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.

Traditio wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:

So we're not discussing a GSF list done right, we're discussing yours?

Again, humor me.

Please.

Accuse my list of being cheese.

And do try to keep a straight face.

Why? Anyone can make sub par unit choices and come out with a gak army. Humour us; what's the point of all this?

Traditio wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:

So we're not discussing a GSF list done right, we're discussing yours?

Again, humor me.

Please.

Accuse my list of being cheese.

And do try to keep a straight face.

Why would I humour you? What you choose to run has no bearing on this thread other than your own personal choice as to answer yes or no.

Your own definition of "cheese" in this thread, as limited and fluid as it has been, refers to those lists most commonly complained about, and I'm pretty sure people aren't complaining about those list archetypes when they run suboptimal unit/gear choices or omit the strongest options.

It's effectively a mirror of an argument where someone takes a top tier 'cheese' list and then plays it in an entirely inappropriate way (tries to assault with a Tau gunline or drives all his tanks right at the most heavily melta equipped units in his opponents army.)

Using a 'cheese' archetype but making dumb list selections or playing like a moron doesn't invalidate the argument that the archetype itself remains 'cheesy' when played competently with optimal unit choices.

Traditio wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:

So we're not discussing a GSF list done right, we're discussing yours?

Again, humor me.

Please.

Accuse my list of being cheese.

And do try to keep a straight face.

Against certain armies, especially without any warning, yes even a bad Gladius is cheesy, simply because the likes of Orks, Tyranids, Daemons & CSM's lack the ability to deal with 20+ Obsec units...

Orks, and especially Tyranids & Daemons have extremely limited amounts of ranged anti-tank, and the majority of it is typically BS3 or worse, and/or (in the case of Daemons especially) are limited to psychic shooting.
CSM's meanwhile are simply too badly over costed, and are only outdone by Guard as the game's slowest army.

If you're playing any kind of mission based game, then taking a GSF against certain armies is pretty much an auto-win.
In a competitive setting, where everyone is fully aware of 'cheese is likely to highly probable', then GSF is fair game. If you're just playing a pick-up game? It's pretty dirty to spring a GSF against the books that simply can't deal with 20+ Obsec units.

Main army is Chaos Marines. Secondary is Knights + Inquisition (with which I usually place middle of the tournament rankings). Other lesser played lists, Renegades and Heritics, generic space marines, and Hellforged Hunting pack. With a coin flip win rate.

I play 4 different with a varying degree of frequency. Slaanesh Daemons, Dark Angels (demi-company mostly with the occasional Ravenwing), Imperial Guard (infantry heavy, occasionally all tanks), and Sisters of Battle. Since I typially play 1000 to 1500 with teams, my armies are nothing impressive. Only my Dark Angels perform well out of the four on a regualr basis. My Sisters can do OK but I typically face armies that replenish their troops quickly like Khorne Daemonkin. My guard are just awful most of the time as my infantry can't hit the broadside of a barn when it matters and take horrific casualties in return. When I use my tanks, the first couple fo turns will be awesome and then my luck will turn as Multiple tanks wreck or explode spectacularly. I'm still discovering my daemons strengths and weaknesses in 7th so the jury is out, but my Dark Angels have what they need. I just need to step away from plasma weapons and adopt the Grav weapon. Plasma is great until the turn you lose 4 or 5 guys to your own weapons. (Plasma cannons have a habit of scattering in the worst way possible)

To OP: Yup, and lots of it.

I have Eldar/DEldar: WWP HQ+Wraithguards and Scatterbikes galore :thumbsup!

I have CSM cheese (wut?): 2x Sicarian, 2x Hellblades, FireRaptor, Typhon, 3x maulerfiends, Nurgle Chaos Beast with Cabal on bikes.

In 5th, I had Nob Biker deathstars.

In 6th, DEldar darklight spam.

Why fuss about it being "cheese"?

Just bring it bish*.

*and if I get curb-stomped, I'll recalibrate my list and come back at ya!

Traditio wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
My Eldar and Necron armies are considered to be cheesy here.

They probably are. But not for the purposes of my poll.

Again, I have in mind the combinations that people are constantly complaining about (e.g., webway portal + wraithguard or grav centurions + libby conclave).

Well, last week I played with my Necrons (5000 pts) against Tau (3 Riptides, Stormsurge) and GK/Robots (each 2500 pts).
It was a very tough battle but my Decurion withstood the enemy. At the end it was a draw (maestrom mission). I guess a vanilla Marine army would have been dead after round two. This is the kind of battles I absolutely like. Every dice roll thrilling. Going for the enemy's throat. Call it cheesy if you like.