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.

When exactly does an army list go from being balanced to being cheesy?

When a player can't accept that they're not as good a player/don't have as good of a list as you do, your list is cheesy, and you're WAAC.

Good lists become cheese and good players become neckbeards when the meta can't accept that certain things are better than others.

-TheCaptain

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

jy2 wrote:Yes, not every fluffy player is a bad player. However, I can say from my experience that most people that I have seen/met who played more fluffy or non-optimized lists don't tend to do as well against the more competitive players with more optimized lists. Now once in a while, the tortoise may beat the hare, but don't expect that to be the norm. The fact of the matter is that the more casual players will tend to lose and sometimes lose bad to the more competitive players. It doesn't mean that all casual players are bad, just that building their armies to win games is not their priority.

I completely agree. The casual player will almost certainly lose more games (and in many cases find it impossible to win) but tis doesn't mean they are 'less skilled' or that taking a top-tier list makes you 'more skilled'.

My point was rather that, if everyone just has a slight bit of awareness of what is OP, and chooses to play with roughly mid-tier lists, everyone in the FLGS/community/club can now play fairly. And, for the competitive player, there is more of a challenge (which is what he wants, right?), since the armies are more balanced.

The game is unbalanced. We can abuse this at every opportunity, or we can choose to put a bit of balance back in so that everyone can play with their toys fairly.

Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I bring cheese, the other guy brings non cheese, I have fun decimating him and he should have fun trying to stop me.

This is an incredibly self-centered and selfish opinion, and you should feel bad for having it.

Why.

Because it doesn't take the other players enjoyment into consideration.

Exactly. While I agree that I enjoy a challenge, there is no 'competition' in a completely unfair matchup, or in a game with no chance of winning. You can say 'he should enjoy being decimated' but all it takes is for the enemy player to go 'I didn't enjoy that' and the argument is broken.

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations. If you can't find enjoyment in self-improvement, you might not be cut out for the "playing" part of the hobby.

And, just as a guess, what does self-improvement involve? Getting rid of the army I like for an army I don't like, but which wins games? How have I improved MY skill level by doing this?

Picking the most OP army is not a skill, it's a google search.

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

Well I actually said the opposite. So *pew*. Now that your words have been spat from my mouth, reread the post you quoted.

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations."

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

Never said anything about picking OP armies, changing lists, or really anything of the like. I said to make your list better, and get better. Problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

(And you're really suggesting that anyone who doesn't field a top-tier list just shouldn't bother playing?)

When?

I said if you can't enjoy self-improvement, then the gameplay might not be for you.

It's kindof ridiculous that I have to repeat myself online; especially when the quote is right there.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:"they should enjoy improving their skill and list so that they can prevent further decimations."

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

Never said anything about picking OP armies, changing lists, or really anything of the like. I said to make your list better, and get better. Problem?

Um, you say people who get decimated 'should improve their skill and list' but you want me to 'improve my list' without changing my list? Amazing?

Changing your list and picking up a different army are two different things. I'm sorry you don't get it, but it's quite black and white, what I've said. Improve YOUR list.

Ex:
You play imperial guard. You keep getting decimated. Take a better tank, or swap your Valkyrie for a Vendetta.

What you seem to think I'm saying:
You play imperial guard. You keep getting decimated. Take Necron Flyerspam.

Understand that I'm suggesting the former. I don't know how much more clearly I can put it.

TheCaptain wrote:I said if you can't enjoy self-improvement, then the gameplay might not be for you.

While this is true, one of those posts was a hell of a lot more condescending in tone than the other.

So?

The point of the argument is that, because of imbalance in the game, people who get decimated may not actually be any less skilful. We don't know, because the armies aren't evenly matched. The assumption that anyone who gets decimated needs to 'improve their skill' is erroneous.

No. No its not. If you get decimated, you've done something wrong. You may have taken the wrong units for good list synergy. You may have messed up target-choice. You may have used a unit the wrong way; or armed it the wrong way. Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful (again, you're placing your own meaning into my words). I only suggested that if you lose, you have room for improvement. In your list and gameplay.

Suggesting one is a perfect player with a perfect list is erroneous, bud.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

I think Experiment626 above points out a pretty good example of a matchup where skill/choice of units has absolutely no part in deciding who wins, merely relative army balance (Daemons vs GK). I'd say the same goes for, say, my Tau against Necron Airforce.

I disagree that in every situation, just changing your list a bit will solve the problem. There are genuine matchups where one side effectively auto-wins.

So your point is:

"I disagree, because there are extreme outliers that violate what you've said."

Not to mention; take more broadsides. Tau is one of the better armies for AA that doesn't itself have AA weaponry. Or take a barracuda.

Makumba wrote:

wait . you guys own and use different armies for tournaments and games in shops ?

Usually; yes.

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Why. Why is running the most optimal list you can TFG.

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

 Griddlelol wrote:

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art.

Perfected Models: "Artist"

Perfected List: "TFG, WAAC, jerkface cheater powergamer."

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Of course, if all he cares about is winning, then taking anything less than the most powerful build will be painful to him. But if all he cares about is winning, then he's TFG

Why. Why is running the most optimal list you can TFG.

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

You misunderstand me. Hard to see how you could do that when the quote is right there in front of you

I said "if all he cares about is winning, then he is TFG". Running the most optimal list he can is a different thing. Sometimes running the most optimal list you can is the best way to be respectful to your opponent. The key is, as I keep repeating, considering the enjoyment of your opponent. Not caring about the enjoyment of your opponent is what makes someone TFG, and what makes an army cheesy.

The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

Nerobellum wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
The issue that I have with it is that you're calling TFG on simple powergaming.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just a different way to play the game.

To jump in, I agree that there is nothing wrong with powergaming. You can powergame and not be TFG. It all comes down to intent. I'm playing with a Necron army right now that is mostly still pre-update models and units. It's got a monolith (yeah). It's not even in the same room as powergaming, obviously. Now when I play, I usually play with some friends that have fairly new armies. I've got one friend with a GK setup that under normal circumstances, could pop my monolith and most of my scoring units in a turn or two. His list is just straight up stacked. But when we play, he plays loose and so do I. Instead of demolishing the bejesus out of my monolith the moment it touches the board, we let it stick around for a bit just to see what it can do. It makes it more fun and interesting than him riding an Ordo Malleus flavored Bulldozer over my ass every sunday. He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

That's not powergaming.

That's just being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nerobellum wrote:
Okay, question then. If you are just playing a casual game, what's more important: you and your opponent having a good time, or you winning? Let's pretend for a moment they are mutually exclusive.

They are completely mutually exclusive. Unless you're socially invested in the outcome, which is ridiculous.

I play to win. It's what I care about in my games.

But I've never not had an opponent enjoy playing with me.

Because I am a powergamer, but I am friendly and personable.

Blending the game and the social aspect is why you get ridiculous claims of "Oh, if you try hard to win, you're a mean TFG and no one likes you."

The outcome of the game, as well as the gameplay, should have literally no standing on your opponent having fun.

The two goals of a 40k game, for both players, should be:

-To do your best on the board

-To enjoy another person's company

The guy who plays to win isn't the TFG. The guy who can't enjoy someone's company because they lost the game is the TFG. The minute 40k becomes less about human interaction, and more about how your opponent plays their army, you have lost. You can win the game, but you have lost as a person.

If you enjoy the opponent as a person, and play your army to the best of your ability, you're doing it right. If you can't find satisfaction from these things, and get hung up on game-outcomes played by dice, there's a problem.

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people why DO min-max, it is your fault.

Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

TFG =/= powergaming.

TFG = Ruining the game by being a bad person. Powergamers AND casuals are capable of this. Neither groups are exclusively TFG, because TFG is a case by case thing.

If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them. I am going to enjoy the novel matchup, and the win. I expect that they enjoy running the list that they want to. If they complain cheese, TFG, WAAC, or the like, then they are not interested in actually running the list that they want to. They are interested in running the list that they want to against lists they deem 'fair' or, in better words, steeped down to their less-than-competitive level.

Fluffbunnies and casuals; I am totally fine with you taking mediocre lists because you love "X unit" or enjoy painting "Y style of model", but if you choose not to accept that poor units will negatively affect your army's performance, you are unrealistic, and any dispute of this is the TFG behavior. Not the powergamer playing their list, their way, the way they want to.

Tl;dr

Casuals don't get to tell Powergamers how to play the game.
and
Powergamers don't get to tell Casuals how to play the game.

(Unfortunately, it always seems to be the former situation cropping up, never really the latter.)

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:

And just for the record, TheCaptain, when you were talking earlier about improving your list... the only way to really do that is to drop units and use better units, which means buying models you may not like. So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied.

I denied suggesting buying better armies.

Words; keep them out of my mouth. Please.

And to counterpoint your statement; you admit you take units you think are cool, and don't bother to min-max your army.

You know that there are people that min-max your army.

You have put yourself at a knowing disadvantage.

If this is how you like to play, that is fine. But if you lose to people who DO min-max, it is your fault.
Everyone has the right to take the worst units in their codex, but complaining that they got beat is hilariously ridiculous. That is TFG behavior; expecting others to play the game the same way that you do, or go easy on you because you don't take it seriously.

Jesus. Read that again. Please.

 Valhalla130 wrote:


And no point did I say that I complained when I lost. So don't put words in my mouth. And can the attitude. We're all just gamers here.
You're being defensive. No need for that; it looks ridiculous. I did not mean you, directly complained. Any "You" in my previous post is directed to the community as a whole. "But if you lose to peope who do min-max, it is your fault." Take a second to realize that those "you"s are general, not specific.

How would you explain your earlier statements "improve your list" if you weren't dropping unit that didn't work and replacing them with better units. Thus having to purchase said units? If you claim you are not saying that, then explain what you mean by "improve your list."

I never ever deny suggesting improving someone's list by replacing bad units with better ones. Read the entire thread if you wish. Not once did I deny that. I encourage it.

And note, you also put words in my mouth again, when you suggested I stated you said to "buy better armies." Nope. Again, I said that what you were describing as "improving your list" would effectively mean having to purchase additional units.

Again, please read my post better. You said, and I quote "So you were definitely talking about buying better units, which you denied." I never suggested you told me to buy better armies. I was merely saying that the denial you referred to in that quote was not denying buying units. It was denying buying new armies.

There is no need for a fight. Because, as it seems, you have become heated, frustrated, and gained an attitude in your flare up. I urge you to relax, remember it is the internet, and read my posts more clearly in the future.

It makes everything easier.

 Valhalla130 wrote:
But it seems what we are discussing is TFG. The guy that only builds the best list he can so that he can win every game, and tries to twist rules to suit his ends. At least... that's been my take on it.

You are describing WAAC. TFG is a person who ruins the fun of the game with their attitude. WAAC is, well, what you said.

Trying to build a good list is part of the game. i agree with that part.
And yeah, powergamers do tell casuals how to play the game. See every post of yours in this thread.

No.

A. I'm not telling casuals how to play. I'm making suggestions on improvement. For the community as a whole.

B. I'm not a powergamer, and do not represent the powergaming community. I am a tournament player. Do not stereotype me into a group, and I will do you the same respect.

Valhalla130 wrote:I apologize if I misread the situation.

'Sall good, brah.

captain collius wrote:


Warpquake spam against deamons= bad

Necron flyers = worse

Fixed that.

 Phazael wrote:
Except the Cyclon Death Fleet does have a counter. Its called, book missions not involving kill points, ie 5/6 of them. Don't play KP all the time and that list stops being an issue.

Except this list has a field day tabling you.

A better example would actually be the blob behind a ADL that goes to ground and then gets back in the fight every turn.

Any CC unit breaks this, Or two or three template weapons.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
If I play someone fielding an all-penal legion army, I am going to table them.

If someone says to you 'hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?' and you agree and then turn up with a top tier list without warning, you are not interested in playing a fair game. You're not interested in fair competition. You're not interested in mutual fun. You're only interested in winning. That's TFG behaviour.

If someone says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna game?" and I show up with MY list of MY choice, which is top-tier and competitive, it is mutual fun. Unless the other player's list is bad. Then they might not have fun, if they invest all their "fun" into winning a game with a mediocre army.

If someome says "Hey, I'm going to bring my Penal Legion army, wanna play a casual, fluffy game?" and I show up with my top-tier competitive list, THEN that is TFG.

If you ask for a game, you risk playing a competitive list, a fluff list, or any of the gray areas in between. Your call, and your risk by taking a bad list.

If you stipulate that you are new, bad, or interested in forging a narrative, then you have made your expectations clear, and the power-gamer has a reasonable chance of playing more to your expectations.

Expecting a powergamer to read a fluff-player's mind and cater to their list's mediocrity based on insight; that's ridiculous.

 jy2 wrote:
I attribute it to just a difference in philosophies. Some players are the let's-all-play-nice type who's definition of fun is to have an enjoyable game where no one's feelings are hurt. Then there are the players who are the do-your-best type of players. They aren't the TFG type but they are purists who believe in the integrity of competition. While winning may not be the most important thing to them, playing to the best of your ability is. And then you have TFG. The guy who wants to win so badly that it just shows in his attitude. He'll bring the strongest list that he can, fight for everything to go his way and generally don't care all that much for his opponent other than the fact that they don't beat you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And lastly you have the WAAC players. This is the 2% of the gaming population who gives the game a bad rep.

You're literally the first person to 100% be sensible in this thread.

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Realy there are people in here who genuinely think that Purifyer spam is fair and Ork and NIds players just need to learn to play better. Not that Matt Ward is a zombie working for GW, because only the brain dead could wright the GK codex
*the psycannon used to be a heavy bolter with Str 6
not the " I WIN" cannon it is now ( it tanks kills better then a lascannon and has the highest rate of fire of any handheld gun and almost all tank weapons too)
Str 5 stormbolters thats is a tank weapon.
forceweapons why they would be OP if they just had Power weapon, the GK book was made after the Choas Daemon book so why have force weapons when even the Nurgling are Eternal Warrior

Well. This is barely in english, but if you're saying Purifier lists are OP...you need to reassess that, bud.