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.

First and foremost, I'm not trying to start a flame war or any other sort of trouble.  Having said that, I probably will. . .

Second, I'm not trying to insult anybody, especially if we've met.  And having said that, again, I probably will. . .

So I was in a small tournament a couple of weeks ago, and I took a look at some of the other armies being played.  A handful played Eldar, there were a few varieties of SM (including Chaos), Necron, Tyranid, and a couple of IG players.

I've always heard of Eldar armies being cheesy, mainly because they have all sorts of special rules and capabilities that other armies lack.  Yet at this tournament, it was the other armies that used all of the special rules available to them:

First there was the 6 Dread drop-pod army, with a 7th drop-pod for a squad of SM.  The player had scratch-built the drop-pods for the dreads, using the regular FW drop-pod as a model.  He said that he made them large enough to actually fit a dread in.  That was fine and all, except that there was also room for his hand, and room to spare.  I was listening to him talk about his tactics a little bit after the tournament.  He was using the overly large pods to act as "terrain" to block lines of sight and movement.

Then there was the Bug player whose entire army was immune to psychology, and nothing could be instant-killed, because everything was in synapse range.  What does being part of the hive mind have to do with shrugging off a point-blank lascannon shot, losing only 1 wound?

And let's not forget the 2 IG players who used deep-strike for their entire armies. . .

So what is the definition of cheese?  Is it simply being able to do something that someone else can't?  If so, then every army is cheesy in some way or another.

There's more, but it's getting into my personal opinions, and I don't want to go there just yet.

With the exception of the size of the drop pods I see nothing wrong in your examples. I reserve judgement on the pods because I haven't seen them. A pod army that does not use the pods to block line of sight will lose. No if, ands, or buts about it.

In my experience labelling something "cheese" is simply a way to save face. Its a lot easier to say your opponent's army list was broken than to except personal responsibility for losing.

The first thing to understand is that "cheese" actually doesn't mean anything. There is no concensus on what "cheesy" means. It's really just a sly way of saying, 'I don't like that.'

You see, no matter how fair, blanaced fluffy, or (insert other adjative here) you may think your army is, there will be someone out there who will be a bit more extreme, and take one look at your army and cry 'cheese.' If you have never been called cheesy, then it's just because you haven't met with enough players yet. Just wait, sooner or later you will find someone who thinks your army is cheesy.

So, in reality, everyone is cheesy, and everyone is un-cheesy at the same time, it just depends from which part of the spectrum the person looking at your army happens to come from.

Hmm, I'm not sure how long you've been in the hobby, but aside from the pod size most of the things you describe are neither overly powerful (one facet of cheese), un-fluffy (another), or utilize an obscure or potent combo (yet another).

any scratchbuild model can vary in size, even the forgeworld Drop Pod isn't official in any way. With no guidance as to how big a drop pod is supposed to be, it's really too difficult to say "that's too big." If my opponent's pods were all the size of coffee cans, I may have a problem, but that's an extreme.

Drop troop guard are one of the trickiest armies to play, and don't even benefit from the "may always deep strike" rule. There's tons of fluff on drop troops, from WW2 paratroopers to the elysians of 40k.

As for tyranids, synapse is one of their core rules, much like ATSKNF is for Marines. Not using it to your advantage is simply daft.

Cheese is to gaming was obscenity is to the courts. In the US, obscenity is defined as that which appeals to a purient interest, and offends the community standard. One man's smut is another man's art. In much the same way cheese is viewed in 40k.

Probobly the best possible definition of cheesy would be "a list whose overall power, adherence to background, composition, and style of play are markedly dissimilar from the environment in which it is used, with all such deviance creating a higher chance of victory." If you're playing in a 12 week map based campaign, you expect to see different lists than at the UK GT finals. Note that this definition would almost solely be used by those who had brougth a list that probolby wasn't strong enough for the environment. In essense, calling an army cheesy is saying that the player brought a gun to knife fight.

Doctor Thunder: did you take your name from the delicious beverage? That stuff is basically all I drank in college, not counting booze. BTW, Dr. Thunder mixed with booze is bad times.

Posted By Polonius on 03/07/2007 4:49 PM
Doctor Thunder: did you take your name from the delicious beverage? That stuff is basically all I drank in college, not counting booze. BTW, Dr. Thunder mixed with booze is bad times.

Yeah, I've never actually drank the stuff, but I walked past it one day at Wal-Mart, and it just made me laugh.  I imagined some panel of marketing experts with a deadline and their jobs on the line, trying desperately to come up with something that sounds like Dr. Pepper, but even cooler and edge-ier, but they ended up trying so hard to sound cool that it ended up just being lame.

I figured that was a perfect description of me. 

Back when I was short, this new kid moved into our neighborhood. He liked to play with our toys. Fine, we had all been taught to share. It slowly dawned on us that while he got to play with our toys, we never got to play with his. And sometimes, after he had been playing with our toys, some of them turned up missing. So gradually we stopped letting him play with our toys, but he had a secret weapon- if you told him he couldn't play with your toys, he called you 'stingy'. And since no one wanted to be thought of as stingy, trained as we were to share, this tactic worked for a little while, even though he was the stingiest, most selfish child in the neighborhood. Finally one of the older kids told him to shut the f*** up about being stingy unless he was going to haul out his toy box and let us dig through it to see if our missing property might be there, and the kid went away, but he never stopped calling us stingy.

When I was tall, I used to join some friends and put on armour and we'd bash each other with sticks. We'd even get together with other people from other states and do that. We were part of an organization that spans the globe and had some basic minimum standards for what you wore and where you could hit. We pretty much adhered to the minimums, but other states had other standards. In some of those states, even though the basic rules said most of the body was a fair target, the practice had become to only try to hit the head. So people from those states fought each other, and sort of got out of the habit of protecting, you know, their arms and legs. And when my friends and I would get together with them, we'd hit them on the arm they left hanging out, and they'd ask us if we didn't think that was sort of dishonorable. I told one guy that what was dishonorable was trying to lay a guilt trip on me, rather than mending the flaws in his fighting style.

Cheese is like that.

I have a unit/combo/tactic that makes my army a viable threat on the tabletop, as opposed to easy meat. My opponent does not like this unit/combo/tactic, and calls it cheesy/beardy/broken, hoping to shame me into giving up my advantage.

Now, if I bring a knife to a gunfight, I'm in trouble. If it is a friendly game, I'll ask my opponent for a rematch, or several rematches, so I can puzzle out a response to his gambit. If it is a tournament, I'll know better next time. And any game that involves dice offers even the best-planned army a chance to rout in panic and disorder.

Cheese is to tactics what superstition is to religion--it's what THEY do, over THERE. WE do it the 'right way'.

Sometimes it's just taking whatever advantages the army presents and making the most of them. Sometimes it's 'spamming' the army list with a handful of really hard choices. Sometimes it's doing things like using modeling to one's advantage. It's certainly NOT cheating, it's rarely unfair play, and more often than not the last defense of the poor sport.

Cheating is cheating, whether it's loaded dice, purposeful misinterpretation of rules, or what have you. 'Cheese' is just playing the game with everything you've got.

If you're not a 'competitive' player (and really, unless you're playing RPGs or exclusively special scenarios with some kind of 'Game Master', I don't know how you're NOT competitive), you may be discouraged by that. Of course, if you're not competitive, what are you doing in a tournament (or league or map-based campaign or...)?


Flamer

If every Drop Pod was as large as a 38CM EEE wide shoebox, that I would comfortably call cheesy. Since I don't have a grasp on what size the ones you saw were, I can't comment on them specifically.

A whole Tyranid army being immune to instant death because it's in synapse range... well, most of the army _needs_ to be in synapse to function effectively, and those one wound monsters still die just as easily. As to what the Hive mind connection has to do with it... uh... that's the hive mind focusing it's great psychic potential, picking those smoking, bodiless limbs up, and throwing them at you, hoping that you catch a claw in your eye or something. Represented in the game by the model still having a wound left. >.>

All dropping guards means that in the early turns of the game, they are not going to have the advantage of numbers of the board, and are going to have a more difficult time bringing their vaunted heavy weapons to bear. It also means they arrived bunched up, with a certain unpredictability to placement. Again, can't see how it's cheesy.

2 IG drop troop armies? Wow outside of my own I never saw one. You are one lucky SOB.

Posted By kasharane on 03/07/2007 3:44 PM

First and foremost, I'm not trying to start a flame war or any other sort of trouble.  Having said that, I probably will. . .

Second, I'm not trying to insult anybody, especially if we've met.  And having said that, again, I probably will. . .

So I was in a small tournament a couple of weeks ago, and I took a look at some of the other armies being played.  A handful played Eldar, there were a few varieties of SM (including Chaos), Necron, Tyranid, and a couple of IG players.

I've always heard of Eldar armies being cheesy, mainly because they have all sorts of special rules and capabilities that other armies lack.  Yet at this tournament, it was the other armies that used all of the special rules available to them:

First there was the 6 Dread drop-pod army, with a 7th drop-pod for a squad of SM.  The player had scratch-built the drop-pods for the dreads, using the regular FW drop-pod as a model.  He said that he made them large enough to actually fit a dread in.  That was fine and all, except that there was also room for his hand, and room to spare.  I was listening to him talk about his tactics a little bit after the tournament.  He was using the overly large pods to act as "terrain" to block lines of sight and movement.

Then there was the Bug player whose entire army was immune to psychology, and nothing could be instant-killed, because everything was in synapse range.  What does being part of the hive mind have to do with shrugging off a point-blank lascannon shot, losing only 1 wound?

And let's not forget the 2 IG players who used deep-strike for their entire armies. . .

So what is the definition of cheese?  Is it simply being able to do something that someone else can't?  If so, then every army is cheesy in some way or another.

There's more, but it's getting into my personal opinions, and I don't want to go there just yet.

And thus, this has always been an issue of the game, How bad do you really need the win, and to what ends do you really need to go.

I can thoroughly understand your point. The issue of the Drop pods has not been ever really addressed, aside from the fact that " WYSIWYG". I can tell you from experience, that the " Coffee Can debacal "does and will happen, if you let it.

The drop pod rules could be interpreted, well, any way you want. But for my part, if it doesn't look like a drop pod, isn't a forgeworld drop pod, or it is supposed to be one size, giant drop pod with a whole army in it, I throw the BS flag on the play.

To me, " WYSIWYG" means that I have to have either a close runner up, or the actual model. The drop pods are only a transport, and if your using the special rules for the FW ones, then it is a rule, made specific to the pod. No other interpritation need apply.

      As for your other issues, I can agree that it can be attributed to the gamer, but then again, when the Nonspecific way in which GW expanded the range, and decided on a whim that " To decide something if you follow a flow chart, that the end result is to call a telephone number..." They have, in my opinion, abdicated thier responsibility to us as the game creator, and have left it to us, as the players, to define the bounds of the game.

 I see the issue of the " cheese" as nothing more then a copout to not make a hard decision on a rule.

We all know that there are issues with the rules, but in that regard, there comes a time when who ever runs the said tournament needs to take it upon themselves to define the armys that will enter.

- No this, that, and the other thing... These are the armies allowed, No special exceptions, or whatever. The solid exacting of a defined list.

- Only one unit per pod... Or whatever. The ambiguous off handed grey areas need to be defined, For that tourny. That way, it keeps the game somewhat level for all involved. Of course there are exceptions, but when there is a prize involved, there shouldn't have to be a lot of debate as to how to win.

- etc. etc. etc...

Thats been the issue that I have had on the table for some time about tournies, is that we have a game that we all want to play, but how can you define who is the best when 80% of your games are being fought , not on the table, but by how well one knows ways around and how to use the special rules to thier advantage.

It then becomes nothing more then, my dogs bigger then your dog.

I feel that issue could have been avoided if the so called designer took a little more time and did a better job in defining the games parameters, but then GW wouldn't be able to get away with " The Creep" that they have thoroughly advanced since 2nd ED.

A straight balenced game means less models to sell, no room for outside interpritation, and basicly a stagnation of the game.

The way of the new, ambiguous way means that WE HAVE TO POLICE OURSELVES. I don't see anything wrong with that, provided you can do the job without going munchkin over it.

If not, then we need to just all give up, tell GW to give us all the same straight leg lists, and do the same thing without any sort of individuality, creativity, or imagination to the game. Cookie cutter lists like that would drive a stake right through the heart of the whole idea behind playing a game such as this, and you might as well go play checkers.

Classifying enlarged Pods as 'Cheesy' is both vague and seems whiny. A better way to say it would be RULES EXPLOIT. Put them in the same category as 30" long demolisher turrets.

To answer your question kash, Eldar were never considered cheesy because of their special rules. Almost every army has as many special rules as Eldar. 95% of the complaining about Eldar stem from the holo-field. (which easily makes the falcon the most durable tank in the game) This is mostly just a cycle, if you look back at the posts from 6 months ago, most of the complaining was about pod marines and mech tau, now its about godzilla nids and mech eldar. (with any luck, we will soon be complaining about how overpowered orks are)

Pod players have been using pods as mobile terrain since the codex was released. Not only is it good tactics, its almost impossible for a pod player to win without it. It is, however, quite easy to abuse the amount of terrain they provide by enlarging the size of the pod. (and it sounds like the Pod player was doing just that)

Nids do get advantages for being in synapse, but these benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages of having creatures not in synapse. (imagine for a second, a carnifex becoming terrified of a few guardsmen, and burying it's head in the ground)

IG drop pod armies are hilarious, and certainly would be a difficult army to call cheesy. Between Demo Charges scattering back on top of the unit, to overheating plasma guns, to a GEQ statline, drop troops both kill and die in droves. (and anyone who calls an army composed almost completely of troops should be slapped on sight)

Calling cheese is going to be nothing more than complaining almost every time. A better question is "What is broken in the _____ Codex?"

Edit: I'll remove that part, don't want to highjack the thread into a balance discussion.

It's a tournament. You're there to win.

Second point. You're simulating war. You don't win war by making sure that the enemy is being just as fair as you.

I'm going to qoute a certain Major of the USAF. "Our joint forces don't want a fair fight, we want every fight we enter to be patently unfair -- to the other guy."

For friendly play, it is BS to exploit your army to the extreme every single game to make sure that you always win. It's no fun then. But when your at a tournament you need to be prepared for that. No one is going to turn around and call you a cheesy git (unless their a sore loser at least), because they did the same thing themselves.

Posted By djones520 on 03/08/2007 9:48 AM
It's a tournament. You're there to win.

Second point. You're simulating war. You don't win war by making sure that the enemy is being just as fair as you.

I'm going to qoute a certain Major of the USAF. "Our joint forces don't want a fair fight, we want every fight we enter to be patently unfair -- to the other guy."

For friendly play, it is BS to exploit your army to the extreme every single game to make sure that you always win. It's no fun then. But when your at a tournament you need to be prepared for that. No one is going to turn around and call you a cheesy git (unless their a sore loser at least), because they did the same thing themselves.

It's a tournament - you're there to play games, and do as well as you can.

It's a simulation of war, not war.  If we played 40K according to US army doctrine, one side would have a 1500 point list, the other side would have a grot.

If you wanna play at the extreme level, carry on - you're the one that has to look at yourself in the mirror.  I took orks to the UKGT, and tried to play as well as possible.  Could I have done better with IW?  Probably.  Would my opponents have enjoyed the games as much?  Probably not.  Would I have?  Definitely not.  Do I regret that I didn't finish as highly as I could have done if I'd taken a different army?  Absolutely not.

However, this has nothing to do with perceptions of cheesiness, so I'll leave it there.

Posted By spikydavid on 03/09/2007 4:59 AM
  I took orks to the UKGT, and tried to play as well as possible.  Could I have done better with IW?  Probably.  Would my opponents have enjoyed the games as much? 

That all depends on the opponent.

Generally, I'd enjoy a game where I pulled off a win when I was challenged to the utmost better than a game that was an easy win.

I wish people would stop using the line of BS that 'your opponent' would prefer you to use a weaker list all the time.

Posted By spikydavid on 03/09/2007 4:59 AM

If you wanna play at the extreme level, carry on - you're the one that has to look at yourself in the mirror.  I took orks to the UKGT, and tried to play as well as possible.  Could I have done better with IW?  Probably.  Would my opponents have enjoyed the games as much?  Probably not.  Would I have?  Definitely not.  Do I regret that I didn't finish as highly as I could have done if I'd taken a different army?  Absolutely not.

SpikeyDavid, taking Orks instead of Iron Warriors does not make you morally superior.

You think yours opponents liked waiting for you to move your 100+ model army EVERY single turn of movement? I'd prefer you went IW, just so I could get my ass beaten quicker.

Chuck

Just wondering, but what motivatves someone to willingly go to a PAID tournament and not try to win all-out? I mean, are you there for the challenge? For the "moral superiority" that you willingly took a weak list? To play strangers you wouldn't otherwise normally play from out-of-state but isn't a good indication of typical players from that region anyway? I really don't get it and nobody's ever answered these questions.

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 03/09/2007 7:49 AM

Posted By spikydavid on 03/09/2007 4:59 AM

If you wanna play at the extreme level, carry on - you're the one that has to look at yourself in the mirror.  I took orks to the UKGT, and tried to play as well as possible.  Could I have done better with IW?  Probably.  Would my opponents have enjoyed the games as much?  Probably not.  Would I have?  Definitely not.  Do I regret that I didn't finish as highly as I could have done if I'd taken a different army?  Absolutely not.

SpikeyDavid, taking Orks instead of Iron Warriors does not make you morally superior.

Yeah, it kinda does, IMO.

 

He’s not claiming it does.  He’s saying it’s more fun for him, and he believes (based on his direct experience) that it was more fun for his opponents then facing another IW army.  He KNOWS he’s bringing a knife to a gunfight, but he doesn’t complain, and he doesn’t ask for special treatment.  It’s the UKGT, after all.  The International House of Cheese.

IMO, fun is the point of the game, and if some people choose to bring more interesting and less-seen armies and army configurations, that should be rewarded.  That’s the point of comp.  The UK GT doesn’t include comp, so he’s doing it purely for fun value, and for the challenge. 

 

Posted By stonefox on 03/09/2007 10:26 AM
Just wondering, but what motivatves someone to willingly go to a PAID tournament and not try to win all-out? I mean, are you there for the challenge? For the "moral superiority" that you willingly took a weak list? To play strangers you wouldn't otherwise normally play from out-of-state but isn't a good indication of typical players from that region anyway? I really don't get it and nobody's ever answered these questions.

Yes they have.  You just haven't paid attention.

People go to tournaments for a lot of reasons.  But the main one is to get in several sessions of a game you enjoy, against people other than the ones you play every week.  Usually over one or two days full of glorious gaming goodness, often including after hours drinking and telling war stories, both with your regular gaming buddies and with guys you only get to see at tournaments. 

 

Also to see a large group of attractive armies at once, including unique conversions and lovingly-customized paint schemes, presented by passionate gaming geeks who work hard on their armies and enjoy showing them off. 

 

Some people don’t have a good store or other group near them, or have really bust lives and don’t fit in the time for regular gaming, so tournaments are just about the only gaming they get in.

 

A lot of folks also enjoy the competition aspect of trying to win the tournament, trying to prove themselves the best player (or painter, or sportsman) at the tournament.  Of course, every serious/regular player recognizes the randomness and luck inherent in this, and learns not to take it too seriously.  And I’m not talking about the dice, either.  Most of the luck is in the pairings; both in playing against armies which you can beat without it being a boring game, and in playing against opponents who are good sports in turn.

 

It sometimes amazes me how willing people are to vent very strong opinions on the subject of something they've never tried.

 

At tournaments, there are a few armies everyone expects.  IW, Drop Pods, Daemon Bombs, Mech Tau/Eldar.  When putting together a tournament army it is prudent to prepare for these forces as they are the outer limits of effectiveness in the game.  I have a deep respect for players that try and challenge those top tier armies with a list that isn't as easy to max out.  Another bonus that these middleweights add to tournaments is they sometimes have armies that are great for dealing with certain enemies.  Daemon Bombs would have a hard time with infantry Orks, and certain armies can nail Drop Pods to the wall.  Its great in a tourney when a power gamer with a tricked out army comes up against the force that can neutralize his easily. 

That and it is always really cool playing against new people and getting wasted afterwards.

He may feel morally superior but he's making his moralistically superior point in the wrong setting. I would agree with him if he were using his morally superior army in a pick-up game setting, or even a tournament that doesn't have an entry fee.

Since he chose to use the UKGT as his example, the hardest, "cheesiest" tournament where players pay play, I wholly disagree with him. If he does not take the most competitive army he has available to him, or chooses units for fluff rather than effectiveness, he is cheating the players competing in the tournament.

Much like an opponent conceding in the second turn, if he does not play his best or to the fullest of his abilities, he cheats his opponent of the challenge and deprives the other participants of a level playing ground by making it easier for a singular player. If a participant was given a Bye instead of playing a filler army or fellow participant, I'm sure (s)he would feel deprived of not only their money, but the credit due to them if they were to take 1st place.

We pile on people who take their pick-up games to seriously and this is the flip side.

Save the moralistically superior "easy mode" for the appropriate venues and players. If you love an army for the fluff, good for you. If you loke the game for the competitive aspect, bring your hardest and play your best.

Furious, I think your hostility is misplaced.

David has never acted superior, or acted like he's making any point other than it's possible to compete with Orks even in the toughest tournaments. He took 2nd at Heat 3 and 15th at the final with footsloggers. If you think his opponents felt cheated out of a competitive game, you are delusional.

I am saying in MY opinion he is a better player and contributing more to the tournament than the guys bringing just another IW list.

I love seeing armies that I would not normally see at tournies such as Thousand sons. Especially if I am using my SW. Let the Good times Roll.

I agree with Mannahnin, people go to tournies for various reasons. I pay a fee but dont go to win, (ok I try hard) as I am not that good.l I do go however to get in quite a few games over the weekend as I work odd shifts and dont have the time nowadsy to go to vets nights. Its also a chance for me and my brother to get together and spend some time as he lives abroad now.

You're right of course. My apologies to all for the tone of my last post.

I feel if a person plays a game or enters a tournament they should being the best list appropriate for the game and play to their fullest abilities.

if thats what they want to do, if thats not what they want then thats fine to. Rmemeber they have paid for a ticket so they can field whatever type of army there heart desires,, fluffy or not, balanced ort not, chessy or not as long as they are allowed to by the rulebook.

Mann - I understand but I guess I forgot to add something about Games Days being better for that sort of thing. Eh, to each his own, but I still can't understand the rationalization of going to a tourney when you could just go to an event that specifically caters towards fun instead. Nevermind that GDs are cheaper. Guess if you got the hankering you'll go to tourneys as well, but then don't complain about it or claim to be a better player because of your own hamstrung choices.

Stonefox, remember that a Games Day doesn't guarantee you games. You have to arrange your own pick up games. The chances of getting in as many games as you are guaranteed in the tournament are fairly small unless you're extremely outgoing and are just walking up to people all day and asking for games.

Posted By stonefox on 03/10/2007 5:10 AM
Eh, to each his own, but I still can't understand the rationalization of going to a tourney when you could just go to an event that specifically caters towards fun instead.

"Instead"? A tournament's supposed to be fun. Fun and competitive. Competitive fun. It's certainly a lot more fun for me than random pickup games against random opponents at a Games Day. At a tournament I'm going to be getting in several games against people who also came to play, and to compete. And thanks to Swiss pairings, each successive game will theoretically be against someone who's a better and better match for my level of game, as we have equal (or close) scores.

Posted By stonefox on 03/10/2007 5:10 AM
Guess if you got the hankering you'll go to tourneys as well, but then don't complain about it or claim to be a better player because of your own hamstrung choices.

Everyone who pays for their ticket has a right to complain if there's a problem with the event.  And other people can tell them their complaints are unfounded, or whatever. Free speech, man.

I will probably claim that I am a better player than you if I take Orks to the UK GT and place higher than you, while you are playing Iron Warriors (assuming we each are at least moderately skilled at using them).  The former is almost universally acknowledged as one of the weakest armies in the game.  The latter are likewise recognized as one of the strongest.  If we compete on the same playing field and I do better than you with a weaker army, I am most likely a better player.  

I know many players who choose not to field the strongest army they possibly could, and there are usually several reasons.  One is that the most maximized army may not fit the fluff.  The background, story, and imagery of this game are its strongest selling points, and many people value them above pure winning in their lists.   Another is that the "best" or most competitive army out there may have a boring play style, or lead to boring games.  We do this for fun.  If your army gives you boring games, it's a waste of time.   Another is that a "lesser" army may be more challenging, and a better test of your skills.   Some people actively eschew the armies reknowed as being the most powerful, as they would prefer to avoid the perception that they win their games due to playing an overpowered army.

To pick an example,  when 6th edition Warhammer came out, the "get you by" Skaven list in the Ravening Hordes pamphlet was not very powerful.  The basic clanrats were a little overpriced, they didn't have their own special magic lore, and many of their coolest and most powerful special weapons weren't around yet.  They were a bit underpowered.  Matt York still won GTs with them, because he's a great player.  I have a friend who started a Skaven army in this period.  Then the Skaven army book came out, and it leaped forward into being one of (if not THE) most powerful armies in the game.   The "SAD" (Shooty Army of Dead/ Skyre Army of Death" became a synonym for powergaming in comp environments, and a tournament-dominating list in no-Comp environments.   My friend largely lost interest in his Skaven at this point, because he knew that they were a little too good, and whenever he won a game his opponents would be less likely to attribute the win to his skill. 

I'd say if someone pays to enter and fights through the qualifying rounds, they have a right to take whatever legal army they like, and they should be realistic and expect a variety of opponents.

Doesn't the GT use a Swiss Chess pairing system which would tend to match the super-powered armies against each other?

Virtually every tournament in the world uses Swiss pairings at this point, which match your battles scores. This doesn't necessarily mean that you're up against someone with the same level of army, but does match you against someone who's done roughly as well so far.

One comp variant I've seen out there is to pair armies of similar comp levels against one another for the first round or two of the tournament. The WPS in England has done this with some success, and I believe the Marauder Indy GT in NY did similar last year.

Was comp score pre-judged or player judged?