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.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, which is probably the case.

I play 40k with quite a small group of people and we play a variety of different armies and change our army composition whenever we feel like it. Now my understanding of a 'cheesy' army is one that uses units specifically designed to win and don't necessarily fit the 'flavour' of the race in some way. My question to you is, if an army is legal in terms of not using too many HQ slots or whatever, and has the correct equipment according to to the codex (or army book) entry, where is the problem? I can understand that taking two Necron Monoliths will make your army very hard to beat, but if it's legal, why do people complain about it? Also, what distinguishes one 'cheesy' army, from another that simply beat your army? Is it purely a personal thing? What one person sees as cheesy, another player simply sees as hard?

From all of this though, I can help but think, if it's legal, where's the problem? Has anyone ever classed an Apocalypse force as cheesy? If you can take what you want in an Apocalypse game without worrying about slot allocation, surely you can wield some ridiculous combinations (as per another thread on here), but does this make them cheesy?

Cheese is subjective. There is no such thing as a guaranteed win. Tell your friends to stop whining

You're not wrong in the slightest. Just a little... err... misinformed. Let me explain...

InyokaMadoda wrote:From all of this though, I can help but think, if it's legal, where's the problem?

There isn't one.

Cheese is an imaginary construct created by people to excuse a loss. You can certainly abuse lists, taking an over abundance of an ill-balanced unit (Lootas being the most recent example), but at the end of the day if it is legal it is just that - legal. Anyone complaining about a legal army being 'cheesy' is an idiot.

Now, in relation to your other statement:


"Now my understanding of a 'cheesy' army is one that uses units specifically designed to win and don't necessarily fit the 'flavour' of the race in some way."


Well, to start with, no, that's not 'cheesy' because, as I said, cheese does not exist (in the gaming parlance that is; cheese, the food item, clearly does exist, and it's delicious), but the idea of a unit being put in specifically 'to win' and not fitting the flavour of the army, that's a separate issue entirley, two separate issues actually, unrelated to imaginary cheese (or real cheese, if you happen to be hungry).

The idea of taking units that are specifically designed to win is quite a silly thing to say. Are there units specifically designed to lose? To draw maybe? No. All units are designed to win. Not all units are designed equally (compare Genestealers to Flash Gitz, for example, of Hellhounds to Guardian Weapon Platforms), so, yes, there are units that are better than others, but that's normal. Taking a unit specifically designed 'to win' is normal, as despite what some wishy-washy utopian wannabes might thing, we all play to win. Winning might not be our chief goal, or even what we derive the most enjoyment from, but we all still try to win our games.

As long as it's legal, it's fair game.

Now, the question of 'flavour' is a different issue again. If you have set up a particular theme for your army - great! You take units that fit that theme and there's your army. If you take a unit that doesn't fit the theme just to make the army better at winning games, then guess what, you haven't got a theme (unless, of course, your theme is 'winning all the time'). One thing to remember is that despite what wishy-washy tournament-hater utopian wannabes who purport themselves as 'casual gamers' might think, having a theme and having a strong list are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say that the measure of a good list is one that is both highly themeatic and strong competitively. Having a strong list without theme is, IMO, dull, and having a weak list with a great theme is, IMO, stupid.

So if you've got a strong list, everything is within a theme, and it's legal - then congratulations. You've got what you need. If you don't have either of the first two, it's not cheese. If you lack the third one, well, then the list is illegal, not cheesy.

Now I really want some camembert...

BYE

Depends on how you see the game, and how you prefer to play it.

Me, I theme, theme, and then theme my armies, with a side order of theme, to the part which appeals to me most. To dress it up a little, I spend time reading all the background I can on the force, and the army book, to find what I consider to be it's soul. The net result?

2,000 Point entirely Savage Orc army (everything is Frenzied)
2,000 Point large monster Dark Elf army (assembled about 5 years ago. Yeah. I am the Bandwagon for that one!)
And a 2,000 point combined arms Empire force.

The aim of this is to create an army more or less uniquely mine, with it's own challenges, and one my opponents are unlikely to have played before. Then, once it is collected, I set about learning how to lead the force to victory through trial and error. Of course, some number crunching and metagaming comes into the design process, but said number crunching and metagaming does not define the process for me.

Put it this way, depending on how awake I am, should I take my armies to a Tournament, I'd either lose big, or win big, simply because nobody seems to know what to do about them. and quite often, that includes myself.

But I would agree...Cheese is in the eye of the loser. If I get my arse handed to me, I'll swear revenge, and arrange my next game, whilst contemplating where I went wrong, and most importantly, where my opponent went right.

Unless it's Monica and her Wood Elves. But to explain, Monica refuses to play on a board with less than 2 very large woods, or 3 small-middling size woods. And thats before her free one. However, stacking the terrain completely in her favour aside, she is also very good at the Guerilla warfare Woodies so often use, so meh. I just try not to play her if there are other options available!

So, yes. Cheese only comes into it when your opponent cannot accept they lost. However, there is another term which seems to get confused with Cheese quite often....Beardy.

A Beardy army is one written with no regard for the background whatsoever, simply to squeeze as much power into the list as possible. Now, there is nothing wrong with this approach per se, just don't expect me to play you. After all, as an analogy, you wouldn't race a classic car you had saved for and restored by hand against a fresh new Ferrari, would you. Not much point, and a waste of your efforts.

Thanks for the replies chaps. You've pretty much confirmed what I was already thinking.

The Dreadnote, I was not meaning that my friends complain about cheesy lists. We play that if it's legal, bring it on! I was mentioning my friends in order to point out that I generally play in a small circle of people and don't necessarily have as much experience as other people of 'cheesy' or 'beardy' players.

HBMC, thank you very much for the long explanation. I didn't mean that any unit was designed for a loss, but was having problems thinking how to phrase exactly what you wrote!

Mad Doc Grotsnik, I very much like the idea of theming. I'm working on an Ork army myself at the moment, although I'm having some problems translating my idea into how this will affect my army build. I might post it on here at some point to get some help with it....

Thanks chaps. I'm glad to hear I wasn't completely wrong. I'm going to go for the 'play anything legal' approach. Whilst I would count myself as a 'casual gamer' (ie not tournaments), I certainly want to win, because why play if you're not interested in winning. I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that everyone tries for the win.

And yes. I too now want some camembert....or maybe some brie with redcurrants.....mmmmmmmm!

Easiest way is to just pick a theme.

Orks for example. I really like the idea of converting up Flash Gitz from scratch. Ergo, to go Flash Git heavy, I'd consider maxed out units of them, and of course Badrukk.

So, thats the central theme. But from there, who has hired them? Perhaps it's the Big Mek that built their Snazzguns for them wanting to see how he did. Or, if a Warboss has hired them, why? Is he short of Boyz, Long on Teef? Perhaps his Boyz are of the Snakebite persuasion, and he wanted some serious Dakka to back them up?

To my mind, themeing is about taking the rough with the smooth. So, if I max out on Flash Gitz, that means no Dreads, Kan, Battlwagons etc. Sure, a Big Mek could allow me a single Deff Dread, but if I'm taking him for that reason, to me, thats the wrong reason!

I see what you mean Mad Doc. I've got a theme that I want to go with, I think. The main problem that I'm having is in justifying (or not) the different types of units. It's very easy to say "I want that one, and that one and that one and that one", but it's a lot harder to restrict yourself....

Doesn't have to be a restriction really, leave that to me and other nutters. As long as you can justify to yourself why unit X is there, what does it matter?

The Deff Dread could be the Big Meks bodyguard after all. And perhaps Badrukk and his Boyz, oddly short on employ, have simply tagged along to the nearest battle, and will charge afterwards (after all, would you argue with them?) for their efforts.

I agree, that it doesn't need to be restrictions, but for me, the fluff should all work together.

I'm planning an ork army with a warboss who narrowly escaped defeat at the hands of Skulltaker. As a consequence he admires Skulltaker and emulates him to a certain extent. He is travelling the planets trying to find Skulltaker for the final battle, to show him who's best, and also is bashing anyone else he meets on the way. Now it's very easy to justify anything I want in this army, and I have a few good conversion ideas for various characters in my army, but I just feel my current thoughts are missing....something.....

In the group I play in now, I'm fortunate that they don't see anything as "cheesy" or "beardy." Legal is legal and that's all that matters.

In our games, we don't care about theme, either. Just build something hard hitting and let's throw dice!

The first "big" group I was a part of, though... If you didn't have 2 FULL SIZED troop units and 1:2 troop to non-troop ratio for the rest of your army, then it was just "wrong."
Those guys sucked.

Eric

'Cheesefests' are fun for me only once in a while. I'd far rather take on a uniquely themed army, and usually find far more challenge in doing so than an all-too predictable 'powerlist'

Inyoka: well, I think one thing that may be missing from your theme is exactly how the obsession of your warboss affects the units and individuals in his Waaaaagh. How do they respond ot his mania and it's manifestations? Do they accept it and emulate it, making a whole army of lil skulltaker wannabe's? Do they just try and stay out of the warbosses way (more so than any other orks stay out of their warbosses way), and only follow him because he inevitably ends up hip-deep in fighting? Or do they see themselves as support for him and his forward elements, raining ranged death down upon the foe? Prehaps different squads react ifferent ways.

the 40k background is 10k years old. Somewere in that vast timeline that army will have seen battle. Its kinda of a catch to allow you to create your own theme.