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.

Honestly, nothing about that list would bother me, but I have fully acclimated my armies to the new flyer-infused meta. None of my lists fail to include at least 1 air or anti-air unit, but someone who didn't would see that list as cheesy, I'm afraid.

In my mind, a list that is cheesy is one that includes models only included to exploit rules. The exames I'd give would be wound-spread nobs back when they were all characters, or in fifth with all different equipment. Or, perhaps the best example, a guy who brought some gk character who got an extra shot for every psyker near him, along with 40 IG psychic choir models who he swore up and down were all psykers. Anything not cheating like the latter or goofily exploitive like the former is fine.

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

If the game is one-sided then it shouldn't be fun for the one winning.
We have a saying in french that would apply here,there is probably the equivalent in english but here is a rough translation.

He who is victorious without perils,triumph whitout glory...

If it was real war (or tournament) then glory is irrelevant, only victory matters but since this is a (casual) game, glory (fun) is all there is to it.
Remember, if the game is only fun for you, you might run out of opponents...
I think that for people who play pick up, you should just have a tournament list, for others bringing their A game and a toned down version with the same core but with some fun units swapped with the best ones...
Chances are that if you present the choice you might have to play your B list the first few times with the same opponent but eventually they will try to beat your A list for the challenge.
Sure the list they bring to do so might be tailored to some degree but if it is not an anti-list then that might prove a challenge.
It might even be relevant for tournament training.

About the saying,i think that during ww2 the French tried to rob the German of glory...After all they only had a fluffy army who didn't stand a chance against the mechanised and outflanking German army...

Makumba wrote:
It is his choice [imo a stupid one]

As I said, building an army without taking your opponents enjoyment of the game into consideration is when you cross the line from friendly to cheesy.

If you want to embrace the cheese, that's your prerogative, but don't act like it doesn't exist. You shouldn't call someone stupid just because they build an army with a focus other than "build the most effective army I can." You, as a competitive player, can still enjoy a close, hard-fought game against people like that just by modifying your list. And no, you don't need to spend $4,000 and buy 14,000 points worth of models to keep everyone happy. Just tweak your list a bit.

Tycho wrote:
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.

Exactly.

As I said, building an army without taking your opponents enjoyment of the game into consideration is when you cross the line from friendly to cheesy

still it means that someone who does a bad choice can just buy one bad army , while people who have normal armies have to buy two . one to play normal games and one to play against the dude with the bad army . And it is just 1 dude . What if there are two and one find mecha OP and the other one slogger or worse what if they find not builds , but whole armies OP . you would be forced to buy a whole new army , which you may not even want to play , just to make those people with bad armies happy . And how would one even transport all of this . Now I know that in the US being a teen and having a car is nothing special , but in Europe few teens own cars . I dont understand how you can say that is ok for the baddie to have "fun" at the cost of others [he isnt spending more money , nor time] and he can just drop a game by claiming he doesnt want to play against X [where X can be anything] and you just wasted a day of gaming , which you some people dont have an unlimited number of even durning school/work holydays.

Also what about the enjoyment of the people that have normal armies ? why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ? the models and everything cost a lot , puting an additional barrier to enter the hobby seems to be foolish . It would require a game group that doesnt care about money or something else what I cant realy imagine .

If you want to embrace the cheese, that's your prerogative, but don't act like it doesn't exist. You shouldn't call someone stupid just because they build an army with a focus other than "build the most effective army I can." You, as a competitive player, can still enjoy a close, hard-fought game against people like that just by modifying your list. And no, you don't need to spend $4,000 and buy 14,000 points worth of models to keep everyone happy. Just tweak your list a bit.

you know that would be as if someone made a bike with wheels that look like skulls , because skulls are cool and metal , and then he would find out that wheels in the shape of a skull dont rotate so well while driving and he would be suprised while people call him stupid .Normal armies are good , because they give fun no matter what level the player is . They will carry the weaker player , they will open new options to a better player and they realy shine in the hands of an amazing one . A bad army is just bad . It isnt fun on any level , be it casual or tournament . And there is no hard fought games with bad armies also , there is only random stuff that poped up . wining because one dude suddenly rolled 11x1 means nothing , because it wont happen again anytime soon . But seeing a well played necron scythwing or SW drop pod list is enjoyable . more one can learn something from those games with normal armies . one cant learn anything from games with bad armies , other then the dude with the better rolls wins . where is the fun in that .

And how do you know that a dude with bad army will be happy with "tweaking a bit" . what is a bit ? do I have to kick out the SW ally or maybe all the vendettas ? or how about the aegis gunline , that is "bad" too +3cover and I can stand up and shot after going to the ground . I probably should just take something where I can figurativly bend over to my opponent . with ogryns , granded launchers against meq/teq, hvy bolters against mecha . ah and to use those I would have to buy all of them , because I dont own a single pice of those models.

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.

but draig wing is bad against flyers , plus it isnt good anymore . It is if you were saying that playing good list isnt based on which army is actualy good/bad , but what people you like/dislike .

If you find it such a big deal playing people who you feel are beneath your standards then just don't play them

See the thing is I have no problems playing against anyone . As I said before , it is someone own choice to start an army . If he starts a bad army , I wont stop him . The choice maybe stupid , because he wont have much fun with it while paying the same money I paid for my army .

What I'm against is the idea that I should own countless armies to make other people with bad armies happy . someone with a good army , even if he has a bad match up against IG wont have problems playing against me . he wont make me buy extra armies/units . while the dude with the bad army , according to what Kaldor claims should happen , can. And that is stupid . One should not promote acting like that.

Makumba wrote:
still it means that someone who does a bad choice can just buy one bad army , while people who have normal armies have to buy two . one to play normal games and one to play against the dude with the bad army .

Why would his army be "BAD" ?
Does an army need to be over-cheesy to be good ? In a competitive game, maybe. But for some of the players, NO.

There are players that consider that an important point in their army is to respect the fluff, to follow a particular theme or to tell a story. There are players that build army with MODELS that they like (models, not rules). Who are you to tell them that their armies are BAD ? Who are you to tell that their choices are stupid ?
They're not. They're just different from what you would have done.


From this point, you have the following solutions :
- play your cheesy list against softer lists, and win all the time
- don't play with these guys, because they have "bad" armies
- change your list, since it is MUCH easier for you to take a cheesy list and make it softer, than it is for a guy who only plays the models he likes to make his army cheesy (without taking models he doesn't want to play because of his theme, fluff, tastes)

Make your choice.

If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! We had our hands full dealing with his list (which, as near as I can tell, was pretty similar to the tournament lists that are popular right now), but I enjoyed myself immensely. We played to a draw (game ended on a die roll at the end of turn 5).

I might be a bit naive, but I just saw his list as a tough one that I would have to work hard to beat--both because of the list and because I'm new to the game. I just tried to use what I had as well as I could and to enjoy myself. As a result, I had an awesome time.

My personal view is that a person can play a cheesy list or not. That's their choice. I'm going to play my list, try to have fun, and win if I can. I'd never ask someone to change their list just because I'm new to the game or play less tournament-oriented lists. I think that playing tough lists and going against players with more experience is how us new guys learn what to do/not to do.

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

ClassicCarraway wrote: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.

Not really. I don't think I've ever considered a Necron army particularly 'cheesy' unless it features lots of flyers. Footcrons aren't considered particularly broken.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game?

Nope

Makumba wrote:If someone wants to enjoy an army , then he should buy and play with an army which is good.

So you don't enjoy modelling, converting, theme, background, painting? Someone should only expect to 'enjoy' Warhammer if he plays one of the big powerful armies? What about when those armies get nerfed?

jy2 wrote: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.

bs.

The inference that anyone who chooses to play a 'fluffy' or non-optimised list is actually just a bad player is merely arrogance. I've played 40k since it was invented, been through most of the armies, played powerful forces and not-so-powerful ones. I could walk into a GW right now and buy a tournament-winning force. I choose to build fun, fluffy armies, and handicap myself with theme, because I like to. It doesn't follow that this makes me less skilled, or incapable of playing in a competitive way. I just place 'liking the models' above 'picking the most effective models'.

If I bring a under optimised list to a competitive tournament, then I'll lose. Fair enough. Complaining would be silly.

But if you turn up to a beer-and-pretzels game, knowing that you'll be playing your friend's fun, fluffy army, and you turn up with a Necron Airforce, you certainly aren't winning because of superior skill...

Makumba wrote:
why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ?

The question is, do you enjoy winning? Or do you enjoy a challenge?

If you enjoy a challenge, then you can enjoy a game where you take 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders. If you only want to win, then taking 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders isn't going to give you an enjoyable game.

So which is it?

With regards to your model collection: If you only own exactly 1,850 points worth of models, then you are the only gamer I know of that does so. I personally have more than 4,000 points of Grey Knights, and I know most people have several extra units left over from previous editions or version of their list. And even if you did only have exactly 1,850 worth of models, you can always play games of 1,500 points of 1,000 points, restructuring your list with the models you have to make it less vicious.

A player who only enjoys using models that look cool or that fit his theme is not going to enjoy any game where he is required to use other models that look bad, or don't fit his theme. But a player who only wants a challenging game can enjoy any kind of list. However, a player that only wants to win, will only enjoy games where he can use the most powerful list he can.

At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

 Kaldor wrote:

Makumba wrote:
why would I have to buy ogryns or rough raiders . they are bad , I dont enjoy playing with them . why should it be the dude with the bad army that decides what is ok and what is no ok to be played ?

The question is, do you enjoy winning? Or do you enjoy a challenge?

If you enjoy a challenge, then you can enjoy a game where you take 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders. If you only want to win, then taking 'bad' units like Ogryns or Rough Riders isn't going to give you an enjoyable game.

So which is it?

To play devil's advocate here, that's a misleading question. You're asking if he enjoys the challenge of playing with 'bad' units. For him part of the challenge might be figuring out a solid list. Everyone's on a different scale here.

Let me try to be the mediator and put something in perspective for both sides. I remember in the (let's say 'controversial') thread on whether painting armies should be a requirement a while back, you took the stance that everyone should paint their armies, which is fine. Some people just don't like to paint, though, and would rather just play for whatever reason, 'legitimate' or not. These people should not play with you, and vice versa, as there will not be fun to be had for both sides.

Likewise, some people just don't like to optimize a list, and would rather play fluffy. These people should not play against highly competitive players, and vice versa, for the same reason. We can all coexist. As you said yourself, no one should say how someone else should have fun.

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

you, as a 'fluffy' gamer should choose a more 'competitive' army when you play me

and I, as a 'competitive' gamer should choose a more 'fluffy' army

I don't see any reason that just because you want to theme your army, that you shouldn't make the effort to make your army the most powerful themed army it can be. Just like i should try to theme my army when playing people who like a more fluffy approach to the game.

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the the same army again.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

madtankbloke wrote:

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the best i had.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

Awesome!

I play a lot of Starcraft 2. After a particularly heartrending loss many players will cry cheese or OP, but will often calm down and then actually look at what happened and how they can improve. Seeing a parallel there.

If he's asking for the gloves to come off, take the gloves off. Just make sure to warn him up front that that's what you're doing, just to make sure he knows what he's getting into.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

you, as a 'fluffy' gamer should choose a more 'competitive' army when you play me

and I, as a 'competitive' gamer should choose a more 'fluffy' army

I don't see any reason that just because you want to theme your army, that you shouldn't make the effort to make your army the most powerful themed army it can be. Just like i should try to theme my army when playing people who like a more fluffy approach to the game.

Back to the original post, i went to the club meet again yesterday, and was pleasantly suprised that the same player who accused me of cheese and being a beard immediately challenged me to a game, and while i had brought a selection of more fluffy army lists, he wanted to fight the the same army again.
I was subjected to twenty questions before during and after the game (and i reciprocated) advice on how to make his army more competitive while still staying true to the fluff his marines have, and while i am, and always will be competitive, i learned a great deal about how fluffy gamers view the game, and its not 'that' far removed from how i do.
What suprised me the most, was that this sunday he wants to play against my best army, gloves will come off, but i'm not quite sure exactly how mean i should be....

Good for him i know i always play my best because unless I know I was outmaneuvered and outplayed I hate losing. I play against a kid who runs Necrons. Most people would not call him cheesy he uses units he likes (lychguard for example He only has 1 flyer) and is now trying make his list better little by little. He tells me he wants to fight my Meanest list everytime so he gets it. Against those who are not aware of the fact i like to beat face i will take a fluffier list and play with that. Its all in maximizing the enjoyment of every game for yourself.

Kevin48220 wrote:
If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! ...(snip for brevity)

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

All I can say that this hobby lives and dies based on players like you. As long as there are players that share your enthusiasm and openness to any obstacle, this hobby is in good shape.

There seems to be a common misconception here than anyone who plays a fluffy army lacks the ability to make a competitive list. I know lots of people that are very capable players who could easily make tournament-calibre lists and play them very well, but choose not to because they find just curb-stomping everyone into the ground boring. They purposely handicap themselves in order to play more interesting games. Just because they don't use a powerful list doesn't mean that they're bad players either. A really good player can play a "bad" list and still win against a TAC list, but when they fight a super competitive tourny list, they're gonna have a very small chance of victory. It's understandable that they'd be a little upset coming down to the FLGS for a friendly game with their fluffy list and then end up playing some dude with a hard-as-nails list where they're basically going to auto-lose. Does this make the other player a better player? Anyone can do well with one of these fire and forget lists, but only a good player can play a flawed list effectively.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
At the end of the day, all I'm asking you to do is consider the enjoyment of your opponent when building a list. Is that so much to ask?

Well, by that logic, both players should do the same.

Yes.

 captain collius wrote:
I hate losing.

It could be said that the whole of 'being a good opponent' is not minding losing.

Makumba wrote:

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 don't think you understand how OP Grey Knights are!!!!

Grey Knights 20pts
storm bolter range 24" Str 5 AP 5 assault 2 ( mostly found on tanksin other armys )
force weapon Str 4(5) AP 3 ( mostly found on psykers worth over 100pts )

Berzerkers 19pts bolt pistol range 12" Str 4 AP 5 assault 1
ccw Str 4 (5) AP -

what i'm trying to say is you can tell if your codex is OP in one eazy step open the codex to page 1 was it written by Matt Ward your codex is OP

You're not helping. At all.

Hospy wrote:

All I can say that this hobby lives and dies based on players like you. As long as there are players that share your enthusiasm and openness to any obstacle, this hobby is in good shape.

That's most kind of you to say. I try to keep a positive attitude on things.

That's not to say that discussing units, books, or builds that are/may be abusive of game balance is complaining. It's not, IMO; there's value in looking at how the meta of any game evolves with new units or books. I look at that based on my experiences playing M:TG and Heroclix. In both of those games, there were/are builds or individual game components (cards, figs, whatever) that were cheese, or were used to make cheese. They ruled the roost--but only for a while. Something always comes along to dethrone them and become the new, um, Big Cheese--or people figure out how to deal with it. There are tough armies, and tough lists; but, there's no such thing as an unbeatable list.

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:

I don't think you understand how OP Grey Knights are!!!!...
(quotes rules)
...what i'm trying to say is you can tell if your codex is OP in one eazy step open the codex to page 1 was it written by Matt Ward your codex is OP

It's good to see some intelligent comments in this thread.

For starters, cheese list is just as fluffy as any other one in only war universe. It's killing potential is what reeks of 40k mood and if your pre heresy or only khorne or "fluff" sth army sucks then it's either GW incapable of anything resembling balance again or you just really ignored/ are bad at the game aspect and your army is unprepared on gaming terms. Options are: blame GW at last/ make a diorama and quit playing/ come playing and accept an uphill battle.

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

And vice versa, I bring bad list (most of mine are as I field only what I like aestheticaly) and am loosing with fat cheese, the fun is in trying and potential reward from winning is so much more, a kind "hard" mode.

It's the nature of the game and it's up to GW to fix/ change it, not a player that likes cheese lists. If the guy tabled in two cries that's his problem not a player that tabled him. 40k has to be only game where people are pushed to not do their best to win, go to a casual table football match in the pub with good players as beginner and 99% of time you are going to see sth like 10 - 0 score. Who cares of painting and modeling side of this, if you show up to the game and accept the challenge, quit whining OP and play, the game part of it assumes list building and some builds are better than others. I don't cry that my painting is slow and subpar so my army looks worse, please next time bring a crappy painted army because I feel bad in comparision, wtf?

 ArbitorIan wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Im sorry, But isnt this a competitive game?

Nope

Then what is point cost doing here? FOC? Expensive 100+ pages rulebooks and elaborate codiecs? How much of a waste it is to create a game with objectives to win and then make it non competitive (not in the tournament/ non tournament sense)?

It is a competitive game since 2nd edition.

My recommendation for the OP, if you are playing regular against a group of people that you are trying to be friendly with, just get to know them better. If you keep on beating them with your Necron fliers, and you see they are bringing sort of fluffy lists, and they complain that your list is OP and beardy, offer them some handicap points. If they are going to say that lists are unbalanced to begin with then shut them up by giving them an extra 50 or 100 points. You will get to bring your toys, they will bring more toys of their own, you have bragging rights if you win, and they can't complain nearly so much if they lose about Necron fliers being undercosted or whatever. Not to mention it is more challenging for you and if the lists are truly unbalanced then you will have a more fun, more balanced game. an extra 50 or 100 points can easily be meaningless considering the way luck goes in this game anyway.

 Kevin48220 wrote:
If I can chime in on this; I'm a comparatively new player who started 40K with 6th edition. I'm currently building lists that let me try out new units in my codex (Codex Marines) and learn all the rules.

I had a game against a CD player last weekend--2 new guys (me and an IG player) allied against a more experienced CD player. He brought a whole lotta Flamers, Bolt of Tzeench, Pink Horrors, and various other forms of mayhem, including a Bloodthirster and Fateweaver. Some might have called that cheese.

I called it fun! We had our hands full dealing with his list (which, as near as I can tell, was pretty similar to the tournament lists that are popular right now), but I enjoyed myself immensely. We played to a draw (game ended on a die roll at the end of turn 5).

I might be a bit naive, but I just saw his list as a tough one that I would have to work hard to beat--both because of the list and because I'm new to the game. I just tried to use what I had as well as I could and to enjoy myself. As a result, I had an awesome time.

My personal view is that a person can play a cheesy list or not. That's their choice. I'm going to play my list, try to have fun, and win if I can. I'd never ask someone to change their list just because I'm new to the game or play less tournament-oriented lists. I think that playing tough lists and going against players with more experience is how us new guys learn what to do/not to do.

So, I say, bring on the cheese. I'll do my best to make a sandwich with it.

Give that man a cigar! Now that's the right attitude to carry towards the game. This is how 40k players should be (unfortunately though, all too often it isn't).

It all depends on the attitude. Have a good attitude and a "cheesy" list is just a challenge waiting for you to unlock and practice to increase your skill. Have a bad attitude and the "cheesy" list belongs to a WAAC player who must be a jerk just because he just beat you badly.

We need more people like Kevin in this game.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

jy2 wrote: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.

bs.

The inference that anyone who chooses to play a 'fluffy' or non-optimised list is actually just a bad player is merely arrogance. I've played 40k since it was invented, been through most of the armies, played powerful forces and not-so-powerful ones. I could walk into a GW right now and buy a tournament-winning force. I choose to build fun, fluffy armies, and handicap myself with theme, because I like to. It doesn't follow that this makes me less skilled, or incapable of playing in a competitive way. I just place 'liking the models' above 'picking the most effective models'.

If I bring a under optimised list to a competitive tournament, then I'll lose. Fair enough. Complaining would be silly.

But if you turn up to a beer-and-pretzels game, knowing that you'll be playing your friend's fun, fluffy army, and you turn up with a Necron Airforce, you certainly aren't winning because of superior skill...

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.