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.

I agree with ou jfraz, and you logan. Im playing devils advocate here (kinda) since i expect a little more out of wargaming than min/maxing. But that is just me I guess.

Comp score in my mind is good if objective because it give a player on something other than just painting and w/l/d.

Maybe a better solution would be since lists are suppose to be pre-approved that the organizers can do the calculations (ie 40% troop etc...) while everyone is playing and give it a score 1-3. 1 being most skewed for the army and 3 for being balanced. Since organizors (hopefully) know how each army works, they can be the ones to deem cheese vs uncheese, therefor still keeping it in the scoring system but out of the hands of hte impartial players?

 

 

edit:  Beef it was my 3rd game ever.  Also if the entire store refuses to play this kid because he is cheesy, dont you think something is up?

Who was it? I can think of a few people from that store I could go without playing. Was he at the tournament?

No he wasnt. I have not seen him around in a few weeks. Logan played him, but in a 4 way match. I dont know point values.

Edit:  Beef I get plenty of games, I lose alot so people love to play me

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 9:33 AM

 3 for being balanced.

Most truely competetive armies ARE balanced armies.  You have to be in order to take on all comers in a tournament and still win.

 

Min/Maxing is a definite part of creating a balanced army.

So true

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/11/2006 10:04 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 11:59 AM
I would like to add that I'm very angry at all those people that say you should just build a powerful list because cheese is a flawed concept.

I listened to these people. My friends don't play me anymore.

Tournaments, fine, but get a perspective on things.

You need better friends.

Where do you suggest I get these? England?

Yeah come over to England, the weather sucks but umm. . . ..
hmm. . . . cant think of anything else

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 9:19 AM
Well I will give an example of a list i fought and never played again. Min Plas/Las Tact Squads, assault cannons up the wazoo, 2 vindicators. I was wiped off the board by turn two. Now I am not always the best and most tactical player in the world but if I play a list and lose in 2 turns of shooting, there is something totally cheesey about it.

I will fight to the death that balance needs to be achieved by GW. It is not by giving over powering weapons, or giving everyone the same thing, but by limiting units to certain amounts (ie 0-1, 0-2) that there will no longer have ot be a comp score or the like given.

Im headed to baltimore this year and hopefully wont run into a zillion lysander wing, SAFH with 18 las cannons and 12 HB's, min/maxed daemonbombs, IW with gazillions of bassies and the like. But if I do, I will grade them on how they play and give them the best score I feel I can give them. With a list I would consider cheesy, if the player is a total tool about it, you damn right Im giving em low scores, but if they are respectful and the like, how am I gonna dock them points? How can I ethically do that, without ruining my integrity.

Well if you're heading to Baltimore next year then we will probably meet up at the tournament at some point.  I know my list is bordering on a*$%&*) levels of cheese, that's pretty much what I expect to face at a tournament (though I've never been to one as a player, I saw the armies at last years Games Day so I'm fully expecting the cheese). 

I do try to be a nice guy in any game I play and like to make it as fun as possible.  I figure against the other power lists it should be a pretty tactical game.  But if you do show up with a fun fluffy list that isn't powered out, well you'll likely get blasted.  From what I saw of the armies in the 40k RT last year bringing a balanced fluffy list is like bringing a knife to a gun fight; playing 40k in a tournament/competitve setting  is almost like playing a completely different game.  At least that's what I've found when my gaming group and I have had our little cheese battles.

Please dont get me wrong voodoo, despite what beef calls a "whining", Im really a player who plays to enjoy himself. If I played your list, knowing that it would be there, I would have little issue with it if you played it with a smile and a colorful comments. I will goto Baltimore, get my ass handed to me, and be happy about it. It will be a fun experience(i hope)!

On that note, why dont auspex work against drop pods? I mean seriously it is the next step up from infilitrating

Posted By beef on 12/13/2006 1:40 AM
Yeah come over to England, the weather sucks but umm. . . ..
hmm. . . . cant think of anything else

..and dental work.

I think the issue here is that some people, myself included, have just started playing in a tournament setting.  I never even took my first army to any real competitive setting besides the staturday / sunday game at the store or with my friends.   At that point I would build the most vicious lists possible because I was learning the game.  My friends would meet the challenge and build equally devastating lists.  It was fun because we were all on the same level.  When I played at the store I had fun crushing braggards that were supposedly better at the game than I.

A couple years and much more experience later, I wanted to be more about the tactics and flavor of the army than the winning aspect.  I went with a lesser army and started building.  It was a personal choice and I had my taste of power armor.  I won enough before, had enough crushing victories but now I draw blood in the game through attrition.   I love every minute of it.  I think I also enjoy the hobby aspect much more now too.  I get a better feeling from playing friendly games now too.

Remember that list that was posted some time ago, the one about the different levels of gaming?  I think its true.  I know what it is like to powergame with the best of them (Black Legion Daemon Bomb / DP / BT / 3 oblits 5 man las / plas lol ) but I also know the enjoyment of friendly games.  Where I play now, its more of an understanding / respect for the other player not to do things overpowered.  Why? Because no one else will.  The tournaments I have been playing in have had a similar understanding.  Take a good army but no need to add 7 ringer units.  Pick the best you think are possible but change it up.  No need to take the cookie cutter out if no one else does.  

Its like the start of the thread, 8 blood letters or two butt-cannons.  Neither of the two are cheesier than the other but in mass quantities both are easily among the worst abused units in the game.

-The End

How about the army of zombies vs my chaplain and the 2 bionics saves

I think Im going wiht a different approach as to learning the game by getting myself thrashed so I see how other play their armies and what they are good at etc etc. In this I have started to define (to myself) what is cheese/un-cheese.

Soon I will have the SM army of uber pownage and everything will be done. I will win at 40k!

Its like the start of the thread, 8 blood letters or two butt-cannons. 

Please explain to me how a squad of bloodletters is "cheesy."  They are a troops choice.  8 is not a min/maxed troop number. 

So whats the deal?

Its not cheesey. Thats the deal. I have heard many people whine about both so I figured it would be a good discussion. 9 pages later, it got people talking.

It was actually more of a rhetorical quetion.

Ah, I see now.

If you take a lot of Bloodletters and go for what amounts to a pretty resilient Demon Bomb, yeah it's a cheesy list (as is almost any Demon Bomb that revolves around Bloodletters or Demonettes).

They're cheesy because the demon bomb is powerful, there is very little your opponent can do to stop it, and those two units are VERY good demons.

Just because someones cheese just happens to be in "Troops" doesn't automatically make it not cheesy anymore.

This is one reason I don't feel bad taking the list I have to the GT's. There is so much cheddar there I'm practically itching to come across an Eldar player with 3 Falcons some Waveserpents (which this list is kitted out to kill), and with some luck beat the crap out of them - and then watch them proceed to call my list cheesy.

There's all sorts of cheese out there and different flavors beat eachother in some kind of Sci-Fi version of Rock Paper Scissors. A well built Demon Bomb should beat the tar out of a Stand & Shoot Marine list, but it'll struggle against Mech Tau and Mech Eldar.

I bet you after each game the Marine player would call the Chaos guy cheesy, and the Chaos guy would call the Tau/Eldar player cheesy.

Besides so many people will complain about different things. I had one friend tell me that he was tired about hearing of his brothers "cheesy" build for his upcoming Eldar army. It was 3 sets of Vibro Cannons and 6x 5 Rangers - hardly cheese from what I can tell.

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 6:55 PM

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/11/2006 10:04 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 11:59 AM
I would like to add that I'm very angry at all those people that say you should just build a powerful list because cheese is a flawed concept.

I listened to these people. My friends don't play me anymore.

Tournaments, fine, but get a perspective on things.

You need better friends.

Where do you suggest I get these? England?

I thought Aussies were tough. Whiny Aussies just seems wrong on so many levels. You mean to tell me there's no such thing as "Australian rules Warhammer"? Full contact, beer drinking, head-butting power gaming? My world view is crushed.

I have friends I don't like playing, but I do it anyway because they are my friends.

Well you guys do have a new serial killer.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/13/2006 10:40 AM

Well you guys do have a new serial killer.

Or do they....

You're a naughty one, Saucy Jack!
You're a haughty one, Saucy Jack!

A buddy of mine said my Deathwing was cheesy. Even though he never loses to it.

I dont listen to cheese whines anymore because of that.

Its enough to not drink beer at my house and just have wine on the table, so when the whine starts to happen, I can say there is enough wine on the table already.

yeah we do have a new serial killer but thats gotton boring quick. at the moment he is just targeting Prostitutes. I think the head counts at 5 so far. The girls need there crack and heroin so they are still risking working on the streets. Most reckon its a disgruntled customer of theirs.

Imagine if disgruntled GW customers when out and satrted killing the red shirts. hmm. . .

Also did you know why they call heroin "heroin" Its a french word. they thought it was a cure for cancer back in the days.

Australia is where comp will never die. The community is very strongly for it. I think it comes down to the question: If two players scored equal battle points in a tournament, but one used a stronger list, which is the better general? Which should receive some sort of bonus?

Also people here don't like facing cheesy lists in general. There are plenty of them down here it's just people don't like facing them.

The community thinks of comp as the evil we have to have. They understand all the flaws in comp, and are working towards better comp systems. It's evolving, and many tournament are starting to drop math comp, and drop opponent scoring comp, sticking with TO or "Elite panel" comp, as they're the systems that work best.

yeah but who decides whats cheesy? we ourselves cannot do that as everybody has a different view. If GW says certain lists are beardy/cheesy then thats fine otherwise it a fruitless endevour. Its a competition for F sakes, you go to win

Not necessarily beef, in the GW universe winning is rude. The moral high ground goes to the loser and the winner should feel shame for the rest of his days.

Comp is garbage. The only way to resolve this is to have predetermined army lists for each army. No alterations. Play this army, then play this list. Everyone uses the same stuff. Only then will best general be determined. Of course people will still complain.

Crimson you could not be more far off. Winning is not rude, it is part of the game. The issue arises when the way in which you win is rude. You write that comp is garbage and say the only way to resolve it is predetermined army lists. Well isnt this what happens at tourney's anyway? Barring a few personal choices in characters you will see the same list for each and every "winner" at the GTs and like. How original are you when you find out that 12 assault cannons tear thru anything in the game? How great a tactician do you have to be when your weaponry more than makes up for any inadequecies in tactics.

With that said, to powergame, build the "optimized" list, is only human and as a player I cannot 100% fault you for it. However your attitude and playstyle with which you participate in playing is what starts these types of arguements. I could play the nicest person in the world with ultramauleens and be content with losing because they played a nice game. However as Mannahian has said, the attitude of the players playing these lists turns into poor sports and bad winners.

That and im partial to cheese assault cannon lists, hey logan think next time we play you could have a max'ed out asscannon list for me to fight?

Actually I was being sarcastic. there are a ridiculous number of people who believe winning should only happen as a pleasant surprise. And not something to strive for. Your right about attitude being very important. It also helps being a good painter. Both have softened the impact of my army list. Since I don't fit the stereotype of a power gamer I can get away with more extreme combinations. Although I think assault cannons are over-rated.

I think too much credit is being given to the army lists. That why I think there should be standardized lists for tourneys. I've heard on numerous occasions the a monkey could win with ultramauleens. The player is seen as an incidental factor to the game's out come. Building optimized lists is a great mental exercise, but it doesn't make the player any better.

Well said crimson devil. Your rights I have seen so called cheesy lists and the annoying thing is not the list but the player who fains suprise when they win and act like "oh my god you nearlly had me there" Yeah right.

In Australia the most popular comp system 3 or 4 years ago, even 2 years ago, was to mark your opponent's army out of 5.

It took years, but we realised the huge flaws in this way of marking. People would just give 5's because they don't believe in comp, or because they're friends, or just give 0's because they lost, and even honest people would give a 4 when it should be a 2 or vice versa because they don't understand the army.

Math comp became very popular. Players knew what comp they were going to get before the tournament, their comp score was not going to be based on luck on who they faced. Math comp still is very popular. But now we're seeing the flaws in math comp, some things are ignored by math comp like what weapons kit out you had. People tried to fix this by making math comp more complex. This in the end hurt fluffy armies more than it did powergamers, so this wasn't taken up in many tournaments.

Then people started realising that TO comp works. They can decide what is cheesy. They are very smart and have been playing this game for a very long time. They understand what is powerful on the table top and what is not.

"Elite panel" is a step up. It's like TO comp, they just mark the army on its merits, but you're less likely to have bias. Eventually major tournies will get the idea that this is what Australians want.

Australia has no-comp tournaments. However they're not popular because we are lesser beings than you Crimson Devil. Scrubs, if you will.

Onlainari, you get extra points for making me laugh. I'm American, arrogance is part of my genetic structure.

You've also illustrated the problems with comp. Its an extra set of rules that harm the out come of the tourney more often then improve it. If the game isn't balanced for the tourney, then its the game which needs to be fixed.

I hate soft scores in general. Means I will never win a tournament. I've won around 7 best generals in 9 tourneys. Went undefeated in 5 of them. One I went 6-0 with my radical Daemonhunters and got 13th place out of 16 because people tanked all my soft scores.

When soft scores count for that much of the total points and people can tank you in it, there is a definite problem.

 so in a   1850 game  a  dark eldar play wold take  up too  12 dark lance and    4 blaster and a  wytch hq  with 8 wytches and  i succubuss with drugs and a  hq of  DElt with 6 inucubi with a master incubi , with drugs isnt  too cheesey with  three ravangers with  diss and  two raiders with  DL , and   slave nets??