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.

8 Bloodletters

or

5 man terminator squad with 2 assault cannons

I know they are from two completely separate armies but... I guess what I'm trying to say is what is cheesier?

Too little information.

Neither of those units is ?cheesy? by itself. They might be looked at askance in certain army builds; it all comes down to what is in the list as a whole.

You are right there is too little to make a well balanced thought on it.

It was a silly debate I was having last night with my opponent. It was hardly serious but I was unsure if people dreaded seeing bloodletters as much as I dreaded seeing assault cannons.

Neither.  8 bloodletters is not min/maxed and 5 termies is pretty standard and the capacity for your standard issue LR. 

 

 

5 termies with assault cannon!!! Nothing says cheese like 3x 5 man termies squads with 2 assault cannons and a librarian with term command squad and 2 assault cannons. Not to mention the 2 min scout squads to make the min troop choices, and maxed Tornado squads

Jfrazell: I completely disagree with you as to the LR comment. LR/LRC are so that Assault Termies can get into close combat, without losing a turn and getting shot to crap because the deepstruck next to enemy lines

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 8:36 AM


Jfrazell: I completely disagree with you as to the LR comment. LR/LRC are so that Assault Termies can get into close combat, without losing a turn and getting shot to crap because the deepstruck next to enemy lines

respectfully,
1.  You disagree with me? Clearly you're wrong then argument over 8)

2.  We're only talking the one unit, not a full list of supposed cheesiness. 

3. Landraiders move termies about.  There is no notation that they are purely for assault termies. Thats a supposition on your part.  how about drop pods? I forget how many termies they can carry offhand but I'm betting 5 max as well.

Its completely legal.  The size is pretty common. I would not ding them on comp for that. You may and that shows swhy the concept itself is broken.  Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 8:52 AM

Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

  Yeah, I've only been to two tournaments so far, but I'm already disliking comp when it's player scored. What's a "fair and characterful" army varies greatly with the person you're playing against.

I'm all for promoting fun and characterful armies, but I'd rather the judges score the comp for everyone, with general comp expectations outlined before the tournament.

Posted By logan007 on 12/08/2006 9:15 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 8:52 AM

Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

  Yeah, I've only been to two tournaments so far, but I'm already disliking comp when it's player scored. What's a "fair and characterful" army varies greatly with the person you're playing against.

I'm all for promoting fun and characterful armies, but I'd rather the judges score the comp for everyone, with general comp expectations outlined before the tournament.

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

Yeah, I realize its hard to judge them by themselves so it was more of an open ended discussion than a "you are wrong, I am right argument."

I'm glad the opponent in question chimed in.

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

However, that was not the question. only whether A unit was cheesy. Would you say it was cheesy if the rest of the list was nothing but ten man squads with missile launchers and flamers?

Neither is cheesey. And even considering tanking someone's scores over this is bad sportmanship.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 9:31 AM

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

However, that was not the question. only whether A unit was cheesy. Would you say it was cheesy if the rest of the list was nothing but ten man squads with missile launchers and flamers?

I need some sarcasm tags.  He didn't have 12 assault cannons. 

Who cares which is cheesier.

If you're playing some old time dinosaur that needs the crutch of comp to have a good time, just eat the bad comp score while you wreck his whole tourament.

Comp is dead. Some people just won't admit it yet. 

Wait, I have been toying with the idea of doing a Saim-Hann Mech eldar army maximizing wave serpents and falcons. I have never done a GT, only a few Golden Demons comps. Am I going to get low comp for bringing a competitive army? That seems really lame. Why would I bring an army that I knew wasn't very good??

Isn't what I described what a Saim-Hann army is supposed to be?

I am confused...

engine

Its one of the pitfalls of playing in a GW tournament. If your really lucky you'll offend them so much they'll post on one of the forums about how cheesy your list was or you had wobbly dice, etc.

Bad comp is any list that wins. Plain and simple.

And Cheese is anything that can do something that my army can't.

Or anything that kills Marines really well.

And the cries of cheese tend to be rather hypocritical (One tourney had a guy whining about cheese when my Calidus moved his IF Defiler where I could see it...)

Another lame argument on cheese. If you can do it then do it. There will always be people that can make devestating army lists and those who cant (ie me) who cares, just copy there list if you are that bothered.

Forget Chease and beardyness. Taking points of for a supposed cheasy army is just wrong, Are you breaking any rules ? No then why is it done. Remember some people play to win, It makes them feel better for not having a life but who cares let them get on with it. Dont dock them points for it or cry chease.

Whereas one mans idea of chease is not always anothers. who decides what is cheasy or not.? Skyth is right, people cry cheese when an army wins.

Engine just bringing eldar might get you tagged by some marine players.  Others will love the chance to play a non-MEQ list.  Just take the best list you can that fits your play style and have a good time.

Maxing Assault Cannon is cheese and will always be cheese.

The player in the question was directed at, answered, but he does not completely cheese his lists out all the time

Rule of thumb for comp score for me at least: 1 3/4 strength unit for per assault cannon. There is just something that irks me when your assault cannon upgrade cost is more than your entire troop choice cost.

On a side note, I have successfully created a list that is competitive and does not have any assault cannons!(But 2x Ordo Xenos Heavy Bolters)

As I said, each to his own, but this shows how comp is broken. Any contest that relies on your opponent to score you is inherently caca (technical term there).

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 1:10 PM
Maxing Assault Cannon is cheese and will always be cheese.

The player in the question was directed at, answered, but he does not completely cheese his lists out all the time

Rule of thumb for comp score for me at least: 1 3/4 strength unit for per assault cannon. There is just something that irks me when your assault cannon upgrade cost is more than your entire troop choice cost.

On a side note, I have successfully created a list that is competitive and does not have any assault cannons!(But 2x Ordo Xenos Heavy Bolters)

Two HQ units are cheesey you know

Are US GTs like this? Everyone complaining because they got beat by a competitive list when they brought a non-competitive list? I would laugh in their face. Why bring sub-standard equipment to any competitive event?

The cheese arguement sounds so ridiculous in any other connotation.

"Oh man, you are totally cheesy with your brand new custom balanced bowling ball." - says guy with scarred loaner ball at a tournament.

If I took an underpowered Ork army to a GT, I would expect to get my butt handed too me. No wonder I have stuck with the GDs all these years...

engine

No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

"If your really lucky you'll offend them so much they'll post on one of the forums about how cheesy your list was or you had wobbly dice, etc."

LOL... sounds like some people I know of.

- Greenie

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

With all the whining about the maxed assault cannon list, it actually isn't all that effective compared to other tournament armies out there.

Anything that carries an assault cannon is very fragile in a tournament environment.

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

Why should players score comp? Why can't the judges score comp? If one of the goals of a tournament is to promote fun/fair lists, why should the players decide if what they're playing against is fun/fair? Is it fair to assume that people playing in a tournament are knowledgeable about EVERY army and what's cheesey and what's not? What if a player thinks a certain unit is cheesey because they haven't thought of a strategy to counter them? What if a player tanks another person's comp score out of spite?

I've met people who think that regardless of the number of points involved, 2 HQs are cheesey. I've met people who think having two identical units are cheesey. I've met people who think paying more than 160 points in your HQ slot is cheesey. Not devoting 40% or more of your points to troops is cheesey. Not using a minimum of 5 troop slots is cheesey.

Who decides these things?

Posted By skyth on 12/08/2006 5:06 PM

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

With all the whining about the maxed assault cannon list, it actually isn't all that effective compared to other tournament armies out there.

Anything that carries an assault cannon is very fragile in a tournament environment.

As a person who loves loves assault cannons, I agree with you

I'm going to have to disagree, a well built assault cannon maximized tournament list is very competitive.

I pack 6 in my standard list. I could squeeze 9 into an 1850 list (And have the models for it), but I like my 6 AC list better. The list with 9 just seems WAY too fragile for my tastes.

Its no big deal, I wont dock much, but if a "competitive list" can be played by a monkey, then I have issue with it