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.

I am all about having fun, and I love fluffy armies too. But I was actually planning on playing Salamanders with Sisters allies when the new codex comes out, but it seems people feel strongly about a player using a list like this (Vulkan and his ability and giving it to Sisters). I hear the terms "Cheesey", "Beardy", and "Douche" used a lot on this and other forums for people who would employ a list like this, and I don't understand why when I see even "cheesier" lists at tournaments.

What are your feelings on this?

I think the Vulkan + Sisters thing breaks RAI.

9 oblits + dual lash may be douchebaggy but it isn't taking advantage of any loophole.

What does Vulkan give to sisters?

found it... hmm this is powerful... but I like it I think it would be fun!

If Vulkan is in the army, all squads lose Combat Tactics. Everything in the army gains Twin Linking on all Meltaguns, Multi-meltas, Flamers, and Heavy Flamers

Depends on your opponent and what he/she wants out of the game. I would consider that a cheezy army. Assuming I have access to options I would try to out-cheese you and we would have a fun hopefully competitive game.

On the other hand, you pull that out on some neophyte who proudly displays his freshly paid for and maybe even painted orc hoard that thinks orcs look cool and he doesn't have a clue yet. I find that disgusting.

Although worse than that is the cheese player that boasts about beating up on the newbies with that kind of a list. Or that his army has never been beaten when you pull an uber army on the unsuspecting.

You have touched a subject that I must admit I am very concerned about with the new marine codex. It is cool, the options in it are amazing... I am waiting for someone to bring a tournament army with two HQ's Shrike and say Vulcan. Now depending on his matchup in each round, he picks the commander's ability that absolutely screws his opponent the worst. No real forethought, just I have a marine army and because they did something stupid at GW, all non-marines may as well not show up.

I had a killer list back in 3rd edition, it really was awesome and I think I lost once in a tournament with it in about 3 years. Finally the light dawned on me and I realized it wasn't that fun to build the god list and slam it down every opponent I faced. It is not fun for me and it is certainly not fun for any opponent. So I have tried to play competitive lists for the area and players I face. They are not perfect but they are a mental challenge for me to get them to perform and hopefully a fun game for my opponents.

If this is the environment we are about to go into, I expect to see nothing but marines being played until GW royally overdoes it again with another codex. See me at a rogue trader tournament and pull that and as far as I am concerned, you rated a 1 for an army that follows flavor of the game and one I would like to play.

I certainly wouldn't play against an army like that unless forced to, and not because I think it's especially dangerous. It's taking advantage of a poorly written rule in an especially obvious way.

Just to add... pull that in a hard boyz tournament and bravo to you. That is what hard boyz is about... bring the nastiest, cheesiest, make-me-puke 2500 point army and shove at me and I will try to do the same to you.

I would have no problem playing a friendly game against a cheesy list. Its the attitude that makes the game friendly imo, not the use of weaker or fluffyer armies. However, if i played against or saw somone with such a list who then bragged about how good they are tactically, or who refused to admit that his list was blatantly overpowered i would probably enter a psychotic rage.

DAaddict wrote:
Although worse than that is the cheese player that boasts about beating up on the newbies with that kind of a list.

Absolutely. There is a local player here that keeps a win loss tally on another forum and adds intro games with new players to the win side.

I believe there are two types of power gamers:

1. You have those that are good people who enjoy healthy competition. They get together with their buddies, and beat the snot out of each other, but have fun with it. Cheese is just friendly one-upmanship and there is usually deep discourse into tactics and strategy when not playing.

2. Then you have those that are win at all costs, list tweakers, who care more about winning than friends.

To someone new it might be hard to distinguish the two, but once you get to know them long enough its very clear.

Lists aren't competitive, players are. Instead of complaining about lists being over-powered or under-powered, you should focus on how they are used.

I would agree with Nurglitch. I played a guy 2 yrs ago that had the old broken slaneesh Deamon Prince with the minor psychic powers. The one were you couldn't shoot or assault it unless it assaulted you. This is when DP were harder to bring down. Most people consider this list broken but I played with a vanilla marine list and beat it. I all dependeds on the player. Espicially now with 5th out it really depends on the player and how you use your army not the army itself.

GMMStudios wrote:
I believe there are two types of power gamers:

1. You have those that are good people who enjoy healthy competition. They get together with their buddies, and beat the snot out of each other, but have fun with it. Cheese is just friendly one-upmanship and there is usually deep discourse into tactics and strategy when not playing.

2. Then you have those that are win at all costs, list tweakers, who care more about winning than friends.

To someone new it might be hard to distinguish the two, but once you get to know them long enough its very clear.

I admit my friends and I are of the #1 variety. We play Theoryhammer every Sunday at the local shop and occasionally break out the lead and actually play.

We lost a lot of gamers in the local area to real life... jobs, families, girlfriends... so we have an influx of new players. I enjoy unveiling the nastiness of some armies to new players but I try to keep it in a learning environment so that they can learn the strengths and weaknesses of their favorite army. Not pound them into oblivion with a no-win match up... "So you like orcs do you? Just started? My that is a lot of boyz with choppas you have! Well I have this little deathwing/vindicator army... Would you like to try a game?"

My philosophy is get them playing and seeing how things work. If they look frustrated suggest things like target priority and what options their army has to deal with the problems they were facing. Makes for a fun environment and a fun game.

Then we have the Type 2 player and I have people coming up to me and saying how they don't want to play him and feeling bad about turning him down.... I am hoping Mr. Type 2 will see the light that it isn't necessarily about winning at all costs and it just might be fun to try winning a game with less than the best.

Well with new players, the thing is if they want to stay in the group they have to conform to what is being done there. A gaming group is an entity in itself. So if you want someone to stick around, play a game with an army that is balanced, and give it your best, then start talking about tactics and if they catch on they catch on, bring out a heavy hitter. Usually the thoughts of how to beat this new monstrosity are what seals the deal.

my problem locally is that I want a type one gaming group. (I should also note there is the third type, the beer and pretzels, put the kids to bed and play a fluffy fun game, nothing wrong with that of course). I have a friend who lives in toledo and he tells me stories, and man I would kill to have that sort of group. A group that for tournies you all just pack up your minis and head out. The weeks before are spent in practice.

However the local scene is small and is mainly younger WAAC sorts of kids. Pull honest power gaming on them, they whine. they dont see the difference between 1 and 2. There are a couple that like to power game in the friendly way but they dont often show up, and none of them can come up to my shop to play either.

I feel kinda bad making stereotypes like this but I guess its for sake of explanation.....

I kind of wish that GW would publish articles on how to play armies more cometatively. The publish these battle reports that kind of generalise on the game. They take units that you woundn't use in a competative setting. If they took a couple of armies and published there list then played a game with them. Then after the game explain what they did wrong and what they should do different. What they might take next time to better fit what they need to make the list competative.

In this game there is such a thing as having a fun time with modeling and painting and playing a good list.

corwindal5 wrote:I kind of wish that GW would publish articles on how to play armies more cometatively. The publish these battle reports that kind of generalise on the game. They take units that you woundn't use in a competative setting. If they took a couple of armies and published there list then played a game with them. Then after the game explain what they did wrong and what they should do different. What they might take next time to better fit what they need to make the list competative.

In this game there is such a thing as having a fun time with modeling and painting and playing a good list.

Yes we do get a lot of mixed signals. GW for the most part tells us that Warhammer is a "collect them all" set of paintable minis, while at the same time they bring us tourneys like a GTs and Ard Boys.

I say if you wanna field that sort of army at a tourney, then go for it. The whole point of a tourney is to win. PERIOD. yes, you can have fun...and yes, you can make new friends. But in the end, you are at a tourney to win it.

now as far as gaming at the local level, its really dependant on your friends that play. As others have already said....if the rest of the group is also wily veterans of 40k, and have an answer for your uber list, then no problem. But if you're just pounding new players, or ones with well known tactical disadvantages with that list, well then you're just an <insert explative>. not to mention that if you do use that type of list extensively, you may find that fewer and fewer pplayer want to battle you, and then what fun is it to sit there and watch everyone else play because nobody wants to fight your uber list with their friendly fun lists.

If the rules allow it, then you might as well use it at a tourney, cuz from the ones i've been to, 90+ percent of the other players there are trying everything they cam to out-cheese their opponent.

~Bart

You know the best way to take out the jerk who just likes to pick on new players is to empower the new players. Teach them the way of the CHEESE including better list design and tactics.

I am a close friend of Stelek and I have to say that exactly this approach by him at our FLGS has made a huge difference in the level of play. A couple of years ago there were only a few very good lists floating around, but now most people have at least one relatively good tournament quality army.

The balance to this is if we know someone just wants to play a fun game and isn't really in to power gaming, you try out something new yourself.

Really if everyone just takes a step back and realizes that the game is just a GAME and commends those who are artists in list writing the same way we commend people who are great at converting and painting then we get better perspective on what is supposed to be a full HOBBY

My question is why do people get all up in arms about excellence in one area but don't call Golden Daemon quality painters douche bags? Ponder that for a moment...

I tend to "throttle back" the competitiveness of my army lists when playing "for fun" games.

See the problem is you are taking a highly competitive tournament style force out of its context. The majority of players are not actually involved in the tournament scene nor are their forces the lean mean powerhouses you'd see in tournaments. You're like the guy who goes and plays flag touch football at the family picnic and slam tackles everyone. They want to have fun playing with their favorite models and you come in and stomp all over them. Of course there are going to be some hard feelings that will slowly stack up, and you will lose all your casual gaming opponents.

No in my opinion your football analogy is way off.

You can play very competitive touch football without tackling. Everyone can play super hard and run as fast as they can etc. while still playing touch. It is just a different set of rules not a less competitive set.

I know that some people like softer games and that if they want to play soft we can do that, but as a general rule I bring my a game to whatever I am playing. Some of us are just wired that way. I have more fun playing an ultra competitive game with tuned up lists on both sides than "lazy" (sorry couldn't think of a better word) out for a Sunday stroll type games where everyone is just going through the motions and not really trying as hard as they can.

And really the quality of lists and tactics in our gaming community has improved. People play to the level of competition. We are constantly adding new players and instead of playing patty cake with them and patronizing them we teach them how to play well if that is what they want. We like everyone else have people who are more about painting etc. and when they do play we tone it down for them, but people who want to play well shouldn't be criticized for doing it.

I think it's a bit much to say that the commander dictates an overwhelming majority of the power of an army. Take the best general you know, write him a useless list, and he's still not going to do as well as he would with a properly constructed list. I would say it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70/30 for general to army list points.

I also think there's a vastly large difference between level of competitiveness, and the cheese-levels in the lists people use. You can play competitively without resorting to particularly beardy lists. I give huge kudos to people who use out of the box thinking to find interesting combos like the vulkan/sisters army, but I'm not personally interested (unless it's a tournament setting, where this sort of thing is not only accepted, it's expected.). It's the same reason I don't bring triple demolisher lists with 2 vanilla chapter masters (5 S10 AP 1 and 2 ord large blast on turn 1) to my FLGS. sure I could, and probably do terrible things to people, but it's not a very interesting list and I lose a little self-respect playing it

By all means don't take any of this as condemnation or dissuasion, fact of the matter is vulkan/sisters has great potential. I'm just speaking my mind regarding my own approach. For what it's worth.

It depends entirely on my opponent. I have a friend that essentially role plays his armies. He also built a devastator squad the way it came in the boxed set (one of each weapon). He is great fun to play against, but I'd never bring a power list against him.

In stores, the problem is that some have different cultures. Some have poor sportsmanship, some have power lists, some have folks playing mostly boxed-set armies.

I love this game and collect way too many models, so I can adjust to other folks. However, if I wanted to play just a specific army (and just get the exact models I wanted), I'd do it. Just understand that you'll probably be able to table some folks and they will have the feeling that they "can't win" which is no fun.

My advice is to be a good sport. Nothing is worse than playing a good player, with a powerful army, who gloats or talks trash.

A competitive list? Not at all, its more fun if the game is competitive. An over-the-top min/max'ed list? No, thanks. I'm thrilled the new codex is trying to kill off the 6 man las/plas squad.

Alright cool that 6-man power squads are going away... Not so cool to have fleeting terminators running across the board at you or vindicators flank marching into your deployment zone.

The adjustments you or I are willing to make have the potential to kill any young player with limited funds who comes to the realization that his "cool looking" eldar are hopelessly outmatched just by selection of special characters that a marine can pull out of his "hat" shall we say. We are talking dollars now and a young person with limited cash can't just drop the 100 dollars to instantly bring him up to snuff while the other kid who likes marines finds he can by a 15 to 20 dollar figure and pretty well redefine the mechanics of his army is pleased. Suddenly the eldar kid isn't showing up to learn anymore he has given up on them and starts buying marines to get that obvious advantage or just stops playing the game because he can't afford to compete. I have no problem with the former but I have a big problem with the latter.

If it costs you 60 dollars to get 4 different flavors of cheese for one army and 600 to get 2 flavors of cheese for another. Most are going to do the first.

Just because it's in the rules doesn't make it right.

My two coppers...

I bring Tournament Lists to tournaments (read my mech Eldar). Otherwise, I like to try out different list compositions. I ask my gaming friends if I can proxy minis to test things out like a full Iyanden army with only 5 "living" models (2 warlocks, 2 Spiritseers, and a Farseer) and everything else is wraithguard and wraithlords. Or the Saim-Hann jetbike lists. All of these lists can be construed as cheesey. Another fun list is the all Pathfinders. Personally, I think the current Eldar codex allows for the most customization of armies at the moment. After looking through the new Marine codex, they have taken away a lot of the things that first got me into 40k which was the ability to play Marines the way you wanted. This new codex has them pushed even more in the direction of a shooty army, which I do not like. I like to play my marines as assaulters. I loved the six Assault Sqaud army. I have never liked taking characters, but in this Codex you will have to if you want any flavor at all. So GW has currently limited my choices to Vanilla or Characterhammer, both of which I am not pleased with.

For me, i like a hard fought battle so in that case if people think an army is chezzey i would like to play against it, after all this is just a game and if people are going to cry about this and that just because they couldnt think of it first and/or couldnt afford it, or lose against it over and over again and then call it chezzey maybe those people doing all the crying are really just horriable players and they only like to play against a list they can beat everytime. so in other words salamanders with sisters would be a good list to use his special rule isnt that great it just makes things twinlinked so over the corse of a game you might get maybe 20 reroles thats not Chezzey. anyway thats my thought.

Not just in 40K, but in many other games, I have found that some people will complain about what they cannot beat. Those people rarely take an objective look at why they can't beat a given list, they just assume it's broken rather than looking at their tactics, dice rolls, the skill of their opponent, etc.

I have always favored lists that do well in as many situations as possible and so typically never have found lists that I wouldn't play against. Mainly, I look at my opponent and his/her skill to guage how tough a fight will be.

When I know I'm playing somebody who isn't very good I always try out new lists or untested tactics to even the field. I like winning but I don't like obliterating a novice and I don't like pissing people off with poor sportsmanship.

i enjoy playing with competitive lists. i encourage those that i play with to start to play at a higher standard (not that i try and force anyone to do anything, just give them helpful advice). when i play i play to win. this is a war game, and although i will probably enjoy the game whatever the outcome, there is one objective in mind. having said that i usually dont take any tournament level lists down to my FLGS. it can get disheartening to lose continuousley and i like my opponents to have as much fun as i do.

i dont think people are necessarily put off by tournament level list, but a balance must be struck. if everyone in your area is into competitve play then by all means bring out the biggest, meanest, nastiest list you can conjure. if not then dont take it out to often.

that was the point of my previous posts.....if everyone (or enough) of your local group or the folks at your FLGS are experienced players then bring it on. but if you're the type of guy that drops that kind of list on newbies (and I hate using that word btw) and gloats about it then you've quite possibly turned someone off to the game and what fun is that.

If its understood (stated or otherwise) that "Hey, joe over there is a very competetive player, so you better be prepared to step it up against him" then no problem. but if the rest of the group is mid-range tacticly o esperince wise, and you just throttle them and dont help them to elevate their play....then my guess is you'll quickly find yourself invited to fewer and fewer gaming sessions. And then how much fun is that?

Any good commander knows that the situations and battlefield dictate tactics....and one of those is the abilities of your opponent.

Judge their ability and help them along, and you may find yourself able to play more competetive gmaes against worthy opponents. Continue to massacre them, without helping them evolve, and you may just find yourself doing more collecting and less playing.

My 2 pfennigs, for what they are worth.

~Bart