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.

So, here's summat that's been playing on my mind for a little while, especially with the new ork codex. I've played orks since I've played 40k, and I love my little green fellas, I really do, but...I don't like that they're considered by some to be 'top tier' now.

I'll explain, I liked having a bit of a crappy army, it made the games more challenging and fun.

Anyway, my real point is why do people take godzilla nids/mech eldar/ whatever 'cheese' army you care to mention? Surely you don't get the same sense of satisfaction from winning? I was hoping someone who takes a 'cheese' army could answer? I'm not having a go or owt, I was just wondering.

Anyway, I won't stop playing orks, I might just win some games now!

Oh fun--I get to be the first to say it:

"Do not try to see the cheese; that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: there is no cheese."

This ork roleplay thing is going well for you. Obligatory post grammar and spelling comment bashing aside though, I played zilla nids for awhile, so perhaps I can answer your question.

A player might build a hard as nails army in order to compete at a high level in the game. The hobby brings people to it for all kinds of reasons, and one of those (especially for me) was the large GT competition aspect. This is well and good as long as the player is facing people with similar ambitions, and gets messy if you're facing off against someone who likes the fluff or the look of certain models and plays the game for vastly different reasons.

If you are playing against someone else who has the same desire to take this game as far as it can go, it's really cool and fun to build the toughest lists and use all the tools at your disposal to try to out-think and out-play your opponent.

For the record, I personally came to the conclusion that the 40k community does not have enough players with that level of competitive ambition to merit the harm it does to the players who like the casual experience who form the vast majority. So I traded off my zilla nids for some random crap, played the game for the casual experience for awhile. Have since gotten really disillusioned with 40k in general and have set my sights on a different game that might offer the challenge I want, without hurting anyone's feelings in the process.

Seriously though, people take good armies because they want to win. Is that really so novel a concept in a table-top wargame? Having said that, power gamers, if you will, tend to stay in their own circles, so more often than not everyone involved is taking an optimized list. They need to run powerful lists because everyone else in their circle is, and they will cease to be competitive players if they fail to exploit something as crucial as list design. Furthermore, these power gamers often play tournaments, which, almost by definition, stress winning: the goal of the weekend is to progress to win the final game, which one accomplishes by winning all of his previous games (by as large a margin as possible). So this win-at-all-costs (WAAC) attitude, combined with an environment that fosters it, simply means that to these players, table-top wargames are about winning with a kick-ass army, and they play 40k accordingly.

Sorry about the spelling, I wasn't trying to be 'orky' I've just got into the bad habbit of typing in my yorkshire accent. I apologise.

I can understand I suppose, but I think I'd just feel it was a hollow victory for me if I used one of 'those lists' (I know...), but each to thier own and all that. I see it being cool in tournaments, I guess I just never 'got' the mentality of wanting to crush people in pick-up games or your mates. Again, takes all sorts, I just wanted to get a feel for other people's opinions on this. Would you be happy or annoyed if your particular army became the new 'cheese' (in inverted commas on purpose)?

It works for the Orks in Dawn of War anyways.

I definitely agree that in pickup games with people, you should have your lists meet in the middle somewhere, so the game can be interesting. I see the problem almost exclusively in tournaments though where you've got 1 list for 5 games.
Game 1 vs. Imperial Guard with Ogryn theme
Game 2 vs. Trifalcon holofield harlequins
Game 3 vs. Painter-gamer with Space wolf fluff list
Game 4 vs. Melee themed necrons
Game 5 vs. Zilla nids

It doesn't matter what you bring to that event. Someone somewhere is getting stepped on, be it you in games 2/5 or the other guy in 1/3/4.

I agree with the playing at the level of the people you play. I generally play in tournaments or against tournament goers. However, when I play against Local Game Store kid I either tone down the army list, or try something completely different to see how it does (assaulting with lootas for example).

If everyone you play uses fluffy armies and you bring the big beatstick, then yea, you're a real jerk. However, if everyone you play uses 'nidzill, trifalcon, etc... then bringing a fluffy list makes for a not fun game as well. The key is knowing your opponent and preparing accordingly. The goal of the game is to have fun after all, and knowing what makes the game fun for your opponent goes a long way.

I think more to the point, if you are attending those events or playing with that type of player you would understand it more. People who play in a higher level group enjoy that style of play more. However don't think that games are all that dissimilar from those at a lower level. Sure the lists are more efficient, but they are both generally stronger, making any perceived power increase less of a determining factor. The biggest difference I found when I shifted from a low power game group to a higher power one was the lack of survivability of anyone's units. In a lower power game your stuff tends to survive more often, it would be blown away in a 'less friendly' game. I gues what i'm, trying to say is there is less room for mistakes in a higher power game and most people who play that type of game like it that way.

Just because Orks have some extremely powerful builds, doesn't mean that you're obligated to use those builds. I'm sure that if you want a challenge, you will have no trouble finding it by playing some kind of wonky themed army.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've done (I don't really like lootas, and don't have a biker boss/ 800 boys anyway).

I just saw on BoLS's poll about who's going to be strongest in 5th that orks came out on top (but that's probably just because the codex is the newest, I don't think they're invincible at all), and had a little grumble about it. It was probably misguided (my army's good now, boo hoo!). I think orks will slide down as people figure how to beat them anyway, and all the new ork armies that are popping up (one of my main causes of the grumble) will fade away, as with any new codex.

I should mention, I think the new ork codex is great, precisely because you can build so many different armies from it and have them not completely suck.

Anywho, I'm (very slowly) building a new (ork) army for next year's GT and I'm sure there'll be a whole new raft of 'cheese' armies by then.

I agree with Kroeger's post.

I've played Eldar since second edition. Some variant of Eldar has always been considered cheesy, but that's the nature of the army: it breaks a lot of rules and does what it's supposed to do very well. On the other hand, in the wrong situation, it just falls apart.

Now I play a tri-falcon list at 1750+ and a bi-falcon list at 1500. My lists aren't straight copies off of Dakka -- for example, I usually take warp spiders and love using them -- but I still have the same core: falcons with harlies and fire dragons. I often play against Zilla Nids, SAFH marines, other Eldar, etc. I wouldn't say that I play in an overly competitive environment -- mostly we play for fun -- but many players still use powerful lists. I enjoy using a strong list and pitting myself against other strong lists.

Pariah Press wrote: Just because Orks have some extremely powerful builds, doesn't mean that you're obligated to use those builds. I'm sure that if you want a challenge, you will have no trouble finding it by playing some kind of wonky themed army.

Pariah, thats like saying you get the same experience out of a Kung Fu fight with as you do having people box while hopping on one leg wearing tutus. Sure both may be challenging, but the Kung Fu battle will not be the same experience as the boxing match.

Greebynog wrote:Sorry about the spelling, I wasn't trying to be 'orky' I've just got into the bad habbit of typing in my yorkshire accent. I apologise.

......

Your first post was perfect but this one?

Yorkshire without a capital Y?

Capital offence!!11!!!!

Kroeger wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Just because Orks have some extremely powerful builds, doesn't mean that you're obligated to use those builds. I'm sure that if you want a challenge, you will have no trouble finding it by playing some kind of wonky themed army.

Pariah, thats like saying you get the same experience out of a Kung Fu fight with as you do having people box while hopping on one leg wearing tutus. Sure both may be challenging, but the Kung Fu battle will not be the same experience as the boxing match.

Er, come again?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Sorry about the spelling, I wasn't trying to be 'orky' I've just got into the bad habbit of typing in my yorkshire accent. I apologise.

......

Your first post was perfect but this one?

Yorkshire without a capital Y?

Capital offence!!11!!!!

I've never been more ashamed. I shall repent. YORKSHIRE! *claps hands above head with straight arms* YORKSHIRE! *repeats ad infinitum*

Pariah Press wrote:
Er, come again?

I'm saying that you get a totaly different gaming experience playing with tough as nails lists and playing with fluffy lists. A game between two fluffy lists should be challenging (they are both of pretty equal power), but a game between tough as nails lists has a whole differrent feel to it.

Eh, I like taking fluff armies that are actually decent and can stand up to some of the tougher builds. Though for me its all down to specialization. Don't ever give a unit something for which it was never intended to do. Because there is always a unit that can do it better. (like taking a powerfist in a dev squad. I find its an utter waste of points. If your dev squad is getting into close combat the games is probably nearly lost for me already anyways.)

I like those armies to play against. I find it a challenge to play them. But I don't feel "entitled" to a fair game.

I'm one of those players that built a Nidzilla list. I've always been a very competitive "power gamer" type of person. I played competitive Magic for quite some time as well and was at two different Pro Tours...it's just how I am.

Why Nidzilla? Cuz I refused to play Eldar