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.

As has been stated, this topic has been explored pretty thoroughly. In short, there is no way to actually detect lists that are cheesy or OTT outside of gut feeling. One man's finely tuned tournament list is another mans cheese mongering abusive list.

What it comes down to is appropriateness. Play a list with the level of power appropriate to the setting. Even then, manypeople will knock you down for comp, but it's the price you pay.

There are people that find lists built to win, or even lists that just beat them, inherently cheesy and will complain about them. there are people that will show up to a small local tournament with the nastiest net list they can find. Don't be either guy. If it's a tournament, bring a good list. If it's league night, bring a fun list.

Hi.
Perhaps I should point out the massive disjoint between the studio staffs motives and those of GW PLC corperate managment?

The studio staff create the wondeful artistry that makes us engage with GW product.They write the rules for co-operative narrative driven games in mind.

The GW PLC corperate managment want to maximise profits any way they are able to.
And pricing models on in game performance only works in a competative type game environment.
GW PLC insist on tournament sponsorship to drive and inspire competative mindedness to drive sales through in game performance.
Even if it is at odds with the games development philosophy.

And just to point out, who pays out execive amounts of money to get a competative list every time a the 40k rules/codexes are updated?
Thats right the deluded fools that think 40k is a wargame ballanced for competative play.(When it clearly IS NOT!)

I am not telling you what to buy or how to play.Just letting you know the facts ...

No offence intended , but it needs to be said.

TTFN
Lanrak.

What makes you assume that it isn't balanced for tournament play? I see a wide variety of lists that can win/dominate in the hands of a good player.

I would actually argue that it is very balanced as long as you are playing the power game lists. In fact pretty much every codex has a top of the line list that can win and some have 2-3.

That sounds pretty balanced to me.

As a game, 40k is far from balanced and of course has monetary motives driving it. However a game doesn't need to be perfect or truly balanced in order to be a legitimate competitive event.

Case in point: World of Warcraft arena. Not all teams and character classes are balanced, in fact its balance is much worse than 40k imo; yet its still played on a daily basis and in large gaming tournaments worldwide and recognized as such --- even though there are many classes/specs/teams that simply cannot compete for the top tier.

Cane wrote:As a game, 40k is far from balanced and of course has monetary motives driving it. However a game doesn't need to be perfect or truly balanced in order to be a legitimate competitive event.

Case in point: World of Warcraft arena. Not all teams and character classes are balanced, in fact its balance is much worse than 40k imo; yet its still played on a daily basis and in large gaming tournaments worldwide and recognized as such --- even though there are many classes/specs/teams that simply cannot compete for the top tier.

Exactly, you just need the top end to be balanced. Other games, magic the gathering for example, are technically far from balanced. I couldn't throw 60 cards into a deck and expect to win, just like wow arena, I couldn't pick any random team makeup and expect to win, or heck, even starcraft has specific build orders and units to play with.

The top end of 40k is actually very balanced. When everyone brings power lists, one doesn't outshine the others and the game becomes more about skill than anything else.

Hi again.
I am not saying that those players who optimise thier purchases and play competatively with the most effective builds for long peroids of time are not playing competativley.Or it makes the tournament invalid.(Just they are spending huge amounts of money ,under a false assumption perhaps?)

But the fact that the games that ARE ballanced for compatative play have PROVABLE levels of (im)ballance.
So ANY army selected using the army compostion lists and using the (calcualted ) PV has an equal chace of winning as any other selection.

There is NO distinction in performance ONLY player skill.

And because of this, there is not the competative -narrative posturing divide between the gamers ,created by corperate mis-representation of the 40k game.

IF the ONLY reason for taking one option over another in your army composition is personal playing style , then the game is ballanced for competaive play.

The fact that only a small percentage of possible army builds are played competativley supports my argument , doesnt it?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:So ANY army selected using the army compostion lists and using the (calcualted ) PV has an equal chace of winning as any other selection.

There is NO distinction in performance ONLY player skill.

Tell that to 180 Gretchin beating on the sides of a Land Raider Redeemer. There are some units that just don't work against some other units, and occasionally, an entire army list matchup will be in this fashion. Somehow, I don't think the Gretchin army really has a fair chance to win that, player skill or no.

No, think of any other competitive game. Only certain units/things are taken. The full amount of options is never used, and when some are its for special situations.

Examples:

Starcraft: Plenty of units are never used because they suck.
WoW: Plenty of classes don't mesh well together so they aren't used in conjunction with each other.
Halo, other FPS ect: Plenty of guns are considered terrible and not used. Heck an entire character model isn't used in competitive play because its easier to get headshots on.
MTG: Hundreds of cards are never touched in a competitive environment because they are bad.

By your argument, there are 0 competitive games out there.

Not all people see the game in quite the way you do.

Therefore they have other opinions that you do about competitive play, cheese, and what's considered an abusive lists.

Choice: isn't it great?!

You can choose to play or not to play anyone you want.

If you're going to a tournament - then of course you bring your bad boyz. If at the local joint - it's all up to you and the choice you make to play anyone or not.

Hi again.
Malecus.
As reguards to you example , any non anti tank unit , would be just as viable as the same points value of other non anti tank unit.
ALL games have units types/groups that have specific abilities/areas of effectivness .

Timmah.
Games that ARE ballanced for competative play, Armies OF Arcana,(Thane Games,) Full Thrust,(ground Zero Games,) Firefly , Challenger II, TTSOG, (TTG) etc.

Most are not mainstream games with minature range to sell.But just rule sets written by , playtested by and played by gamers.
Most have a far more tactical focus than 40k.

Dakka-X3.
Totaly agree, be honest with yourself and your opponent about what your reasons for playing are.
Then like minded gamers can enjoy the type of game play they like best.

Happy gaming ,
Lanrak.

If you're playing a good army and all your opponent does is cry about it, you're playing the wrong opponent.

carmachu wrote:Why cant folks step up? Why does it always have to be step down?

Maybe they don't own the models to do so, or the options don't exist, whereas it is usually easier to simply turn things down a notch on the competitive side.

Malecus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:So ANY army selected using the army compostion lists and using the (calcualted ) PV has an equal chace of winning as any other selection.

There is NO distinction in performance ONLY player skill.

Tell that to 180 Gretchin beating on the sides of a Land Raider Redeemer. There are some units that just don't work against some other units, and occasionally, an entire army list matchup will be in this fashion. Somehow, I don't think the Gretchin army really has a fair chance to win that, player skill or no.

Actually, there isn't much in the Ork list that can hurt a land raider.

I try not to take top tier lists, but lists that can beat top tier lists.

If you take a “net list” and win, is it you or your list that is winning?

In the ‘Ard Boyz armies that made top 3 I have no respect for the Ork or Chaos players that won, but my hat goes off to the Tau player that is moving on to the next round.

You can't just take a net list and win, you have to know how to play with it. You could give me double Lash CSM and I'd probably still lose.

But yeah, go Tau! I'd be tickled if Tau managed to take first.

So would I. Blue-skinned freaks.

carmachu wrote:Conversely, there's no point in taking a fun list if your oppponent is looking for a competative game.

True, it works both ways. This is why the general opinion of this thread is 'play the sort of game your opponent wants to play, or play another opponent". This is of course, AGAINST the OP, who states he'd rather take a 'competitive' list in every instance, even in friendly games, even if it's considered inappropriate.

carmachu wrote:I'm always amazed by the attitude of "you have to dumb down your list". Its never "hey, stop taking usless repentia(or fill in another crappy unit) and give me a competative game"

Why cant folks step up? Why does it always have to be step down?

Because i find the idea that you can 'dumb down' a hugely variable game into 'these units are good and these units are bad' quite a silly viewpoint. I'm SURE those Repentia can work somehow, and I'm going to have a lot more fun using them until I figure out HOW than just rejecting them out of hand.

I have an entirely Slaaneshi Daemon Army. No bloodcrushers. No epidemius. No Fateweaver. 'Oh no!' cry the competitive crowd 'you shouldn't take those units because they're uncompetitive - you NEED bloodcrushers'. But i spent the time learning to play the army, and after a few defeats I think i have them figured out. Now they win a lot. I find this much more fun than dumbing down the codex into 'one perfect build' and it's more fun for my opponent, who's likely never faced a Daemon army like that before.

The viewpoint of 'bring only competitive units or I'm not playing you' will only result in everyone using the same IG build, everyone using the same Chaos build, and all the infinite variety of the codexes being boiled down to 'what's the most effective unit to spam'

This argument is good fun and all but seriously people, I'm really starting to get sick of people telling me to play something else that is less competitive, i.e. not a good army.

Why the !@$% would I not always take my "A" game?

The people I truly admire are the entrepreneurs who try out an all slaaneshi army, or some kind of untested army. I've tried it myself, but I also have my completely mechanized IG army.

All the guy who started this thread wanted (IMHO) is to tell all the people out there that spend rediculous amounts of money on crappy models, then whine to ME about how badly I whooped ass to shut the hell up, I do not care.

Now, that may classify me as a "dick" or "cheesy" but in reality, you are shifting the blame of your loss onto me. And you know what? I am the reason you lost and I'm damn proud of it, even when I stomp across a child's army. How is anyone, especially a child, going to learn anything without trial and error?

A 3rd grader can pick up a nob biker army and he will not win against me because I'll make better decisions. The army is not everything, the player decides how the army acts.

Man the !@$% up guys, I'm tired of the word "cheese" being a derogatory term for a fething awesome army that is damn near impossible to beat, and in most cases just annihilated your army.

I cannot explain my rage against people whining and bitching about my army because I won. If I have won, it has been because I brought a better list, made better decisions, and I got a little lucky.

I have to end sometime so I have this to say to people who think "competetive" armies are "bad":

Look at your opponent's army list.
If you do not want to play against it, just say so.
If you do want to play and you do not have fun during the game, it is your fault.

If this situation is in a tournement and you cannot deny the match, man up and stop bitching to everyone about how "cheesy" his army was. Because every time you complain, everyone around you does not give a damn.

Nenya97 wrote:Why the !@$% would I not always take my "A" game?

If the objective is merely to play an interesting game, then it's OK to back off a bit or try a different tactic, just to do something different.

Hi.
Got to agree with you John.

The objective of the game may be to win, but the point of playing is to have fun!

Some people enjoy the 2 dimentional pursuit of playing to 'just to win' a game developed for narrative play.

But others prefer the more multi dimentional experiance, of the narrative co-operation of like minded individuals to tell a fantastic story.

40k has far more emphasis on strategic than tactical conciderations.Therfore the list you write has far more influnece on the result of the game than other game systems.So unfortunatley this leads to a tangible divide between 'narrative gamers' and 'competative gamers.'

BOTH playstyles are valid , but 40k is a rather shallow experiance when reduced to W/D/L.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Blackmoor wrote:I try not to take top tier lists, but lists that can beat top tier lists.

If you take a “net list” and win, is it you or your list that is winning?

In the ‘Ard Boyz armies that made top 3 I have no respect for the Ork or Chaos players that won, but my hat goes off to the Tau player that is moving on to the next round.

Slow down there pal, some of us didn't make it in by the grace of our friend, the Internet, and the "netdecks" therein. No Deff Rollas (or Battlewagons at all) in my list this weekend. No Loota spam. No Mega Nobz. No Nob Bikers. No Kan Wall. I played what I wanted to play, because I knew what would work well for the scenarios, and I felt that I would have a list to keep my opponents off balance. And by the grace of Lady Luck favoring my dice, and bloodying a few noses properly, I'm headed for Chicago next month, Orks in tow. I'm not saying that I don't respect a Tau player for making it, as I only picked up Orks after I returned to the game after a 7 month hiatus and was unable to buy my Tau back at the time, but I do take offense at someone who has no respect for my success just because of the codex I field my forces from.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

carmachu wrote:Why cant folks step up? Why does it always have to be step down?

Maybe they don't own the models to do so, or the options don't exist, whereas it is usually easier to simply turn things down a notch on the competitive side.

Not so. I don't have the models 'Not' to make a non-competetive force in most cases and got hounded to buy more models when I said that.

The difference is, if you have a kick-ass army, it's easy to simply not use all of it to it's maximum potential. You can cast non-optimal spells, or even forgo casting entirely. You can make a non-optimal move. Or you can change your objectives to "fun" goals, like, marching a unit into their DZ or killing all of their Wizards or something. Any player can dial things back to tighten the overall game down.

But if your army only goes to 10, it won't be possible to turn the dial to 11 no matter what you do.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you 'tone things down' in your tactics...You still get bullied for playing a powerful list.

Then it's the player, not the play.

Thus the point of this thread

I mean, it's not like you can just get a Wraithlord and 10 Dark Reapers in a 500 point game anymore anyways.

Yeah, but it's not like that was something you could do before, either.

But you could do that before.