies. I've got one friend with a GK setup that under normal circumstances, could pop my monolith and most of my scoring units in a turn or two. His list is just straight up stacked. But when we play, he plays loose and so do I. Instead of demolishing the bejesus out of my monolith the moment it touches the board, we let it stick around for a bit just to see what it can do. It makes it more fun and interesting than him riding an Ordo Malleus flavored Bulldozer over my ass every sunday. He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

Nerobellum wrote:
He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

No, I really don't. Considering what you held up as your shining example of "the opposite of TFG" it seems like you're saying that using your anti-tank weapons effectively against the biggest vehicle threat on the table is TFG behavior.


Also, "playing to lose" and making deliberate mistakes isn't fun.

Okay, question then. If you are just playing a casual game, what's more important: you and your opponent having a good time, or you winning? Let's pretend for a moment they are mutually exclusive.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Isn't TFG a cheater who argues about everything, is rude and arrogant when winning and heavily sore when loosing?

To be honest, I've always used TFG as a way to refer to anyone who stands out in a negative way. The guy who smells becomes that fething guy who smells, the guy with the rubber tape measure becomes that fething guy who always measures incorrectly, the guy who always goes on and on about his poorly written background for his army becomes TFG, and so on.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I guess the problem is where do you draw a line

I think it's just important to be aware that there is a line.

Nerobellum wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

To jump in, I agree that there is nothing wrong with powergaming. You can powergame and not be TFG. It all comes down to intent. I'm playing with a Necron army right now that is mostly still pre-update models and units. It's got a monolith (yeah). It's not even in the same room as powergaming, obviously. Now when I play, I usually play with some friends that have fairly new armies. I've got one friend with a GK setup that under normal circumstances, could pop my monolith and most of my scoring units in a turn or two. His list is just straight up stacked. But when we play, he plays loose and so do I. Instead of demolishing the bejesus out of my monolith the moment it touches the board, we let it stick around for a bit just to see what it can do. It makes it more fun and interesting than him riding an Ordo Malleus flavored Bulldozer over my ass every sunday. He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

That's not powergaming.

That's just being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerobellum wrote:
Okay, question then. If you are just playing a casual game, what's more important: you and your opponent having a good time, or you winning? Let's pretend for a moment they are mutually exclusive.

They are completely mutually exclusive. Unless you're socially invested in the outcome, which is ridiculous.

I play to win. It's what I care about in my games.

But I've never not had an opponent enjoy playing with me.

Because I am a powergamer, but I am friendly and personable.

Blending the game and the social aspect is why you get ridiculous claims of "Oh, if you try hard to win, you're a mean TFG and no one likes you."

The outcome of the game, as well as the gameplay, should have literally no standing on your opponent having fun.

The two goals of a 40k game, for both players, should be:

-To do your best on the board

-To enjoy another person's company

The guy who plays to win isn't the TFG. The guy who can't enjoy someone's company because they lost the game is the TFG. The minute 40k becomes less about human interaction, and more about how your opponent plays their army, you have lost. You can win the game, but you have lost as a person.

If you enjoy the opponent as a person, and play your army to the best of your ability, you're doing it right. If you can't find satisfaction from these things, and get hung up on game-outcomes played by dice, there's a problem.

TFG is all in the eye of the beholder, but there are certain standards that have been established.

So in my best Jeff Foxworthy impression:

IF you bring a flyer spam list to a FLGS for 1500 point pick up game, you might be TFG!

IF you load up on Forge World stuff but don't bother to actually bring the rules with you and allow your opponent to see them, you might be TFG!

If you change armies every time a new codex comes out, you might be TFG!

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army" but then list Grey Knights, Space Wolves, and Necrons as your armies of choice, you might be TFG!

Feel free to add your own

There is nothing wrong with power gaming or codex swapping or spamming. Its your toys and you should be allowed to play with them as you please. It ultimately comes down to intent and attitude that will get you listed and a TFG.

I find that for the most part TFGs are the guys that will sit there argue obscure rules in there favor or ignore ones against them, bring out the micrometer to measure distances, and generally wasting time in any situation, including just friendly games, and for the most part the guy that brags hard on a win and cries loudest when losing.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
TFG is all in the eye of the beholder, but there are certain standards that have been established.

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army"

I would say that I see this an awful lot. There are so many people that jump right in and deny that there is any such things as "cheese." That powergaming is what it's called and trying your best to win is what the game is about. That always sets off red flags for me.

If your only concern with playing a game is to win, regardless, then you are not someone I want to play. I take an awful lot of units I like. I don't sit there with a codex trying to min/max my force and make sure the "synergy" is right. There are a lot of people in my area who grab the newest codex and search it minutely, and scour the internet for exploits and rules loopholes that will allow them to win. Usually thru disrupting the normal flow of the game. To me, that's cheesy. If you aren't approaching a GAME with the attitude of having fun and doing some cool things, then something is wrong with you as a human being. I lose a lot, and I don't care. At least I enjoy playing. For someone who only enjoys making sure his list is the ultimate, and he has bought the best units there are, and doing his best to curbstomp his opponent, then that person is way too competitive for me. I don't have fun like that.

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
I hate losing.

It could be said that the whole of 'being a good opponent' is not minding losing.

True its a personal weakness and I try and have so far succeeded to not let it show. I just plan how to improve my list to beat the list that beat me.

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

TFG =/= powergaming.

TFG = Ruining the game by being a bad person. Powergamers AND casuals are capable of this. Neither groups are exclusively TFG, because TFG is a case by case thing.

If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them. I am going to enjoy the novel matchup, and the win. I expect that they enjoy running the list that they want to. If they complain cheese, TFG, WAAC, or the like, then they are not interested in actually running the list that they want to. They are interested in running the list that they want to against lists they deem 'fair' or, in better words, steeped down to their less-than-competitive level.

Fluffbunnies and casuals; I am totally fine with you taking mediocre lists because you love "X unit" or enjoy painting "Y style of model", but if you choose not to accept that poor units will negatively affect your army's performance, you are unrealistic, and any dispute of this is the TFG behavior. Not the powergamer playing their list, their way, the way they want to.

Tl;dr

Casuals don't get to tell Powergamers how to play the game.
and
Powergamers don't get to tell Casuals how to play the game.

(Unfortunately, it always seems to be the former situation cropping up, never really the latter.)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

I agree with you captain i take lots of TH/SS why should i stop just for your sake (Also my inner 5 year old loves terminators.)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

And no point did I say that I complained when I lost. So don't put words in my mouth. And can the attitude. We're all just gamers here. How would you explain your earlier statements "improve your list" if you weren't dropping unit that didn't work and replacing them with better units. Thus having to purchase said units? If you claim you are not saying that, then explain what you mean by "improve your list." And note, you also put words in my mouth again, when you suggested I stated you said to "buy better armies." Nope. Again, I said that what you were describing as "improving your list" would effectively mean having to purchase additional units.

If I think a hellhound is cool, and I take one, I'm handicapping myself. I realize that. I am actively working, now, to make my lists better. But approaching this game from the perspective of doing the best you can to min/max your army and beat the snot out of the other guy is not trying to have fun at a game. If your idea of fun is winning at all costs, then that's sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:
TFG =/= powergaming.

TFG = Ruining the game by being a bad person. Powergamers AND casuals are capable of this. Neither groups are exclusively TFG, because TFG is a case by case thing.

Okay, this might be where we are having issues. You're defending the idea of building the best list you can build, and I don't see a problem with that. But it seems what we are discussing is TFG. The guy that only builds the best list he can so that he can win every game, and tries to twist rules to suit his ends. At least... that's been my take on it. Trying to build a good list is part of the game. i agree with that part.

If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them. I am going to enjoy the novel matchup, and the win. I expect that they enjoy running the list that they want to. If they complain cheese, TFG, WAAC, or the like, then they are not interested in actually running the list that they want to. They are interested in running the list that they want to against lists they deem 'fair' or, in better words, steeped down to their less-than-competitive level.

Fluffbunnies and casuals; I am totally fine with you taking mediocre lists because you love "X unit" or enjoy painting "Y style of model", but if you choose not to accept that poor units will negatively affect your army's performance, you are unrealistic, and any dispute of this is the TFG behavior. Not the powergamer playing their list, their way, the way they want to.

Tl;dr

Casuals don't get to tell Powergamers how to play the game.
and
Powergamers don't get to tell Casuals how to play the game.

(Unfortunately, it always seems to be the former situation cropping up, never really the latter.)

And I agree with most of what you said here...except that I don't complain when I get wiped out. I usually look at it as a learning opportunity. However, there are some things which are not learning opportunities, and there are more than just a few examples. There are rules, and units, which twist the game and can be exploited, and that is what has been the discussion here, not your crusade to defend "powergaming." And yeah, powergamers do tell casuals how to play the game. See every post of yours in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people who DO min-max, it is your fault.
Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

Jesus. Read that again. Please.

 Valhalla130 wrote:


And no point did I say that I complained when I lost. So don't put words in my mouth. And can the attitude. We're all just gamers here.
You're being defensive. No need for that; it looks ridiculous. I did not mean you, directly complained. Any "You" in my previous post is directed to the community as a whole. "But if you lose to peope who do min-max, it is your fault." Take a second to realize that those "you"s are general, not specific.

How would you explain your earlier statements "improve your list" if you weren't dropping unit that didn't work and replacing them with better units. Thus having to purchase said units? If you claim you are not saying that, then explain what you mean by "improve your list."

I never ever deny suggesting improving someone's list by replacing bad units with better ones. Read the entire thread if you wish. Not once did I deny that. I encourage it.

And note, you also put words in my mouth again, when you suggested I stated you said to "buy better armies." Nope. Again, I said that what you were describing as "improving your list" would effectively mean having to purchase additional units.

Again, please read my post better. You said, and I quote "So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied." I never suggested you told me to buy better armies. I was merely saying that the denial you referred to in that quote was not denying buying units. It was denying buying new armies.

There is no need for a fight. Because, as it seems, you have become heated, frustrated, and gained an attitude in your flare up. I urge you to relax, remember it is the internet, and read my posts more clearly in the future.

It makes everything easier.

For me, its when an army is designed around the math and not to look like an army that the shark is officially jumped. There are perfectly fluffy builds that are balls hard to beat (Greyhunter spam, Mech Guard, ect), but there is a line where things just are clearly about the math. Slapping SM(esp SW ones) characters in Guard Blobs, Eldrad and Vect superunits, and the like just scream "I should be playing MtG instead of a wargame."

Another line is someone playing a list that is built purely to frustrate and/or exploit rules holes. If you make a list that you would not want to bother even playing against if someone else ran it against you, you are crossing this line.

All that said, the 40k community has more or less transformed into a comp free maximum donkey punch environment in the last few years, which is why I tend to stick with Fantasy.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But it seems what we are discussing is TFG. The guy that only builds the best list he can so that he can win every game, and tries to twist rules to suit his ends. At least... that's been my take on it.

You are describing WAAC. TFG is a person who ruins the fun of the game with their attitude. WAAC is, well, what you said.

Trying to build a good list is part of the game. i agree with that part.
And yeah, powergamers do tell casuals how to play the game. See every post of yours in this thread.

No.

A. I'm not telling casuals how to play. I'm making suggestions on improvement. For the community as a whole.

B. I'm not a powergamer, and do not represent the powergaming community. I am a tournament player. Do not stereotype me into a group, and I will do you the same respect.

I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

So to turn what you said into a readable format

Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = good

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not through his poor list-building, but through the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

This is very uncommon though. There's only one example I've seen and that's GK vs Demons. There could be more that I'm unaware of though.

I will say though, a game doesn't have to be fun to be engaging, and sometimes I prefer engaging.

 captain collius wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
I apologize if I misread the situation.

As far as I am concerned, WAAC players are TFG. I don't really differentiate between the two because neither one are fun. I wasn't under the impression you were a powergamer from reading all your other, informative posts, so it surprised me to see what I thought was an impassioned defense of people who were building lists to WAAC. Winning is not an issue. I have no problem with that or trying to win. But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not thru his poor list-building, but thru the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

So to turn what you said into a readable format

Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = good

Um, no. First, what I said was perfectly readable, so no reason to be insulting. I do admit I ramble at times. I don't think that was one of them. I would sya the reason that necron flier lists currently have sucha bad reputation is precisely because they do belong in that category of things that have no real counter at this point, unless you have certain armies which can handle fliers. My putting 4 or more Vendettas in my IG army I would also consider poor sportsmanship.

Valhalla130 wrote:I apologize if I misread the situation.

'Sall good, brah.

captain collius wrote:


Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = worse

Fixed that.

Except the Cyclon Death Fleet does have a counter. Its called, book missions not involving kill points, ie 5/6 of them. Don't play KP all the time and that list stops being an issue.

A better example would actually be the blob behind a ADL that goes to ground and then gets back in the fight every turn.

 Phazael wrote:
Except the Cyclon Death Fleet does have a counter. Its called, book missions not involving kill points, ie 5/6 of them. Don't play KP all the time and that list stops being an issue.

Except this list has a field day tabling you.

A better example would actually be the blob behind a ADL that goes to ground and then gets back in the fight every turn.

Any CC unit breaks this, Or two or three template weapons.

If i can clarify some of the sentiments behind the fluffy versus Competitive arguments.

If i take a Necron Scythewing army because i want to win, i'm a WAAC TFG

If I take a necron Scythewing army because i genuinely like the models, i'm not the WAAC TFG

This despite the fact that both armies will play the same on the battlefield?

The problem is that if you take that list, then everyone is going to assume that you are doing it purely to win. With the fact that it is all over the net as a problem, anyone on Dakka should know about it, and claiming you're just doing it because it's fluffy, seems (even if it's not) disingenuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Valhalla130 wrote:I apologize if I misread the situation.

'Sall good, brah.

captain collius wrote:


Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = worse

Fixed that.

My faith in you is restored! Lol

madtankbloke wrote:
If i take a Necron Scythewing army because i want to win, i'm playing a competitive list

Fixed that for you. WAAC means "win at ALL costs", including cheating, rules lawyering, abusing your opponent, etc. It does NOT mean "bringing a strong list", which is simply playing a strong list with the intent to win.

Thta's a good point. There is a distinct difference between WAAC which means cheating, rules lawyering, everything you just said, and just building a strong list, which everyone should be doing, even if playing fluffy.

I look at it like this. If I finally build an Arbites army, I would count it as IG. I would have my police vendettas, and my Chimera riot tanks, and my Arbites officers who were played as IG troopers. I'm still going to build a decent list if possible. I love Arbites. Way to expensive for me though.

Trying to twist things to your advantage so your opponent is going to lose no matter how he plays is all I've been talking about though, when it comes to cheesiness. And their are some units that are just badly written, like vendettas, which should cost more.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But bringing things to the table that your opponent cannot counter (not through his poor list-building, but through the rules as written) is not very sportsmanlike.

This is very uncommon though. There's only one example I've seen and that's GK vs Demons. There could be more that I'm unaware of though.

I will say though, a game doesn't have to be fun to be engaging, and sometimes I prefer engaging.

Besides the Quake spam vs Daemons, (which is about the lowest tihng you can do IMHO, especially to a poor 12 year-old kid), you can get some pretty much auto-lose match-ups with;

a) Purifyer spam vs non-psychic circus Tyranids.
Orks at least tend to run mainly shooty builds. Tyranids though simply do not have anywhere near the ability to build a shooty enough list to counter an all-Purifyer spam build. It's made even worse if you face MSU mech Purifyers too, since the bugs also have problems getting enough high strength volume firepower to crack open the massed transports.
It's simply a sad, sad farce of a "game" since the 'Nid's only real defense is to bring as many of their own 'Shadow in the Warp' capable models as possible, and even then, it's not 100% effective.
To make it even more of a donkeycave army, throw in psycho grenades just to really make the poor bug player feel even more worthless.

b) Jaws spam vs I2 armies. (looking at you Necrons & Nurgle Daemons!)
Consider it's easily possible to play 4 JotWW + max Missilefangs in 1500pts. All they do is sit at the back and auto-kill I2 models all day long. It's about as much fun being that poor VC/Ogre/Dwarf or god forbid, Lizardman player and your donkeycave opponent pulls a 1st turn Irrisistable Force powered-up version of Purple Sun along your flank...

 TheCaptain wrote:
If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

No. Fault is never one-sided in a two player game. If the min-maxer spared no thought for the enjoyment of his opponent, then he is that fething guy who brings hardcore lists and only cares about the win.

Both players need to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building their lists. It's incredibly selfish and rude to simply say "Well, I'm not changing so you're just going to lose all the time, get used to it"

I would like to play a game where both sides just bring suboptimal units, and see who would win. I really need to get into a good group who wants to play a campaign. Then we could bring lists that represented different units in a army. Like scouts or an armoured column or something like that. That would be fethin' awesome.

If you give long winded speeches on how there is no such thing as a "Cheesy or OP Army" but then list Grey Knights, Space Wolves, and Necrons as your armies of choice, you might be TFG!

That's not quite true. I have about 1500pts each of both Space Wolves and Necrons in my collection, and neither of my armies contain any of the stuff that makes them so controversial lately. No Long Fang missile spam ( I have 1 ML in the army), no Necron flyers at all (though I may pick up a single one because I think they look awesome), etc. Hell, my Necrons are 90% made of 1.0 Necron models. Wraiths are the only thing I have from the 2.0 Necrons right now, simply because they are miles better than the old models.

I actually stay away from everything about the armies that is controversial about 40K lately, because lists filled with that stuff show up everywhere, and I hate being part of trends.

I would like to play a game where both sides just bring suboptimal units, and see who would win. I really need to get into a good group who wants to play a campaign. Then we could bring lists that represented different units in a army. Like scouts or an armoured column or something like that. That would be fethin' awesome.

You mean like the Shining Spears and Swooping Hawks squads in my Eldar army, who I field simply because I think my conversions make them look awesome? Or my Sisters of Battle army who fights with no allies?

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them.

If someone says to you 'hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?' and you agree and then turn up with a top tier list without warning, you are not interested in playing a fair game. You're not interested in fair competition. You're not interested in mutual fun. You're only interested in winning. That's TFG behaviour.

Many, many people in this thread have asked the same thing - that people bring competitive lists to competitive environments and friendly lists to friendly environments so that everyone can play with the toys they like. Someone who refuses to play anything other than min/max OP competitive lists in every situation is TFG.

I would have to agree. If your only interest is in playing in tournaments, then you shouldn't be playing pick up games in your FLGS.

Whether my demolisher is a good choice or not, I like the way I have it modeled with the tank riders, and I will always field it, even if I think other units might work better. Going forward, I might choose things that are better options, like I'm not looking to buy a new hellhound, even though I feel the need to replace the one that was stolen from me, and I may choose a Vendetta instead. I think they look cool too, and they just happen to be a good unit. I won't field 6 of them, but I might pick up one. And the idea of an ADL kind of fits right in with the Guard anyway...

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them.

If someone says to you 'hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?' and you agree and then turn up with a top tier list without warning, you are not interested in playing a fair game. You're not interested in fair competition. You're not interested in mutual fun. You're only interested in winning. That's TFG behaviour.

Many, many people in this thread have asked the same thing - that people bring competitive lists to competitive environments and friendly lists to friendly environments so that everyone can play with the toys they like. Someone who refuses to play anything other than min/max OP competitive lists in every situation is TFG.

You did a better job of putting into words what I was trying to express earlier. Perhaps this picture will also illustrate it

Anyone wanna guess who TFG is in this picture?

I am putting together a Forgeworld Elysian IG army as I am a big fan of the airborne/air cav fluff and think it adds a cool bit of variety to the usual IG lists out there. Now at my FLGS I would have to say we are very competitive, meaning that almost everyone is putting together a list to smack your face in, however that mentality has slowly gotten alot better (outside tournaments that is) but even then it is still pretty competitive gameplay during friendly games.

With my list I have tried to find a balance between fluff and competitiveness as I dont mind losing games, however only if I am in those games and not absolutely getting my teeth knocked in. I run plasma spam with all my veteran squads in my army and I know for a fact that many people view that as being cheesy, however if by doing so keeps me in games against Space Wolves, Necrons, GK and the other power lists out there then I have no issues with it.

Also one thing to touch on in regards to Armies as a whole being declared cheesy alot of this should be contributed to the other player/opponent not knowing how to fight against that particular army. Necrons for example became a top tier army with the release of the new edition, I dont think anyone can argue that and it has forced people who had a tactic that worked against them to change their approach. Its what makes this game great is the variety that can be found and alot of it is just people who are unused to or need to fight the army to learn how to fight it. Ironically I am thankful for getting absolutely destroyed a few games as in the end it has made me a better player overall, learn from your mistakes.

 Minus wrote:
Building a strong list and playing it a competitive way when you opponent just wants to have fun, is like being that kid on the left, according to me :

The difference being that I'm fairly confident those other kids wouldn't have been saying 'Hey, your gear is beardy!'... they would have been saying 'Woah! That's a weird helmet!'

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them.

If someone says to you 'hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?' and you agree and then turn up with a top tier list without warning, you are not interested in playing a fair game. You're not interested in fair competition. You're not interested in mutual fun. You're only interested in winning. That's TFG behaviour.

If someone says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?" and I show up with MY list of MY choice, which is top-tier and competitive, it is mutual fun. Unless the other player's list is bad. Then they might not have fun, if they invest all their "fun" into winning a game with a mediocre army.

If someome says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna play a casual, fluffy game?" and I show up with my top-tier competitive list, THEN that is TFG.

If you ask for a game, you risk playing a competitive list, a fluff list, or any of the gray areas in between. Your call, and your risk by taking a bad list.

If you stipulate that you are new, bad, or interested in forging a narrative, then you have made your expectations clear, and the power-gamer has a reasonable chance of playing more to your expectations.

Expecting a powergamer to read a fluff-player's mind and cater to their list's mediocrity based on insight; that's ridiculous.

I think a lot of assumptions are being made in this conversation, and that is leading to mischaracterizations and hurt feelings.

I like the idea that the kid's bike is apparently going to win the race for him, if it is the metaphor for the beardy army. It would be so much fairer if his competitive edge was knocked down by taking a regular bike!

I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

If I talk someone into a Cityfight game, and we take units like Hellhounds, and flamers, and penal squads, you can bet I'll still try my best to win. Now... playing a city fight game with someone who brings all terminators to that same match... that would be a bit unfair. I'd still try my best to win, but it would be like playing on Insane Mode in some videogames. It just makes you want to rip your hair out.

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

You're literally the first person to 100% be sensible in this thread.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

You're literally the first person to 100% be sensible in this thread.

Actually, agreed. It's a diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks type of situation. If at the end of the day, you and your opponent can share beers, no one was TFG.

Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

Well. This is barely in english, but if you're saying Purifier lists are OP...you need to reassess that, bud.

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

I think you're right, but that most people fall into the grey areas between those definitions.

There's a huge grey area between your (rather derisive) 'fluff bunny' description and your (rather complimentary) 'competitive players'. People who want a good, close, combative game where they can try their best to win, but also like to field themed lists, or like to play evenly-matched games with friends who may not have 'competitive' lists. I fall in here, as do most of the players I've met (both in friendly and tournament situations).

There's also a huge grey area between your 'competitive' sorts and out-and-out TFG players. People who use sports analogies, phrases like 'integrity of competition', consider not taking the strongest list in the codex the same as 'deliberately losing', and profess that all they enjoy is 'the challenge' when all they really want is to win - but this is pointed out in a good few posts above.

I think more people fit into these two grey areas than either of those three simple definitions.

And, of course, you're right - then there are the WAAC fools - but they are rarely around that long in my experience.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

Well. This is barely in english, but if you're saying Purifier lists are OP...you need to reassess that, bud.

Most Ork players it seems have moved onto shootier lists in 6th, with their assault power being in the form of the old stand-by Nobs/Biker Nobs or Mega Armoured Nobz. It's fairly safe to assume that the average 6th edition Ork list doesn't fear the Purifyer spam like it did in 5th when Green Tide was a viable build.

Tyranids on the other hand? Well, they still get roflstomped unless they bring a Psychic Choir list since there's no way they'll ever outshoot Purifyers, (or any GK list for that matter).
4-5+ units with Clensing Flame murder those hordes, while the big boys tend to get owned by the pointy death sticks.