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.

Last night, for the first time in many years, i was accused of being beardy, and bringing a cheesy over powered army...

I was playing necrons, with 3 nightscythes, a doomscythe, and my foot units were all sporting veils so i could teleport round the board. As Zahndrehk was my overlord, i deliberately left my wraiths, scarabs and deathmarks at home, and used my fliers and veils to focus my entire armies firepower on individual squads on a turn by turn basis. This was not a flier spam army, i had a very healthy number of strong units on the board, including Lychguard (who are regarded as being fairly weak for their cost), and the list is what i consider to be fairly 'fluffy'

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy? I'll admit that i play to win, but i do try to avoid things like wraith spam and flier spam with necrons. In order to avoid the label of 'beardy' or TFG, am i forced to bring (what i would consider) sub-par lists?
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them, saying as it were, 'i'm bringing a weaker army, because you aren't worth my complete effort'

I am a competitive gamer, i do try to play fluffy armies, but i do play to win. How do you strike the right balance? how do you make judgements on what your opponent expects from a fight? I know talking to them beforehand is the obvious answer, and as a rule i do that, and discuss any rules clashes that might arise, but often i've met people who said they are competitive, and then brought out a totally underpowered fluffy army, and met fluffy gamers who have had the most WAAC guys i've ever met.

Should i stay a competitive player, and indicate to them to man up? or should i try to turn down my playstyle a notch or two?

An army is only "cheesy" if it exploits a flaw in game design to win by doing something that wasn't intended to be possible. A powerful, well-optimized list is just a good list.

I find it funny how people only seem to lose to beardy/cheesy lists.
I rarely hear of someone losing to a balanced or underpowered list.
A few abusive lists aside, even the most spammed list can have some claim to a fluff bias.

People don't like to lose and will find any excuse other than admitting they didnt play well or built a flawed list.

I have watched enough battle reports on youtube where the loosing player whines about the army he faced being OP or codex creep etc.

Having said this, flyers are a new toy that not every army has and not every army can counter well.

If these are friendly games, offer up a handicap same point value army and you will comp him and Aegis with quadgun. If its just pick up games at the LGS just play someone else. you may get a rep as WAAC or TFG but it will only be a subset of the gamers.

The only line that a list can cross for me into cheese territory is when you show up with a list that prevents your opponent from doing anything. The fewer options you give your opponent, the worse the list is. 40k is a game between two players, not a game where one person shows up and does stuff while the other person sits there bored.

So, MSM units are a good example. You get to use your movement phase, your shooting phase, and your assault phase. Your opponent, on his turn, has no targets. He can do a bit of movement, but he can't shoot or assault your stuff. Talk about a terrible game for your opponent.

Another one that can cross the line for me is gunlines. Gunlines drag the game down to the tactical complexity of yahtzee. Both players show up at a table and roll dice, and that more or less alone determines who wins. If I wanted to play a game that was basically pure randomness, I wouldn't have gone to the effort to make a 40k army. Worse, gunlines often stop your opponent from doing anything. Done properly, your opponent isn't going to be able to do much movement, as it's likely suicide, and they're never getting anything into close combat, so you're forcing your opponent to play your super-boring version of the game.

Fliers do fit into this a little bit, but you can get around this by focusing on the ground game (fliers can't take objectives, for example), and you still can technically hurt fliers. As such, I wouldn't worry TOO badly about making a list cheesy with too many fliers. If you put all of your scoring units in them, though, then you're really limiting your opponent's options, and dragging the game down to the level of "can you roll 6's?" which is pretty drab.

Powerful lists are just that - powerful. They're not cheesy per-se. Lists that shut down your opponent's ability to have fun playing, though, will pretty much guarantee you nobody to play against. Of course, if your point is to make lists that prevent your opponent from playing the game while they're playing the game, then you're probably already a horrible TFG anyways, so you'd probably just dismiss this advice anyways.

madtankbloke wrote:
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them?

No. And here's why.

People play the game, and build their armies, for different reasons. Some people really love the background, and want to build an army faithful to a particular piece of background they like. Some people just really like the models, so they add models to their army based purely on how much they like them. Other people don't really pay much attention, and collect armies like birds collecting shiny things.

Now, unfortunately GW's system isn't perfect. There's an argument to be made about not wanting the system to be perfect, as that merely encourages stagnancy, however GW errs too far the other way. As a result, despite the fact that four players might each have a 1,500 point army, the actual power of those armies can be wildly disproportionate.

If you're doing everything you can to mercilessly crush your enemies, you're effectively saying to them "You play wrong, and you have fun wrong, so you deserve to lose every game."

Now, this isn't to say the player who collects based purely on models or the background has no responsibility to build a strong list. He still has to make concessions, and do the best he can to build himself a list within the limitations he has set himself.

The thing is though, the competitive player can still enjoy a challenging game that pushes him to his limits when he handicaps his list. The player who builds his list out of models that look good won't be having as much fun if has to leave those models at home and take the ones which are better, but that he doesn't like.

So you have to ask yourself, do you like to be challenged, or do you like to win? Think of it this way: Building the most powerful list you can is playing on easy mode. Do you want to be playing on easy mode? Spare a thought for the players who consider the imagery, aesthetic and background of a force to be more important than how well it plays on the table.

The second you say "Screw those guys, I'm taking as many Necron fliers as I can!" you cross the line, and your army becomes cheesy.

Kaldor wrote:So you have to ask yourself, do you like to be challenged, or do you like to win?

I can not stress this enough.

Way, way too many people see "challenge" and "winning" as synonyms, when, in fact, they are usually opposites, at least when it comes to 40k.

 Kaldor wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them?

If you're doing everything you can to mercilessly crush your enemies, you're effectively saying to them "You play wrong, and you have fun wrong, so you deserve to lose every game."

The thing is though, the competitive player can still enjoy a challenging game that pushes him to his limits when he handicaps his list. The player who builds his list out of models that look good won't be having as much fun if has to leave those models at home and take the ones which are better, but that he doesn't like.

I'm not sure i've ever played a game where one side was trying to lose, i know some players prefer the narrative aspect of the game, and will limit themselves based on that, but thats a lot different from trying to lose.
My necron army has limits i have set it, as i take Zahndrehk, i don't take 'dishonourable' troops such as wraiths, deathmarks, and by infered extension, scarabs or spyders. I also steer away from warriors since in zahndrehks broken mind, they aren't soldiers.

Having set myself limits, and despite the artificial handicaps, once we get to the tabletop i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

Having discussed the matter with a few people irl, i find its not the army list i've chosen, but the army itself, and people who play certain armies (such as GK and crons) are generally held to be the WAAC types, this despite the fact that the majority of the troops i field are the 2nd eddition metal ones, so i've not actually picked up the army to win at all costs, i just felt i could actually use the models that have been sat in a box for over a decade.

If I continue to play with my necrons, i'm not sure how i can avoid the TFG label, i'm fairly certain that whatever composition i pick, just because its Necrons, its seen as being cheesy.

I'm at the point where i'm considering finding a new group to play with

 Peregrine wrote:
An army is only "cheesy" if it exploits a flaw in game design to win by doing something that wasn't intended to be possible. A powerful, well-optimized list is just a good list.

QFT

folks whine when they get soundly trounced and don't have an idea where they went wrong... however i'll admit necron scarabs are hightly annoying ing entropic strike


my Dark Eldar get the most accusations of being cheesy- but i always point out they are twisted pointy eared gits who will take pleasure in making a mockery of your army if given the chance .

however when you win you must point out where they went wrong- not killing my venoms is a common mistake However at a tournament thanks to having 2 turns of nightfighting (tourney rules... ) i stopped an ork army from shooting me for 2 turns, nighshields indeed i won rather disgusitngly in the end.

Knowing how to use your army is a large part of it as well, once you get a list that you like playing with you tend to do well with it, cheesy or not...

But going into the realms of which units are cheesy etc is hardly going to solve the problem

madtankbloke wrote:
i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

That's because you play competitive games. Or at least, you have a competitive vision of the game.
If your opponent has the same objectives as you, I mean "win the game", yes doing your best to win is a sign of respect, in a way. Like in sport competition. And that's perfectly fine.

But if you play like that in a friendly game, in a fun game or in a narrative game, you're doing wrong.
I personnally rather play "fun" games, and believe it or not, my Big Boss always tries to kill anything that's bigger than him. He has sort of hypersized ego problems, and will attempt at crushing whatever he can, the bigger the better. Yup, even when I'm almost certain he can't do it, he has a try.
And I don't care if he dies. Anyway, orkses never lose.


Building a strong list and playing it a competitive way when you opponent just wants to have fun, is like being that kid on the left, according to me :

LOL, that picture is GREAT!

madtankbloke wrote:
Last night, for the first time in many years, i was accused of being beardy, and bringing a cheesy over powered army...

I was playing necrons, with 3 nightscythes, a doomscythe, and my foot units were all sporting veils so i could teleport round the board. As Zahndrehk was my overlord, i deliberately left my wraiths, scarabs and deathmarks at home, and used my fliers and veils to focus my entire armies firepower on individual squads on a turn by turn basis. This was not a flier spam army, i had a very healthy number of strong units on the board, including Lychguard (who are regarded as being fairly weak for their cost), and the list is what i consider to be fairly 'fluffy'

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy? I'll admit that i play to win, but i do try to avoid things like wraith spam and flier spam with necrons. In order to avoid the label of 'beardy' or TFG, am i forced to bring (what i would consider) sub-par lists?
If i don't do everything i can to mercillesly crush my opponent, isn't that just disrespectful to them, saying as it were, 'i'm bringing a weaker army, because you aren't worth my complete effort'

I am a competitive gamer, i do try to play fluffy armies, but i do play to win. How do you strike the right balance? how do you make judgements on what your opponent expects from a fight? I know talking to them beforehand is the obvious answer, and as a rule i do that, and discuss any rules clashes that might arise, but often i've met people who said they are competitive, and then brought out a totally underpowered fluffy army, and met fluffy gamers who have had the most WAAC guys i've ever met.

Should i stay a competitive player, and indicate to them to man up? or should i try to turn down my playstyle a notch or two?

Look this is a pretty simple thing if you are playing someone who is a competitive gamer play competitively. Against others a more fluffy playstyle is called for.

I have the luck that my competitive army is not far from my fluffy army. (Deathwing). However because I am a player of ability and I have an army that is designed to crush 3+ save semi-elite armies people complain that my army is overpowered . But we all soldier on.

Its your hobby you should make yourself happy and if you feel you are stepping on toes ask if they would prefer if you use a fluffy or competitive list then go win.

Not being cheesy in this edition is a bit hard for some armies. With Necron, IG, Nids, and Orks having a decent array of available flyers (especially the first three in that list), any army going up against it that does not have access to other flyers make it a cheese to the opponent.

Yes, some armies have access to flyers and thusly have the choice to bring them or not. If a list with flyers go against codex marines, and the marines did not field storm talons, then they have no right to complain. But armies like eldar, sisters of battle, daemons, and Tau (which still makes no sense to me...) have no ability to take flyers or have any skyfire units for anti-flier control. Yes... I can take a defense line with a quad gun, but it is a single gun that can targeted independently in the first turn to prevent it doing any damage to their turn 2+ flyers.

I know why the person said it was cheesy: necron flyers are hard to deal with, muchless 4 of them with troops popping up behind any given unit with the veils.

My advice, just dont ask that person to play anymore. Either they will despise you, which means that you wont have an enjoyable game with them again, or they will ask you for a game to try and take out the army that obliterated them in the first place. At that point, they can not complain about the cheese for they already knew what they were up against.



PS, I did the same thing against the first 18 flamer deamon list. Double force org with 6 squads of 3 flamers. I called it cheese, and since then know how to set up my tourney list to handle that first wave of nasty flamers.

madtankbloke wrote:
i personally feel that picking the best army i can, and playing the best i can is simply a sign of respect, that i'm taking my opponent seriously.

It's really not. It's often disrespectful. Now, I know you said you set yourself limits, but it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind. That's the only way to be respectful, and take your opponent seriously. Build your army with them in mind. Playing the best you can is obviously a given, but at the same time you still need to keep your opponent in mind. Explain what your units do, and what they're good at. If you see your opponent making a rookie mistake, ask them if that's what they meant to do. Help them to be better players, and they'll feel less butthurt when they lose. Don't play the game for them, but don't take advantage of their lack of rules knowledge to stomp them into the ground either.

To address your other issue: People are stupid. If they've formed the opinion that anyone who plays Necrons is a WAAC TFG then there is little that will dissuade them, especially if you're new to that group. And especially if you've been winning all/most of your games. You can throw a couple of games, I guess, but that's a gakky thing to do and I don't recommend it. Tabletop gaming always needs a social contract to make it work, to steal a phrase for Jervis. And if you and your current gaming group are approaching the game from opposite ends of the spectrum, it's going to take a lot of work on both ends before you can find some common ground to work with. Sometimes it's just easier to find a new group to play with.

 Ailaros wrote:
TSo, MSM units are a good example. You get to use your movement phase, your shooting phase, and your assault phase. Your opponent, on his turn, has no targets. He can do a bit of movement, but he can't shoot or assault your stuff. Talk about a terrible game for your opponent.

So what you're saying is that the entire Tau codex is cheesy and anyone who plays Tau is TFG?


PS: if you can't shoot at or assault JSJ units for the entire game it's because you're bad at 40k.

'Cheesy' or 'Beardy' lists tend to be those you lose to because the other guy did something you didn't foresee and you had no effective counters. These tend to come in two situations:
1. You built a highly-specialized list, and the other guy build a highly-specialized list that easily counters yours.
2. You build a generic list, and the other guy builds a highly-specialized list that you have no way to counter.

So, generally, the easiest way to avoid 'cheesiness' or 'beardiness' is for both sides to field varied, well-balanced lists instead of min/maxxing. Unfortunately, due to the 'magic bullet' mentality, not a lot of people do this. It's a problem.

jazzpaintball wrote:
But armies like eldar, sisters of battle, daemons, and Tau (which still makes no sense to me...) have no ability to take flyers or have any skyfire units for anti-flier control.

Flying Monstrous Creatures can be considered Flyers, and due to the latest BRB FAQ, they can choose to Skyfire. So Daemons aren't that bad off when it comes to both taking Flyers and dealing with them. We have options.

I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

I consider Draigo borderline cheese; he's not too bad when he's not in his "wing," and the draigowing can be defeated strategically (and I play Guard, so plasma and AP2 isn't hard to come by) mainly because he reduces the complexity of the game; he'll murder everyone in CC, very hard to hurt at range, but if you kill him, draigowing falls apart, if he survives, he'll do terrible things to you.

Again, it's a one-trick pony, and not very interesting to fight against. It also represents an inbalanced need for strategy. A player exploiting a poorly balanced part of the game, like screamers, imhotek or draigo doesn't require a great deal of thought to use effectively. How one defeats that requires enormous trial and error, tailored lists and so on. It took me a long time to figure out a good counter to Draigo, and all it takes for a GK player is to plop him in some Paladins with an apothecary, and from day one he'll do moderately well. Imhotek is another example, dump him in reserve and roll some dice and see what you blow up. Again, it reduces the enjoyment factor of the game, and that's the key thing, the game's supposed to be fun, any rule shenanigans or exploitation of unbalanced units damages that, and that I consider cheese. As long as you're playing for fun (and that can include an imhotek on imhotek lightning war, if both consider that fun, or some hot draigo on draigo action) then there's no issue, but when you're being a tabletop "troll," that is the issue.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

Really?! 16 Screamers + 12 Flamers is hardly cheese.
Now 20+ of each is downright nasty and not something to encourage in friendly gaming, but it's still easy'ish to counter even with a TAC's list. (castle-up your deployment, hide in transports and/or bubble wrap your main units with expendible chaff, etc...)

IG especially laughs at Flamer/Screamer spam, since it's designed mainly to eyerape MEQ's & TEQ's. The only armies which lack any solid counter would be Deathwing/Loganwing etc... since they don't have the model count OR the vital transports to hide in and avoid the worst of the first wave.

And if you really think it's just unbeatable, (which it isn't), then just take the easy road and ally in a pair of GK Strike Squads. Go first, and watch the Daemon player have 0 chance of doing anything remotely usefull while you sit back and gun him down piecemeal. (Now who's the tabletop Troll?!)

Experiment 626 wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I only really consider things cheesy when a player uses a list or units which reduce the overall enjoyment of the game. I can have fun getting curb stomped; the go for the moral victory, snipe a warlord, or just be hard to kill, go out dramatically and so on.

But when someone brings Imhotek to 12k point game and spends 30 minutes a turn lightning people, I call that being cheesy and abusing a character who is not balanced for large games.

In my local groups, there's a guy who runs Daemons, prior to the WD update, he ran what were often flavoured, but effective lists. Once the WD update came, 16 screamers and 12 flamers. In. Every. Game.

That is cheese. It's a boring list to play against, offers precious few possible counters, and overall results in an unenjoyable game.

Really?! 16 Screamers + 12 Flamers is hardly cheese.
Now 20+ of each is downright nasty and not something to encourage in friendly gaming, but it's still easy'ish to counter even with a TAC's list. (castle-up your deployment, hide in transports and/or bubble wrap your main units with expendible chaff, etc...)

IG especially laughs at Flamer/Screamer spam, since it's designed mainly to eyerape MEQ's & TEQ's. The only armies which lack any solid counter would be Deathwing/Loganwing etc... since they don't have the model count OR the vital transports to hide in and avoid the worst of the first wave.

And if you really think it's just unbeatable, (which it isn't), then just take the easy road and ally in a pair of GK Strike Squads. Go first, and watch the Daemon player have 0 chance of doing anything remotely usefull while you sit back and gun him down piecemeal. (Now who's the tabletop Troll?!)

Deathwing has a chance with extremely careful deployment and well balanced units. But demons are beatable you just shoot them before they get in range.

to me cheesy is a trick that just completly changes the game and you have no means to counter it. A.K. A. Warp Quake spam

Folks play this game for different reasons. The best games come from 2 people with similar outlooks and expectations.

If you're a competitive player, you're often better than the casuals that populate your FLGS on game night. They can't play up to your level, so you will have to put on the kid gloves to get a satisfying game. It can be a pain sometimes, but it beats watching them cry after losing at a game of toy soldiers. Plus, you can use silly units like Flash Gitz and Praetorians without gimping yourself.

People often cry cheese because they don't really know how to play the game. Yes, they play for different reasons than you....because they want to be "fluffy" or because they like certain models or because they don't have the funds to build a really competitive list or whatever. They can't compete because they never really learned how to compete or how to build a balanced TAC list. And maybe they don't want to. In any case, when such a player come up against an army that they just have no way of handling (i.e. even 4 flyers can overwhelm someone who doesn't have the "tools" to deal with flyers at all....heck, I won a tournament with just 4 necron flyers and once got tabled by an opponent with 4 necron flyers), their first reaction is to cry cheese because they don't know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, that's just how a lot of casual (and even some competitive) players are. Rather than to face up to the truth...that their army isn't good and their skill level sucks....they put the blame on others and especially on their opponent. With these people, you have basically 3 options: 1) to play other people more similar to yourself, 2) to dumb-down your own list or 3) to try to educate your opponent (assuming he wants to listen). Unfortunately, not everyone is receptive of constructive criticism and in your area, there may not be a lot of other similarly competitive players, so sometimes you're just stuck with option #2.

It's really not. It's often disrespectful. Now, I know you said you set yourself limits, but it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind. That's the only way to be respectful, and take your opponent seriously. Build your army with them in mind. Playing the best you can is obviously a given, but at the same time you still need to keep your opponent in mind. Explain what your units do, and what they're good at. If you see your opponent making a rookie mistake, ask them if that's what they meant to do.

wait .so people that start the game have to buy one game they want to play the game , another army to play against people which started , yet another army against those who started but which codex are bad , then buy another one to play against those who consider codex legal not fluffy enough , then yet another one for those who accept FW and one for those who dont . A god help them if they pick an army that just has no bad options or cant play sub optimal [GK in the 5th , SW in the 5th and now] , what are those suppose to do . Or are you automaticly donkey-cave just because you find SW cool and you dont have 4000$ to buy 7 different armies against 7 different opponents .

If someone wants to enjoy an army , then he should buy and play with an army which is good . If someone makes his diner out of mud and sand , he shouldnt expact it to be good . Now I cant stop him from doing that . It is his choice [imo a stupid one] . But he should not force me to eat it . Neither should the guy who loves shell fish which am alergic to .

I too have necrons and I have witnessed the hate thrown at them because as of right now, they are labeled the cheese army. If that is why people complain about you, then I'd just stay away from them.

The other thing I see, is your list has 4 fliers. In a tourney, I bet you would do well. But many people aren't equipped to deal with fliers at all. I know my Deathwing struggles. I don't have the number of shots to rely on a 6 to hit, but I don't have access to any fliers either. I would suggest making two lists. One list with your fliers, one without. Ask your opponent about his air capabilities. If he has some AA, then go ahead and bring the flier list. But if he has no fliers (either old army, or just doesn't have the new expensice flier models) I'd suggest taking a list without fliers. It is just no fun to play a game against models that you can do almost nothing about.

Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game? What happened to "Adapt or die"? Your opponent should thinking about that fact that he know might have to bring in anti flyers. I played my tou versus necrons. I didnt have any anti-air. Did i whine that the two Flyers where cheap? No i played that game

Nope. If I recall GW calls it a casual beer and pretzel game to be played amongst friends.

It has so much potential to be a good balanced (relatively) game but GW still sticks with there excuse, “modeling company first, games company second” which is just bull.

Though to the OP really anything goes at least in my book unless you are intentionally trying to break rules or out right cheating to win.

Unfortunately, there are a handful of armies that, no matter what build is used, will have the "CHEESE" label on them. Unfortunately for the OP, Necrons are one of those.

The Cheese label is almost always hung on an army book that features A)units that are undercosted based on effectiveness and comparable units in other books, B) units that frequently break the established rules and archtypes, and/or C) has a large number of extremely powerful units available to them. Unfortunately for the OP, Necrons tend to fall in all of these categories. So every time a Necron player wins, he will most likely hear a few grumblings about a cheesy army no matter what is actually fielded.

Is it the Necron players fault? Not always. I tend to blame the writers. Somebody at GW should have said, "Okay, all things considered, maybe nightscythes shouldn't be dedicated transports", or "Maybe Imhotek should be toned down just a smidgen", so on and so forth. The Necron player is just using whats in his book.

That being said, the Necron player might as well get used to some unjustified accusations of Cheese from time to time because the Necron army as a whole is simply far more powerful than many of the others. Here's hoping that the playing field gets leveled as more and more new codexes are released.

jazzpaintball wrote:

PS, I did the same thing against the first 18 flamer deamon list. Double force org with 6 squads of 3 flamers. I called it cheese, and since then know how to set up my tourney list to handle that first wave of nasty flamers.

This is not a cheese item, this is a silly waste of one of the best units in the game.

If this guy was smart, he would have run 3 squads of 6, much more effective. MSU spam for flamers is pretty stupid in the current meta. With the vast improvements to flamers, and the emphasis on shooting, large squads of flamers can march all over the board steamrolling things to their hearts' delight .

I think for me, at the moment, more than one or possibly two flyers in a list for a pickup game is probably overdoing it, simply because until all the armies have ready access to their own fliers or AA units they can be unreasonably difficult to deal with - you can either ignore them, and let them run amok, or you can dedicate an inordinate amount of effort to trying to roll 6s to bring them down, at the cost of ignoring the rest of the enemy army.

Once fliers, and especially AA units, are more common for all armies I think it will become much less of an issue. I know everyone has access to ADL & quad gun, but to me that seems a bit of a cop out with anything other than IG (who ironically have plenty of AA with Hydras, Valks and Vendettas).

That said, the army in the OP seems fairly reasonable and fluff driven, and if there were only 1 or 2 fliers rather than 4 it probably wouldn't have raised any eyebrows at all.

it's important that you are setting those limits with your opponents enjoyment of the game in mind.

We could really end the thread with that right there. People can blame the writers, company, shareholders, etc etc, but it all really comes down to thinking about your opponent. If my opponent is going to take a maxed out hyper-awesome Draigo-wing type list and really try to kick my head in, then maybe a Necron flying circus is in order. On the other hand, if I know for a fact that my opponent will likely bring an army that cannot deal with flyers, that same Necron flying circus list is now beardy imo. It's not that any armies in and of themselves are cheesy or beardy, it's that certain aspects of those armies get abused without regard for whether or not it will be a fun game for your opponent. That's really about it. If you're thinking about your opponent's enjoyment as well as your own then you should be good in my opinion.