Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Space wolves and daemons..... That's about it


What about you guys?

I've always found the idea of cheese strange. People rant about how entire books are OP yet it almost always turns out to be one or two units not the book. For example Space Wolves - Most units aren't OP at all (Blood Claws, Long Fangs, Predators and Land Raiders) but some like Wulfen and TWC are but people act as if it's the entire codex.

Marines .

=)

Seriously , I have more fun vs eldar, tau and demons

My definition of "cheese" is basically just dishonesty. If you don't discuss a level of competitiveness before your game, then it's a crapshoot, and you might get a more competitive list playing a less competitive list - that does NOT make the more competitive list cheesy (in my opinion of course).

However, if you say "hey, let's have a casual game" and bring an optimized, competitive list...that's cheesy and pretty lame. Similarly, if you know the player you're going up against is using a particular army (or even worse, you know exactly what they own) and you tailor your list, that is cheese.

Yes, you can be "cheesy" running a less competitive army. A Guard player learns he's playing orks and brings 5 Leman Russ Punishers, that's cheese.

Is it easier to bring cheese with, say, Eldar? Oh yeah. But unless your opponent specifically wants you to, any kind of tailoring is pretty much antithetical to a good game.

From the guard perspective cheese is any one unit or vehicle that cannot be killed by either 9 lascannons or 100 men with lasguns. (plus orders)

If I cant kill it like that than it simply should not exist in this game.

Like other posters have said, cheese is all relative. If I'm playing a list with a huge TWC deathstar a bunch of Wulfen, but my opponent has 18 scatbikes, a wraithknight, and D-Scythe wraithguard is either list cheese? No. If you bring those same lists to games against Orks, Guard, BA, CSM, etc... or someone that wants a casual game, well then you've got yourself some cheddar.

If your problem with SW and Daemons is that you get your butt kicked by them at the FLGS, maybe just ask the people playing those armies to tone it down against you if you're looking for a casual game or playing a low tier army?

I also find it funny (awesome, even?) that in an edition dominated by shooting and psychic buffs, SW still cause so much rage with dedicated assault units that have little to no psychic shenanigans and mediocre shooting at best... I understand why you probably hate TWC and Wulfen though, if they get to you, you're gonna have a bad time haha.

I think cheese is the Venn diagram intersection of Games Workshop not knowing how to write rules, and 40k players not knowing how to play 40k.

If it beats my army then it's cheese. If it benefits my army then it's fair and balanced.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If it beats my army then it's cheese. If it benefits my army then it's fair and balanced.

This seems to be the majority of peoples view. Hence why I would never trust them to write rules or have a community rule set.

Cheese = exploiting rules which are publicly acknowledged as being unfair or unbalanced.

Wraithknights, invisibility, flier spam, etc. = cheese.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If it beats my army then it's cheese. If it benefits my army then it's fair and balanced.

Pretty much. People can say any other definitions they like, but 95% of the time this is what they actually mean.

 Jewelfox wrote:
I think cheese is the Venn diagram intersection of Games Workshop not knowing how to write rules, and 40k players not knowing how to play 40k.

Why is "not knowing how to play 40k" relevant? The term "cheese" is usually about balance issues, not unclear rules. Or are you suggesting that "how to play 40k" includes some form of "take units/armies that I want you to take"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Cheese = exploiting rules which are publicly acknowledged as being unfair or unbalanced.

Well, I publicly acknowledge that everything Traditio puts on the table is unfair or unbalanced. Guess that makes you a cheese player like the rest of us!

Peregrine wrote:Well, I publicly acknowledge that everything Traditio puts on the table is unfair or unbalanced. Guess that makes you a cheese player like the rest of us!

1. Individuals can't publicly acknowledge things. By definition, public acknowledgment is acknowledgment by "the public."

You'll, of course, try to cast doubt about who precisely "the public" is and how much of "the public" has to agree, but it's all smoke and mirrors, and you know it.

2. What you are saying is purely ad hoc. In fact, nobody actually thinks I run cheese.

Traditio wrote:
1. Individuals can't publicly acknowledge things.

Sure they can. They simply post their acknowledgment in public, where everyone can read it.

In fact, nobody actually thinks I run cheese.

I do.

Peregrine wrote:Sure they can. They simply post their acknowledgment in public, where everyone can read it.

Touche.

...

...

I mean, really:

Touche.

Fair enough. You fully understand what I mean, though: a single individual does not constitute "the public."

I do.

No, you don't.

In fact. If I wanted to, I could probably search your posting history and find you saying the exact opposite of what you are saying now.

Or did the addition of two lascannons and missile launchers to my army tip the scales into cheese territory, Peregrine?

Traditio wrote:
If I wanted to, I could probably search your posting history and find you saying the exact opposite of what you are saying now.

I would be amused to see you do that, because I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for. Not that it would prove anything if you did (people do change their minds, after all), but I would find the extreme effort entertaining.

Traditio's army is cheese. Nerf space marines!

(Why am I not surprised by his sig being filled with political hate speech on a forum about toy soldiers?)

 Peregrine wrote:
Why is "not knowing how to play 40k" relevant? The term "cheese" is usually about balance issues, not unclear rules. Or are you suggesting that "how to play 40k" includes some form of "take units/armies that I want you to take"?

Both, honestly. Games Workshop's concept of balance appears to require people to buy every boxed game and take things like Assassins and Imperial Knights on the side, because they haven't given a lot of factions any other counters to stuff now appearing in the meta. Which is BS on their part, as is apparently not realizing that the jink FAQ invalidates Dark Eldar.

On the other hand, there's also kind of a scrub mentality I've seen in a lot of 40k players, where they think they're entitled to tell you not to take units or lists that you want to take, and don't appear to make any effort to adjust their list or playstyle. That one Tau thread that Traditio wrecked being a good example of this. "I don't need to change how I play, you need to burn all your models!"

 Jewelfox wrote:
(Why am I not surprised by his sig being filled with political hate speech on a forum about toy soldiers?)

...

Of course it is. Of course he has a new signature. Though I guess it's exactly what I'd expect from someone who thinks he's being treated unfairly because his school won't let him give his favorite "why sodomy is morally wrong" lecture in his class...

On the other hand, there's also kind of a scrub mentality I've seen in a lot of 40k players, where they think they're entitled to tell you not to take units or lists that you want to take, and don't appear to make any effort to adjust their list or playstyle. That one Tau thread that Traditio wrecked being a good example of this. "I don't need to change how I play, you need to burn all your models!"

Oh, in this case I agree then. I thought you were giving the other kind of "people don't know how to play" argument, as in "people don't understand that 40k is a 'casual' game where anyone who brings units I don't approve of is a WAAC TFG"".

In my mind, cheese is when you read a rule RAW in a way where it is clearly not the RAI, but because of some kind of interaction between three different vague rules you've managed to make your laspistol work as a lascannon.

Situations where it's dumb as gak, but when you explain it and I read the rules I have to go "yeah.. well... it does say that."

It's not technically cheating, but... come on.

Traditio wrote:
Cheese = exploiting rules which are publicly acknowledged as being unfair or unbalanced.

Wraithknights, invisibility, flier spam, etc. = cheese.

That just translates into: If a person doesn't like something then it's unbalanced/ unfair because we never will get a consensus - but those two terms are incredibly subjective... A marine player using a skyhammer force with extra drop pods would be placed in an unfair game against an interceptor army. A flier spam army might also scream 'unfair and unbalanced' when against interceptor/ skyfire army whilst a deathstar army wouldn't bat an eye...

What I'm trying to get at is that calls and definitions of 'unfair' and 'cheese' are largely irrelevant in a game that is rapidly becoming more of a rock/paper/scissors match up.
So if anything, I agree with the_scotsman (exalted by the way) that what is truly cheesy is bringing a list that you know for certain that your opponent cannot win against via list tailoring (i.e. bringing multiple deep striking flamer units when you know you are playing against Harlequins)

None at all.

Traditio wrote:Cheese = exploiting rules which are publicly acknowledged as being unfair or unbalanced.

Wraithknights, invisibility, flier spam, etc. = cheese.

This is not entirely true. Yes, you ate right to a certain extent, but not completely correct. Why? See the quote below:

Torus wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Cheese = exploiting rules which are publicly acknowledged as being unfair or unbalanced.

Wraithknights, invisibility, flier spam, etc. = cheese.

That just translates into: If a person doesn't like something then it's unbalanced/ unfair because we never will get a consensus - but those two terms are incredibly subjective... A marine player using a skyhammer force with extra drop pods would be placed in an unfair game against an interceptor army. A flier spam army might also scream 'unfair and unbalanced' when against interceptor/ skyfire army whilst a deathstar army wouldn't bat an eye...

What I'm trying to get at is that calls and definitions of 'unfair' and 'cheese' are largely irrelevant in a game that is rapidly becoming more of a rock/paper/scissors match up.
So if anything, I agree with the_scotsman (exalted by the way) that what is truly cheesy is bringing a list that you know for certain that your opponent cannot win against via list tailoring (i.e. bringing multiple deep striking flamer units when you know you are playing against Harlequins)

I agree with everything in the quote directly above with the addition that players who know each other should come to an understanding about the overall limitations of each other's army. For example, when I play against my mate who plays Dark Angels (for example), we always agree on no flyers since I have no anti-air outside of missile launchers on Dreadnoughts (which are over-costed and ineffective most of the time).

So cheese is essentially exploiting rules, units and builds that are either widely considered to be over-powered, and/or exploiting rules, units and builds that you know your opponent can't counter (i.e. list tailoring). Solution? (1) Try to avoid too much stuff which is overly or unnecessarily powerful (you should be here for fun, not power play); (2) Understand the limitations of you opponent's potential builds; (3) Try to avoid list tailoring.

Fun and power play are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

As long as both players agree to the level of competitiveness they are playing to, all is fair in war.

Myself, I usually play at a level that is slightly below tournament. My housemate and I sometimes try out slightly filthy lists, but we're talking Ravenwing re-rollable 2+ cover saves, or Necron Decurion w/Orikanstar, or Riptide Wing level of filth, not Revenant Titan On A Skyshield level filth.

Although I do have a Revenant Titan to build...

Swiss mostly stink stuff like that.

Also space marines..

Things may be different in a small group, where your choice is "play everyone, or basically don't get to play at all" but in a large group like mine, the players with super competitive lists just don't get as many games, because not as many people want to play super competitively. So everyone's "take all comers" list tends to gravitate to a level where all codexes can regularly compete (yes, contrary to what the internet may say, that level not only exists but it is very, very easy to get to if you don't take optimized everything).

Cheese via knowing what certain people have and tailoring against it is far more widespread and far less fun than an accidental imbalanced matchup. Many people will tell you "why would I take X unit against Y army? It's TOTALLY USELESS against them!"

If you're in that situation, you should either A) drop X from your list entirely if it only works as a specific counter and you can't use it in a TAC environment, or B) learn to use units in games where they have limited combat effectiveness.

It's really easy to take the route of "everyone/the internet/the public says this is OP so you are a bad person for using it" but in this hobby, one of the relatively few consistencies is "the customer is frequently wrong." Everyone has biases, and generally it's those with the biggest biases who make the most claims to the imaginary authority of "the community." You might, for instance, see Gladius (An extremely competitive build that frequently sees play in and wins tournaments) as completely reasonable, and view Imperial Guard (haven't even been seen in a competitive event for over a year) as somehow overpowering.

If your stance for that opinion is that "the community" thinks that way...well, you're unequivocally wrong, unless in your eyes, only you are "the community."

If your stance for that is "when I play Gladius, I don't bother taking the principle benefit of 500+ points of free transports, and when I play vs guard, they take a large number of AP3 pie plates to destroy my footslogging marine army" then you're actually right, and that can be considered cheesy.

Torus wrote:That just translates into: If a person doesn't like something then it's unbalanced/ unfair because we never will get a consensus

Except, it doesn't. Note the emphasis on the word "public."

No, we probably won't ever get perfect consensus about much, if anything, in this game. There will, however, be prevailing public opinions. And the prevailing public opinion is that the wraithknight, e.g., is OP/undercosted, thousand sons are practically unplayable in a competitive meta, that khorne berserkers just don't work, etc.

And for what it's worth, if I put my army list on a forum where nobody knows who I am or my posting history, there would also be general consensus that I don't run cheese.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/690891.page

I don't even run the full 10 rhinos I'm entitled to. I only currently own 5.

- but those two terms are incredibly subjective... A marine player using a skyhammer force with extra drop pods would be placed in an unfair game against an interceptor army. A flier spam army might also scream 'unfair and unbalanced' when against interceptor/ skyfire army whilst a deathstar army wouldn't bat an eye...

Again, my emphasis is on the word "public."

What I'm trying to get at is that calls and definitions of 'unfair' and 'cheese' are largely irrelevant in a game that is rapidly becoming more of a rock/paper/scissors match up.
So if anything, I agree with the_scotsman (exalted by the way) that what is truly cheesy is bringing a list that you know for certain that your opponent cannot win against via list tailoring (i.e. bringing multiple deep striking flamer units when you know you are playing against Harlequins)

Or you could simply do research, consider general public opinion on the state of the game (do the status quaestionis, as it were), and avoid using things that are publicly maligned.

Stomp, Thunderblitz. Ignore Cover on Massive Blasts, Apocalyptic Blasts, and Hellstorm.

That's it.

Scatterlasers. Pure cheese since day 1.

THERE IS NO CHEESE IN 40K

everyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot and cant play the game!


on a side note... for me cheese is the abuse of rules... or let me refraise that... the bending and activly target-oriented searching of poorly written rules that benefit my own playstyle or army.

but its a blurry thing. there isnt a a clear fine line from playing by the rules and doing the above and one cant really say when its beeing crossed.

oh that and the wraithknight

Scatterlasers.... on a Wraithknight. Double cheese.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
From the guard perspective cheese is any one unit or vehicle that cannot be killed by either 9 lascannons or 100 men with lasguns. (plus orders)

If I cant kill it like that than it simply should not exist in this game.

Yes and no....100 lasguns can't kill a trukk.