How do you Respond to Cheese?

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.

**Deathshead420**

I rage at the interwebs, and by the way have you seen those finecasts they are awesome! /sarcasm

I really dont play many games and always have a limited budget being only a year into my plasticrack addiction. So every game I have played seemed like cheese to me.

My first game was a 2000 point game vs Tau. (my list for this had 10 shootie termies and a LR that i hid all game because of the 3 broodsides)

My 2-6 games were against guard and mech gaurd.

My 7 game was against a seasoned chaos marine player.

My last was using a tau players mini vs chaos.

When you have to play 40k on a budget anyone that has a semi to fullblown optimized list it seems like chedder. You have how many leman russes? Your tank shoots how many shots? How many men are in that squad? Lash does what now? oh those are berzerkers, how many attacks on the charge?

**Grey Templar**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:There is no such thing as a cheesy or unbeatable list.

If there is a list I have extreme difficulties with, that is because of my tactical short comings. I then try and figure out how to defeat it with my options avaliable.

To do anything less is to admit defeat. Blame it on the other player all you want, but thats not where the problem is.

Yes, of corse! How woefully inept of me to roll a 1 and not get the first turn, not to mention how utterly incompetent of me it was to play a codex with no psychic defense of any kind and let my opponent warp quake the entire table, thus preventing me from even putting one ing model on the table!!!
Oh yes, I played so poorly, my opponent was a genius to spot a broken as gak power and spam it against my poor Daemons... Guess I should just learn to play better right?!!

Get off your high horse, there most certainly ARE those very few lists that are outright broken and unfair that no amount of skill or preperation can overcome - you're simply 100% screwed from the word go. (like how about Tyranids vs 2-3 vendettas + chimerawall IG, or Daemons vs quake-shunting GK's?!)

You can't avoid these games in a tournament, and it sure as hell is a huge slap in the face when some douche pulls such a list out to use against you in what's supposed to be a 'friendly' game.
So yes, when the other guy is being a complete tool and simply trying to be as big an as possible, I'll happily pick up my models and leave him to stroke his oversized ego since he's obviously making up for some more obvious shortcomings...

Granted, that match up is very unfair. But its not the GK codex, its the stupid daemon codex forcing you to Deep Strike.

the good news is that a GKSS Warp Quake spame list is very weak against other matchups, and so is a bad tournament list.

And daemons are a fairly weak codex overall. One bad match up against a whole slew of bad matchups doesn't mean that one codex is OP.

Warp Quake is a case of that player being a duche and not the codex. I do sometimes have Warp Quake in my list, but I don't cover the board with it. I prefer to beat you face to face instead of using some trickery.

However, I still don't have much sympathy for you. I played GKs since the days of the DH codex. After years of suck, I am enjoying being able to compete. The Daemon codex will be rewritten someday and I am sure it will be "the cheese" when it does. But that day is not this day, so you must be patient and wait just like GK players did(and Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels, and Space Wolves...)

**G00fySmiley**

Skriker wrote:
Kal-El wrote:Why does the OP list the SW long fangs as cheese? I use them and most of the time they suck 3/5 hits is the norm with 2/3 wounds/pen/glance if that for a 5 man squad of mine. They seem on par with the other heavies imo.

There are a few things wrapped up in the long fangs issue. Firstly is their special rule about being so experienced they can split fire. OK fine, but firstly ALL space marines who don't die in battle are extremely long lived and should be able to do the same thing and secondly, IMNSHO, EVERY UNIT should be able to split fire however it wants, especially when they have combined arms and are threatened by infantry and heavier threats. Why would a trooper with a melta waste the shot on an IG trooper if there is a tank sitting next to the IG squad that is just as dangerous.

Despite having that additional special ability that other space marine devastators don't have they are actually CHEAPER pointswise than other devastators.

Combined those things add to many people's cheesy list. I don't consider them cheesy so much as a perfect example of stupid unit special rules that should apply to all and completely inconsistent vision in writing new codecies or even seeming to have the slightest awareness of the points in other Space Marine books. Why exactly do similar units in all of the different Space Marine books have completely different points costs? It is just sloppy and lazy...

Skriker

I'd agree with splitfire should be something more things have option to, but each turn is supposed to only represent a small period of time. so it might take a more experiences sergant or unit to listen and fire not jsut at the one thing they were told to fire at, but that is just semantics I suppose.

I agree on longfangs though it is mostly the points, all the weapons, plus split fire for cheaper, increase the points and i'm fine with their split fire rule.

as for the Op, depends if it is super cheesy I throw down a tournament lvl ork battlewagon bash list w/ 2 squads of diversified nobz, one group in a BW other group on bikes and proceed to hae a fun challenging battle, i'll do a weak list vs a weak list and a strong one vs a strong one

**Formosa**

cheese is perception, in a tourny anything goes and as such i dont cry cheese, when someone brings a tourny list to a friendly game, thats when i call cheese (the player not the list)

For example a recent combat patrol (which is suposed to be a friendly game) i had to face a GK list that rocked

psyfledread
2 razors with psy ammo
2 kitted GK sqauds
and inq
I used a fluffy list (recon)
2 vets sqauds with gren launchers
2 chims
3 sentinals
com sqaud

stupid game lol, it was over from the get go, i could do nothing to the dread due to its ignore stunned/shaken etc, and he easily popped my chims then shot me to bits

**Experiment 626**

Grey Templar wrote:
Granted, that match up is very unfair. But its not the GK codex, its the stupid daemon codex forcing you to Deep Strike.

the good news is that a GKSS Warp Quake spame list is very weak against other matchups, and so is a bad tournament list.

And daemons are a fairly weak codex overall. One bad match up against a whole slew of bad matchups doesn't mean that one codex is OP.

Warp Quake is a case of that player being a duche and not the codex. I do sometimes have Warp Quake in my list, but I don't cover the board with it. I prefer to beat you face to face instead of using some trickery.

However, I still don't have much sympathy for you. I played GKs since the days of the DH codex. After years of suck, I am enjoying being able to compete. The Daemon codex will be rewritten someday and I am sure it will be "the cheese" when it does. But that day is not this day, so you must be patient and wait just like GK players did(and Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels, and Space Wolves...)

I really wish we could play a game, because Daemons don't suck and deep strike isn't a huge crippling gimmick like so many seem to think it is.

I honestly love the deep strike mechanic myself as a Daemon player - I can pick and choose my fight/s and make any opponent play the game my way and on my terms!
What I actually hate about our deployment is the stupid rolling for perfered waves! THAT is utterly crippling, especially in tournaments where your list typically revolves around a specific model or models being in play on turn 1. (ie: Fateweaver!)

Daemons can compete vs everyone, bar GK's because they went insanely OTT with the whole 'daemonhunters' aspect and turned them from hunters into curbstomping murderers!

Heck, I won't actually use Fateweaver in friendly games with my Daemons. Why? Because he's insane with his re-roll bubble, pretty much doubling the bulk of my entire army's survivability! It's hard enough to my opponent to remove 7 T5/3++/Fnp models - god forbid I get to re-roll all those failed saves.
Same deal goes for my Flamers, in friendly games against someone I don't know, I tonne it down and only use 1 unit of 3 for an alpha strike because they're really that good. under 40pts for a jump infantry type model with a 4++ save, a 3 shot S4/ap4 gun and an armour save ignoring template that always wounds on a 4+?! That one unit has never once failed to earn back its paltry 105pts cost!

I used an Epidemius list once against a friend of mine just for kicks, and promised him I'd never ever play that army again outside of a tournament, or else I'd gave him fair warning so he could bring a tankhammer list! (end of my 1st turn, I had a maxed tally thanks to 3 Princes + 1 GUO all vomiting their breath over stuff!)

Daemons are still a scary good army. While we don't have metal bawkes to hide in, we just make do with our 'oodles of MC's, spamable S8/ap1 shots, entire squads of T5/power weapon wielders and rending ponies with attack totals that make Orks jealous! And that's on top of an entire army of invuln saves & eternal warriors.

(which makes Tyranids even more jealous!

)

**vossyvo**

I don't mind playing a cheesy list if they have put some time and effort into their army. I.E. Painted, WYSIWYG type of stuff. What I hate is when I rock up to a friendly game and the guy claims to be "play testing" his future purchases and proxies one of these cheesy lists out of a perfectly useable army. Then ironically these future purchases just proxy into the next flavor of the month codex/army list next time we play.

**Steelmage99**

Skriker wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:I do not understand this concept of which you speak.

Please, define....very clearly....what "cheese" is.
Please, do not use examples, "I know it when I see it" or emotions as primary factors in said definition.

Cheese covers multiple angles at once and can be used to describe:

1) Units that are felt to be under priced for the abilities and when compared to similar units in other forces.

-Using emotions is never good as what you "feel" is not at all objective. Remember others might feel differently, and can be just as justified in doing so.

-Comparing point values to the point values of similar units in other codexes is an exercise in futility. A given rule or piece of wargear is priced differently from unit to unit based on other rules that might affect it, the overall "theme" of the codex and whether the Games Designers decided that that particular rule/wargear should be more or less accessible to that particular unit.

2) Units that break the "spirit" of the game and allow people to play truly annoying forces that make some battles with them close to pointless with certain armies.

-Please, define "spirit of the game".

-Using emotions is never good as what you find "annoying" is not at all objective. Remember others might feel differently, and can be just as justified in doing so.

3) Units that combine these factors.

-Erhm...

4) Something people exclaim when once again they lose a game and can't acknowledge or accept that they may just be a bad player, but instead insist the enemy list is full of.

-Yes, that certainly happens. It doesn't help in our quest of defining what "cheese" really is, though.

Clearer?

No, we still got some way to go.

**Gandair**

If I can build against it I just counterbuild. They get mad or confused if they lose. If it's blind and I just got a power list against my average list I mentally pick a new objective. It turns a nid vs parking lot guard into a new game where I try to see how many shots I can deny by playing line-of-sight games by moving my army around so tanks have to move to let other tanks fire. Sometimes it generates a weird opening because the player is used to certain movements throughout the game and denying their style of play sometimes causes them to make mistakes you can capitalize on. I keep track in my head of how many shots they lose. Sometimes I'll pick a special character and see if I can kill it or slowly position my units so I can make one giant and horribly convoluted multi-assault.

**Experiment 626**

Steelmage99 wrote:

-Please, define "spirit of the game".

a) The game is supposed to be fun for both players!
Thus, showing up on a weekly open gaming night which the local store advertises as being for 'fun open gaming' with a rocking netlist and then curbstomping everyone else, likely isn't fun for the poor sods getting their faces trampled into the ground!

b) Using the 'Rules as Written' to blaitently abuse the 'Rules as Intended' is most definately against the "spirit of the game"!
Warp Quake for example was designed as a means to protect GK's from being boned by deep striking meltaguns/plasma guns and such. It's poorly written & easily spamed to the point you can outright invalidate the entire Daemon army by simply winning the roll for first turn! (not to mention you really break drop pod & DoA's armies as well who are forced to deploy normally and walk!)

Thus, warp quaking the entire table is definitly unsporting. However, taking it to the extreme, and then using RAW to juggle auto-mishapping units between quake bubbles in order to 100% auto-destroy the entire Daemon army is easily breaking the RAI for both warp quake itself, and the deep strike mishap table!
Not only are you a giant WAAC's terd, but you're also being a classic TFG as well!

That's at least how I would define "spirit of the game".

**Deadshot**

Here is another way to use RAW to be TFG and WAAC. I will quote myself from another thread on the SM codex

Deadshot wrote: What this thread basically is is RAW combined with being TFG. RAW only warbikers.

RAW only the 4 to 9 Space Marines in a squad can benefit from ATSKNF as it says "Space Marines."

RAW Calgar and Kantor can't use Orb Bombardment as they are not "Chapter Masters."

RAW Cassius doesn't get Liturgies of Battle as he is not a "Chaplain."

Lysander and Master of the Forge are.not "Techmarines" so Bolster defences and Blessing of the Omnissiah are useless. MotF cannot benefit from Servo harnasses for the same.

Scout Sergeants and Telion may not go.inside a LSS as they are not scouts.

Land Raider Crusaders and Redeemers PotMS effectiveless as they are not" Land Raiders". Assault Vehicle too.

Any Terminator Sgt or Character wearing TDA only counts as one model for Transport, may do a SA and may get in Rhinoes Razors. Only Terminators (Ie, the squad members except the Sgt) is stopped from doing those. However, a "model wearing TDA may deep strike, has relentless and 2+/5++" so the still count.

Tiguirius Psychic hood doesn't work (other than making.him.Mastery Lvl 3) because he is not a Librarian.and.they only.work for Libbies. Also, Might of the Ancients, Quickening, GoI, Null Zone and force dome don't work with Tiguirius for the same. He doesn't nuke himself for failing his Vortex of Doom either.

**Deadnight**

Experiment 626 wrote:

a) The game is supposed to be fun for both players!
Thus, showing up on a weekly open gaming night which the local store advertises as being for 'fun open gaming' with a rocking netlist and then curbstomping everyone else, likely isn't fun for the poor sods getting their faces trampled into the ground!
:

then define "fun". using a term that is as ambiguous as that to help clarify another term, that by definition is ambiguous leads nowhere.

For me, for example, "fun" is facing those hard as nails lists. Now, fair enough, i play warmachine/hordes primarily, but i'd rather face a hard as nails opponent/army, and give and take no quarter than a 2 hour dice rolling exercise with a randomly assorted bunh of models and a randomly determined winner.

Experiment 626 wrote:
b) Using the 'Rules as Written' to blaitently abuse the 'Rules as Intended' is most definately against the "spirit of the game"!
Warp Quake for example was designed as a means to protect GK's from being boned by deep striking meltaguns/plasma guns and such. It's poorly written & easily spamed to the point you can outright invalidate the entire Daemon army by simply winning the roll for first turn! (not to mention you really break drop pod & DoA's armies as well who are forced to deploy normally and walk!)

Thus, warp quaking the entire table is definitly unsporting. However, taking it to the extreme, and then using RAW to juggle auto-mishapping units between quake bubbles in order to 100% auto-destroy the entire Daemon army is easily breaking the RAI for both warp quake itself, and the deep strike mishap table!
Not only are you a giant WAAC's terd, but you're also being a classic TFG as well!
:

I despise the whole notion of "rules as intended". there are THE RULES. and frankly, thats it. "rules as intended" is just another way of attempted social control ie "you need to be playing the game MY way". or "this is how it SHOULD be done". Why shouldnt i? All this is is an arbitrary opinion, and nothing more. there is nothing at all wrong with RAW. Warmachine and Hordes are RAW. utterly, and completely. there are no rules by implication. there are no rules as intended. there are just a set of extremely well written rules that nail down everything.

With all due respect, your point boils down solely to "it screws over my army". And in your case, it is an army that i regard as being incredibly poorly conceived, and not really deserving of a codex- daemons are better off as tools of codex:chaos if you ask me. Beyond that though, warp quake, while it hurts your army, It wont hurt mine. And like i said, thats all it is - "it hurts my army, therefore its OP". Which is fair enough when it comes from such a narrow persective. But the game is bigger than that. there are more armies and more styles of play. If your army doesnt work (and take this from a tau player) retire it until its fieldable. Warp quaking the entire table is not unsporting. Its allowed by the rules. Fine by me. Bring it on. the problem ultimately is your codex. which has a design philosophy more in tune with C:CSM and C

ark Angels. its an older codex, that like tau, eldar and chaos, desperately needs an update to bring it in line with the currewnt power curve.

With all due respect, you should be asking for a new, modern codex before asking to nerf everything else.

pulling everything back is always a bad move.

**Iur_tae_mont**

I'm Lactose Intolerant.

As Tau: I'd Deal with those lists like all MEQ lists, Shooty shooty shoot-shoot -shoot.

As Daemons, I'd deal with all but the GK lists like all MEQ lists, Charge in and slice face.

With the GKs for my daemons....Dunno. Kinda just wing it. See what happens.

**Steelmage99**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:

-Please, define "spirit of the game".

a) The game is supposed to be fun for both players!
Thus, showing up on a weekly open gaming night which the local store advertises as being for 'fun open gaming' with a rocking netlist and then curbstomping everyone else, likely isn't fun for the poor sods getting their faces trampled into the ground!

Two things not considered in this "definition".
- What do you mean by "rocking netlist"? What if the list is simple "better"? What if the player is simply a better player and still curbstomps? Can the poor sod being curbstomped tell the difference objectively?
- Player A is having fun. Player B is not having fun. Who is to blame? What if we turn things around? Player B is having fun, but now player A isn't. Who is to blame now.

b) Using the 'Rules as Written' to blaitently abuse the 'Rules as Intended' is most definately against the "spirit of the game"!
Warp Quake for example was designed as a means to protect GK's from being boned by deep striking meltaguns/plasma guns and such. It's poorly written & easily spamed to the point you can outright invalidate the entire Daemon army by simply winning the roll for first turn! (not to mention you really break drop pod & DoA's armies as well who are forced to deploy normally and walk!)

Come on!
"Rules as Intended" is a thing invented by strange people.

"Rules as Written" is how the game is played.
How far does a standard Infantry model move? What do you need to roll to hit with Ballistic Skill 4? What is the Armour Save of a Tyranid Genestealer? What is the range of an Ork Shoota.?

"Rules as Written" is what is intended!

It simply never stops if one entertains the notion that the Games Designers probably meant something other than what they actually wrote.

The worst example being spread by people of low intelligence, is the idea that using the wound allocation rules to put several Plasma hits on the same model in order to minimize casualties is somehow "shenanigans".

It is shown in the example as a smart thing to do, people! The Games Designers recommends it as a good tactic.
The Games Designers "intends" us to do so!

*Steam exits ears accompanied by train-whistle sound*

Pant pant. Ok....I'm calm again"

What as I saying....?

**Deadshot**

RAI means the way the rule was designed and usually comes into play when someone uses a wording to be beardy. Ie, claiming that Calgar is not a Chapter Master, he is a Calgar, and so Orb Bomb doesn't work for him. Or that ATSKNF doesn't affect anything other than the 4-9 space marines in a Tac, Assault or Dev squad because the rule sates space marines and a Sgt or Captain is not.

**SoloFalcon1138**

Depejds on the cheese... cheddar, meh. Swiss, snack. Brie, yum...

Oh you mean in the game. I respond like I do everytime, I try to win with a minimum of whining about the opponent's list.

**pk1**

Oddly enough, games are decided usually by objectives that are not purely achievable through killing alone. Knowing that, you can still often win even with just a few models on the board.

I played a 3 way game which involved tau, GK(non cheese), and I played Daemons. In the end I was down to a single squad of plague bearers(troops), and was able to get them by the objective. Neither other player had troops anywhere near the objective. Unfortunately the objective was disputed due to vehicles being nearby as well, but sometimes you just need to keep an eye on the objective and not be distracted by your loses.

**Necro**

vossyvo wrote:I don't mind playing a cheesy list if they have put some time and effort into their army. I.E. Painted, WYSIWYG type of stuff. What I hate is when I rock up to a friendly game and the guy claims to be "play testing" his future purchases and proxies one of these cheesy lists out of a perfectly useable army. Then ironically these future purchases just proxy into the next flavor of the month codex/army list next time we play.

Totally agree. If some one has put a lot of effort into there army eg painted, background, conversions etc then I will play the list no problems.

Rude players are just not on, no matter what army they trow down and this goes both ways. Rude guy berating opponent due to his inferior list to rude guy berating opponent due to his better “cheesy list”. Rude is just rude period and I don't go for that type of game twice.

If I go to a games club for pick up games I take 3 list variants or armies so I can better get a good game that is fun for both players.

I'll play friendly or compeditive games and enjoy both equally, that said no matter what type of game I am playing I do always play to win

Never met a guy who plays to lose and digs defeat.

The games in which I lost have taught me more in the long run than the games I have won. Losing a game and understanding why is what makes me a better player in the long run.

Games played are only ever a waste when the oponent is unpleasant.

The best game I have ever played was a pick up game at a club I used to go too back in 2nd edition. The opponent was really friendly and it was my standard IG army with an Inquisitor and assassin (eversor). His army was Chaos with a really awesomely converted Chaos lord with wings, spikes and was beautifully painted. The game went down to the wire and the battle came down to a CC match off with the Inquisitor and Chaos Lord over two turns. My Inquisitor won the day with a single wound left and we both really enjoyed the game so much so that my oponent when home and wrote a battle report/ story about the battle and gave me a copy the next week. My favourite game of all time and will never forget it or my great oponent for that matter.

**DPBellathrom**

DarknessEternal wrote:There's no such thing as a cheesy army, only bad players who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves.

There are illegal armies, but that's something else entirely.

in short, this ^

**Milisim**

A nice long noticable SIGH and a few head shakes before the game starts. Then get stuck in.

Then after I lose because of no fault of my own.

I make a note not to ask that person to a game of 40k.

**Pouncey**

bmoleski wrote:I've played against 3 GK players (one running Draigowing and the other 2 running Purifier spam, all with Psyflemen). I played nids against Draigowing, and didn't kill a single model. Then I played Chaos SM against one Purifier player, and Guard against the other. The Draigowing player was a and kept telling me how terrible I am at this game because I can't even kill a single model. Also, he was berating my paint job even though he didn't even have his models primed, and his excuse was he just doesn't have the time to paint em.

The first Purifier guy I faced was a bit more tactful and courteous.....at first. The first few turns he seemed like a nice guy until we got into CC and started making fun of me because I never got to hit him because of his psykic powers and 6 initiative. And he told me I'm an idiot for taking a Chaos Dread as he blew it up with his Psyfleman. Once again, I got smashed and packed up my models as my opponent gloated in victory.

The third GK player also had Purifiers and Psyflemen. He was a lot younger than the other 2 (maybe 15yo) so I wasn't expecting a gentleman's duel here (not that younger people can't act mature, they're just a rarity at my FLGS it seems). Anyway, I actually tabled him on turn 4. I had 3 Executioners (the Plasma one) to get rid of his troops, 2 suicide ST squads to melta his dreads, and Vet squads to pop his transports. After he lost he started whining about how IG are cheesy garbage that don't belong in 40k and aren't a fair fight.

The moral of this story is.....I've never met a GK player that could win or lose gracefully which makes me have a bias against the cheese that is GK. So if someone slaps down a smelly ol' pile of GK cheese across the table, I'll probably still suck it up to be respectful to my opponent in case they aren't jerks, but I have no problem packing my models and leaving if someone is being an ass. I play to have fun. And it seems like people who bring the power lists tend to be less friendly.

As for BA and SW, I've actually not had any problems with those players with the exception of a guy at our FLGS who brings Mephiston in every list he has.....including the ones at 1000 and below. Not to re-open that can of worms but that just isn't fun for me and I usually don't play against that player unless we play at 1500 and up.

Heh, I'm actually in the process of starting up a GK army right now.

So far, my planned list consists of a Brother-Captain, a 5-man Purifier squad, two 7-man Strike Squads, and a Dreadnought with an assault cannon and doomfist. I might change the assault cannon to an autocannon if I find myself seriously needing the longer reach, though, but if I do, I'm gonna keep the doomfist. The dreadnought doesn't have psybolt ammo.

I like the aesthetics of Grey Knights, but I don't like cheese. ^_^ Well, not in WH40k anyways.

On-topic... I don't know, to be honest. I haven't had to deal with it in years.

**Deadshot**

That bloke can play me some times if we every meet. I play Draigowing to get away from Ashooty Vanillas and hordy Nids.

**GimbleMuggernaught**

Steelmage99 wrote:
Skriker wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:I do not understand this concept of which you speak.

Please, define....very clearly....what "cheese" is.
Please, do not use examples, "I know it when I see it" or emotions as primary factors in said definition.

Cheese covers multiple angles at once and can be used to describe:

1) Units that are felt to be under priced for the abilities and when compared to similar units in other forces.

-Using emotions is never good as what you "feel" is not at all objective. Remember others might feel differently, and can be just as justified in doing so.

-Comparing point values to the point values of similar units in other codexes is an exercise in futility. A given rule or piece of wargear is priced differently from unit to unit based on other rules that might affect it, the overall "theme" of the codex and whether the Games Designers decided that that particular rule/wargear should be more or less accessible to that particular unit.

2) Units that break the "spirit" of the game and allow people to play truly annoying forces that make some battles with them close to pointless with certain armies.

-Please, define "spirit of the game".

-Using emotions is never good as what you find "annoying" is not at all objective. Remember others might feel differently, and can be just as justified in doing so.

3) Units that combine these factors.

-Erhm...

4) Something people exclaim when once again they lose a game and can't acknowledge or accept that they may just be a bad player, but instead insist the enemy list is full of.

-Yes, that certainly happens. It doesn't help in our quest of defining what "cheese" really is, though.

Clearer?

No, we still got some way to go.

I would argue that cheese is subjective, so using feelings to describe it is adequate. A cheesy list is typically viewed as one that exploits the rules to their advantage in some way, so what is considered "cheesy" vastly depends on your point of view.

As for breaking the spirit of the game, I would agree that bringing your WAAC list to a friendly drop in game would qualify. If you're there to play a competitive game, either for tournament practice or otherwise, it would be nice to at least warn your opponent before they start setting up, so that their more "fluffy" list can be altered into a more competitive list. It may just be me, but a game where someone gets steamrolled is never as fun as a tight match , regardless of which side of the table I'm on. If you give them a bit of time to prepare, then you'll likely have a much better game all around, while still getting to use your big scary tournament list.

**thenoobbomb**

Nothing wrong with 'cheese'.
Games are for fun. And say for yourself, isn't it cool to see a unit of elite soldiers carving their way trough an army?
Aye, that is cool, and if you can take losing a game, you don't complain.

**mitnal**

If they play cheese, I just play a fun list. I was playing this kid at 2500 points and he had a Mech wall, so I master of the forged it and went 6 Auto dreads with as many sniper/ML scouts squads as I could place in my list.... the fun ensued.

**Joey**

Grey Templar wrote:There is no such thing as a cheesy list.

If there is a list I have extreme difficulties with, that is because of my tactical short comings. I then try and figure out how to defeat it with my options avaliable.

So literally all armies in the game, with all the possible combinations that make up an army list, are all exactly balanced?
Some armies are more powerful than others, some to a greater degree than others.
"Cheese" is considered a list that your army is at a great disadvantage against by default.
No one ever said they were "unbeatable" since in a game of dice that's impossible.
I know it's cool on the internet to define any complaint against a fellow player as a lack of skill on their part (implying an excess of skill on your part, as well as, I'm sure, a generously proportioned penis) but it's obvious that some lists/armies are much more powerful than others.

**mitnal**

bmoleski wrote:I've played against 3 GK players (one running Draigowing and the other 2 running Purifier spam, all with Psyflemen). I played nids against Draigowing, and didn't kill a single model. Then I played Chaos SM against one Purifier player, and Guard against the other. The Draigowing player was a and kept telling me how terrible I am at this game because I can't even kill a single model. Also, he was berating my paint job even though he didn't even have his models primed, and his excuse was he just doesn't have the time to paint em.

The first Purifier guy I faced was a bit more tactful and courteous.....at first. The first few turns he seemed like a nice guy until we got into CC and started making fun of me because I never got to hit him because of his psykic powers and 6 initiative. And he told me I'm an idiot for taking a Chaos Dread as he blew it up with his Psyfleman. Once again, I got smashed and packed up my models as my opponent gloated in victory.

The third GK player also had Purifiers and Psyflemen. He was a lot younger than the other 2 (maybe 15yo) so I wasn't expecting a gentleman's duel here (not that younger people can't act mature, they're just a rarity at my FLGS it seems). Anyway, I actually tabled him on turn 4. I had 3 Executioners (the Plasma one) to get rid of his troops, 2 suicide ST squads to melta his dreads, and Vet squads to pop his transports. After he lost he started whining about how IG are cheesy garbage that don't belong in 40k and aren't a fair fight.

The moral of this story is.....I've never met a GK player that could win or lose gracefully which makes me have a bias against the cheese that is GK. So if someone slaps down a smelly ol' pile of GK cheese across the table, I'll probably still suck it up to be respectful to my opponent in case they aren't jerks, but I have no problem packing my models and leaving if someone is being an ass. I play to have fun. And it seems like people who bring the power lists tend to be less friendly.

As for BA and SW, I've actually not had any problems with those players with the exception of a guy at our FLGS who brings Mephiston in every list he has.....including the ones at 1000 and below. Not to re-open that can of worms but that just isn't fun for me and I usually don't play against that player unless we play at 1500 and up.

I know what you mean, I had this tournament a couple of months ago. I swear of the 12 people playing 10 were GK players, the other player was demons ( he QQed). All day I felt like I was at the daycare, I would kill something or in fact anyone would kill anything in any of the games and pacifiers would fly everywhere. So I proceeded to make people rethink why they play GK, and for the sake of the demons player who stuck around just to watch me play and drink a few beers after. I really was not trying to be a

, I was enjoying the games alot and being a great sport, but sometimes you gotta lay the law down like Judge Dred

**Lord Rogukiel**

I eat the cheese.

**Grey Templar**

Joey wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:There is no such thing as a cheesy list.

If there is a list I have extreme difficulties with, that is because of my tactical short comings. I then try and figure out how to defeat it with my options avaliable.

So literally all armies in the game, with all the possible combinations that make up an army list, are all exactly balanced?
Some armies are more powerful than others, some to a greater degree than others.
"Cheese" is considered a list that your army is at a great disadvantage against by default.
No one ever said they were "unbeatable" since in a game of dice that's impossible.
I know it's cool on the internet to define any complaint against a fellow player as a lack of skill on their part (implying an excess of skill on your part, as well as, I'm sure, a generously proportioned penis) but it's obvious that some lists/armies are much more powerful than others.

Are there imbalances? Yes,

However, the vast bulk of this game relies on player skill. Some armies just take more skill then others.

**don_mondo**

I used to say there is no such thing as cheese, there is merely a legal list and an illegal list. But then the current GK codex came out........................

Seriously. Is it legal? That's the only question to ask. If so, play with or against it.

**Skriker**

Grey Templar wrote:Granted, that match up is very unfair. But its not the GK codex, its the stupid daemon codex forcing you to Deep Strike.

Actually no it is the GK list being written in an apparent vaccum being given the ability to completely stop a Daemon army from even being placed on the table. They should have known that it would come to that for daemon players, but again GW can't be bothered to seemingly understand how their codex lists will match up against one another and still can't seem to understand that many players build their lists based on the rules they actually write and not the "spirit" of the rules or what the authors really "intended" for the rules.

Grey Templar wrote:
And daemons are a fairly weak codex overall. One bad match up against a whole slew of bad matchups doesn't mean that one codex is OP.

So it is OK to completely invalidate another army's only ability for deploying because it is already a weaker codex? Really?? As with any other list daemons do quite well when the dice go your way. The problem is against warp quake spam if they don't get the first turn it doesn't matter how the dice would have fared because their isn't a game.

Grey Templar wrote:Warp Quake is a case of that player being a duche and not the codex. I do sometimes have Warp Quake in my list, but I don't cover the board with it. I prefer to beat you face to face instead of using some trickery.

Actually it is the player being a douche *because* the codex let's them be a douche. If the power was limited and unable to cover the entire table top in such a stupid spam fashion the douche couldn't do it in the first place.

Grey Templar wrote:However, I still don't have much sympathy for you. I played GKs since the days of the DH codex. After years of suck, I am enjoying being able to compete. The Daemon codex will be rewritten someday and I am sure it will be "the cheese" when it does. But that day is not this day, so you must be patient and wait just like GK players did(and Dark Eldar, and Blood Angels, and Space Wolves...)

It is funny, but I loved the DH codex. Grey knights were easily competitive then, but not stupidly over powered in any way. I sincerely hope if/when a new Chaos Daemons codex comes out that it does not feed even more into the "newest codexes rule!!" mentality. I am just tired of it.

Either way it is still dumb that there is a possible option to create an army that completely invalidates the ability of any other army to play the game. It is one thing to lose a game because you fail every roll and get dominated, but yet another to lose a game just because of the army you play and not even be able to put any minis on the table. If I am playing daemons and someone has a warp quake spam list I'd appreciate an upfront warning so I can not bother to get all my minis out and ready for a game that isn't likely to happen.

Skriker