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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There is no such thing as 'cheese'. Cheese is used as an excuse by people who can't handle losing to explain away their own deficiencies.

Absolutely.

There seems to be a lot of people that act like wanting to win is some sort of evil thing. My friends and I all play extremely competitively lists, and our intention is to beat one another into the dirt. Dual Lash, Battlewagon Rumble, Daemonzilla, the many brutal new IG and Space Wolf builds and my own Vulkan/Drop Pod list are all any of us ever play against and the term "cheese" rarely comes up, and even then it's used ironically.

A good sport will say "good game!" after they've been beaten. A sore loser will bring up the C-Word.

The problem is that if you bring a hard as nails army, and your opponent has a not particularly competitive army (because they like the units, the fluff, whatever), they may find themselves getting wiped out without getting to participate in the game much, thus resulting in no fun being had.

People that say "quit whining, no such thing as cheesy, etc." most often have groups that are all okay with making lists centered around being competitive rather than an assortment of units that might be fluffy, interesting, diverse, whatever, but not necessarily competitive.

If you have a gaming group where everyone makes competitive lists, good for you. However people have just as much right to complain about your list making the game not fun for them as you have the right to complain about them complaining. Don't act like you have some sort of moral/gaming high ground.

ph34r wrote:The problem is that if you bring a hard as nails army, and your opponent has a not particularly competitive army (because they like the units, the fluff, whatever), they may find themselves getting wiped out without getting to participate in the game much, thus resulting in no fun being had.

People that say "quit whining, no such thing as cheesy, etc." most often have groups that are all okay with making lists centered around being competitive rather than an assortment of units that might be fluffy, interesting, diverse, whatever, but not necessarily competitive.

If you have a gaming group where everyone makes competitive lists, good for you. However people have just as much right to complain about your list making the game not fun for them as you have the right to complain about them complaining. Don't act like you have some sort of moral/gaming high ground.

If that person wanted to play a casual/fluffy game, then he has every right to request or seek out such a game.
If that person simply challenges me or accepts my challenge, he'd better not 'whine' about me being 'cheesy' when I play to win in a competitive game using a completely legal list and legal tactics. He is not being wronged by me in any way, and is in no way somehow now morally justified in taking shots at me or my list for the situation.

If a person isn't having fun because they're doing badly, then they should rethink their approach. There are several easily available solutions.
People shouldn't play down just because their opponent is doing badly. They should try to help get them up to the same level, mutually agree to a more casual play type that suits them at that time, or simply not play.

I like the idea of taking allies, and have never thought of it as being cheesy. Its not my fault that GW has plenty of books and options for the armies of the Imperium. It wouldn't make any sense to not be able to take them. Good on you for utilizing as much of the Imperium as possible to fight the enemies of the Emprah!

Callidus and Marbo...that's cheesy as hell!



No, seriously, no such thing as cheese. There are some builds that you don't bring to the casual club because nobody else would have much fun playing them (I'm thinking of that 9 razorback, 3 rhino mech SW list in tactics for example, perfectly legal but i would never want to see it) but yours doesn't look abusive or too tough at all. Its a nice mix of varied units, should be fun to play against.

Most of the time allies aren't even close to broken/competitive at all. The majority of the assassins are subpar and whilst GK termies in guard and such things look good on paper reall you're just trying to make your army play in a way it isn't designed too.

The only times problems arise are when new abilities or rules intersect with the old 3rd ed codex in a weird way i.e. mystics vs daemons. If you played daemons and your brother brought mystics to every battle you'd be understandably upset and he should probably try and play you without them for a game or two. But there is nothing to force him to do that other than the understanding that everyone wants to have fun in this game.

Gorkamorka wrote:If that person wanted to play a casual/fluffy game, then he has every right to request or seek out such a game.
If that person simply challenges me or accepts my challenge, he'd better not 'whine' about me being 'cheesy' when I play to win in a competitive game using a completely legal list and legal tactics. He is not being wronged by me in any way, and is in no way somehow now morally justified in taking shots at me or my list for the situation.

If a person isn't having fun because they're doing badly, then they should rethink their approach. There are several easily available solutions.
People shouldn't play down just because their opponent is doing badly. They should try to help get them up to the same level, mutually agree to a more casual play type that suits them at that time, or simply not play.

Right, I agree that if someone has a problem with the other person's list, play style, whatever, instead of making a big problem out of it the mature thing to do is just not play. However this still does not mean that there is "no such thing as cheese" because obviously if someone thinks that your list is cheesy, then there is such thing as cheese. Saying "no such thing as cheese" is like saying "people who don't want to make a hardcore competitive lists and call your list unfun are wrong", which is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:No, seriously, no such thing as cheese. There are some builds that you don't bring to the casual club because nobody else would have much fun playing them (I'm thinking of that 9 razorback, 3 rhino mech SW list in tactics for example, perfectly legal but i would never want to see it) but yours doesn't look abusive or too tough at all. Its a nice mix of varied units, should be fun to play against.

You start by saying "no such thing as cheese" but your next sentence describes exactly what most people in my experience consider cheese. You do not think that cheese is a thing because you just choose to disagree with what word(s) people use to describe "cheese".

The problem is that complaining about 'cheese' implies that the person bringing the 'cheese' is a bad person and in the wrong.

So there is no 'cheese'. There are only more and less powerful lists.

Bringing moral judgement on people's perfered style of play is wrong.

I don't like it when people use them as allies. Mostly because it is frustrating that I can't do it myself any more. When I started playing you could pull allies from any allied faction as long as they were under a certain % of total army points, 25% I think it was. Annoying that they took it away from most of the armys, but some still have it.

ph34r wrote:
People that say "quit whining, no such thing as cheesy, etc." most often have groups that are all okay with making lists centered around being competitive rather than an assortment of units that might be fluffy, interesting, diverse, whatever, but not necessarily competitive.

If you have a gaming group where everyone makes competitive lists, good for you. However people have just as much right to complain about your list making the game not fun for them as you have the right to complain about them complaining. Don't act like you have some sort of moral/gaming high ground.

I would say all of my games are fluffy, because fluff can be whatever you want it to be. This Space Marine chapter does it this way is all that is needed to say to give the illusion of fluffiness, unless you're using something that already has established canon fluff.

I would say all of my games are interesting, because my friends and I play a lot of games that test our abilities and keep us on our toes. We still play games occasionally where we don't make everything as competitive as possible, but that is clearly explained beforehand. What people should be complaining about is that they don't have a gaming group that meets their needs, not that certain army builds are "cheesy."

I prefer more narrative games, and because I'm still building my army slowly (student income doesn't let you buy more than a box of troops a month, and expensive stuff several months allotment) I avoid the powerplayers when possible. When I've been asked to have a small scale match with one it's on the understanding that I am going to lose, I'd appreciate some advice afterwards if they have any, and that I am going to use every single dirty trick in the book and do as many unexpected things as possible; mostly because the two times I've done it is people that haven't played against many DE and only seen one build wanting to check what else the things can do. And because they don't expect a suicidal bike rush to pounce on their concealed HQ or an archon to beat down a greater daemon of Khorne in CC and think they may need to be aware that such things are actually possible in a tourni.


I will also freely admit I'm still rather shaky on some of the rules and do get them mixed up on occasion, which pisses off hard core players. And pissed me off when they start utterly ripping into me about it.

I enjoy versing allied lists. Its refreshing and when it has the right spin to it, utterly wicked. That said, until I know what the frankensense I'm doing I will inspect lists for turn one ending lists. If you're using me to rack up your kill count you can expect me to walk away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:No, seriously, no such thing as cheese. There are some builds that you don't bring to the casual club because nobody else would have much fun playing them (I'm thinking of that 9 razorback, 3 rhino mech SW list in tactics for example, perfectly legal but i would never want to see it) but yours doesn't look abusive or too tough at all. Its a nice mix of varied units, should be fun to play against.

You start by saying "no such thing as cheese" but your next sentence describes exactly what most people in my experience consider cheese. You do not think that cheese is a thing because you just choose to disagree with what word(s) people use to describe "cheese".

In a recent mini-comp I used an allied Eldar wraithlord, farseer and guardian squad as part of a themed Inquisitorial army.
This included battle sisters, IG and militia forces.

I was accepted in on the basis that the back story was "cool" and within the possibilities of the 40k universe.

That wraithlord won me second place..
And ever since I have never belittled someone using an allied force.

I don't play Eldar so it was all new to me but it acted as a mobile heavy weapons emplacement and close assaulted only in the direst need.
Most of my opponents where all to happy to test their skills against such a strange configuration but I did get one or two grumbles similar to what your Bro said.

Funnily enough it was a SM player who raised the biggest issue of the tournie.. He started to moan unceasingly about the inclusion of the Eldar in a predominantly Imperial force, for the sake of that battle the organizers allowed me to drop the Eldar and take an immolator and seraphim squad instead (from my friend who had finished for the day)..
I hate when someone completely destroys your mood because of an absolute aherence to the fluff..

The dice rolls were with me however and I managed to win in VP and models left on the board.
The immolator and seraphim I had kept iddling beside a hill incase of the need for a fast counter assault (playing 3000pt game) and where never needed.
Not a single shot was fired from any of their weapons.

Having the allies, regardless of the race, should be a matter of the back story. A feasible back story. You couldn't toss BL, UM and Necro into a mix because that would never ever work..

But my storyline was simple in it's complexity.

The Inquisitor was an Ordos Xenos and had brokered contact to the Ulthwe craftworld requesting aid directly from the Eldar in recovering a forge world from the ravages of deamoncy.
The Eldar agreed on principle, as they were the only ones capable of utilising the constructs on the world which had been left by the Ancients, albeit in a restricted way.
The Inquisitor was made to wait many months for the Ulthwe answer as they searched the paths of the webway and fates to see if the reclaimation of the deamon world would benefit them.

And answer they did in the form of a Swordwind taskforce (was not used in tournie), a Farseer and his body guard.

The entire reaosn for being in the tournie was to see if the army could make it to the final stage and activate the weaponry to save the world.

I came second against another Imperial army of SM SW so the SW agreed that the Farseer could survive the battle (although the farseer was the first to die because of a stray hunter killer missile that scattered directly on top of him)

Solly wrote:
Most of my opponents where all to happy to test their skills against such a strange configuration but I did get one or two grumbles similar to what your Bro said.

Funnily enough it was a SM player who raised the biggest issue of the tournie.. He started to moan unceasingly about the inclusion of the Eldar in a predominantly Imperial force, for the sake of that battle the organizers allowed me to drop the Eldar and take an immolator and seraphim squad instead (from my friend who had finished for the day)..
I hate when someone completely destroys your mood because of an absolute aherence to the fluff..

And adherence to the rules...
Taking a normal and completely legal allies configuration is one thing, taking a normally illegal codex mashup army to a tournament is another.
The SM player was perfectly justified in his moaning and surprise had he not been notified well before the tournament of the rules change that allowed the list to be played.

Not that the list doesn't sound great, and quite cool. It's just not a legal list under the standard ruleset.

Absolutley illegal, I no way contradict that.
I suppose I should have added some more deets bout the tourney.

Because it was staged in four heats we had a chance of viewing the enemies army list and making complaints one hour prior to the game.
This gives time to arrange another set of models and change the config around to suit the new game play.
We had rolled for the scenery, the game rules/mission and then put out respective armies on the table.

Once everything was set up and the dice to be rolled for who goes first he brought up the objection.
The admin dudes had agreed in a majority vote, my previous opponents agreed to their ruling so it was either the dude backed out of the tournie
and I won by default or I change the config and play anyway.

I choose the latter because I don't like when people leave the table angry.
I use the army, now grown to 6200pts (includes Swordwind host) in the local apocalypse battles.
But because the tournie was a local competition and no major GW realted prizes awarded it was deemed acceptable.

I agree with your point though.
I was chancing my arm as a late comer with a new army list comprised of several armies and no fluff-wise cohesive rules, only a story and a passion to game..

All in all, there are those who stick to the letter of the rule and those who remain true to the universe and the "What If?" scenario..
Unfortunately they tend to impact on each other and when it's a case like the above, I back down.

I've had "discussions" about the exact ruling of a codex text during matches and tend to capitulate because I just wanna get on with the game
instead of being bogged down in an argument, whether right or wrong, especially when there are younger players around.

In cases of official tournies I stick directly and only to the required army list.

And if it was a narrative tourni, which it sounds like, then if the rules allow it it should be fine. Sounds like it's using the 3ed allies rules.

I'm working on a kroot mercenary force to ally to my DE. Sure, may be apoc only (although I think friends will let me use the chapter approved or updated kroot rules from IA in a stand alone) but still fun, and fits my fluff perfectly. Similar statlines between warriors and carnivores, complimentary units, big beasties which is the theme my DE army is based around, and while one group is consuming the souls of the fallen the other is consuming the bodies. And in the old chapter approved it was stated that kroot could use splinter rifles really well because they are very similar to hunting rifles in style and the close quarters fighting with the blades.

razorlead wrote:see nurglich's post

The new Inquisition Codex is coming out almost entirely to eliminate the allies rules and force people using allies to buy whole armies of to field those models. Its a money grabbing gimic like usual. So I wouldn't get too worked up about using allies because they are going to be dead in 5 months

5 Months, you are off the mark by a huge amount. Next release is Blood Angels, On April 3rd, After that its Beastmen and eighth ed Fantasy. Anything after that is transitory, but speculation is DE, Necrons, or Tau, then a fantasy release, then you might get your Larger Grey Space marines.





As for the OP question, its not cheesy at all since its part of the rules. The only thing that comes close is using Vulcan in a SoB army.

Solly wrote:Absolutley illegal, I no way contradict that.
...
In cases of official tournies I stick directly and only to the required army list.

Yep, and I'm not trying to point the finger at you. You sound as though you were entirely open about the whole thing, were doing it purely for fun/fluff, and it was perfectly fine with almost everyone involved. I probably would have been entirely fine with it.

I was just trying to delineate the gap between the standard rule-supported allies and your list, as it is an important line to draw in reguards to general play and the thread topic.

Morgrim: Of course we will. Plus my orks really want to slay some kroot!

Gorkamorka: ah I see what you mean..

In terms of the thread question though I absolutely 100% believe that using allies
is a great way of expanding your army without using the PlanetStrike/Apocalypse rules and in no way cheesey (most of the time0

Yeah. Wish we could still expand our armies that way. I loved fielding IG with marines. And the other argument is that if there weren't allied armys then the sisters of battle wouldn't exist. As that is the whole reason they were created. They weren't supposed to be played as a seperate army at the time they first came out.

Allies are cool- look at Chaos Space Marines and summoned daemons or Tau and basic gaurd troops.

I would never want to field allies if they gave IG SOME!! psyhic defense. Its complete BS that we have no options at all to defend against all of these new psyhic heavy armies!!!

Da Boss wrote:I don't find the assassins to be broken at all, and the mystics are only really a big problem versus Chaos Daemons.

yes we hates them, don't we Precious. Filthy mysticis...

broxus wrote:I would never want to field allies if they gave IG SOME!! psyhic defense. Its complete BS that we have no options at all to defend against all of these new psyhic heavy armies!!!

Hey! Do you see that line over there with the Necron, Tau, Dark Eldar, Chaos Daemon, and Chaos Space Marine players in it? That's the line for people complaining about the lack of psychic defenses. Freakin' take a number.

It's allowed by the rules, he's the one being less than honorable by insulting your honor. o_O