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.

So many posts in this thread with paragraphs trying to debate on what is cheese and what isn't. It is so much simpler than that.

Q: When does an army become cheesy or beardy?
A: When you win with it.

It really is that simple. I have had some of the worst units in the game called "overpowered" and been accused of having a busted list. I use to take a unit of pariahs in my necron army. Single attack low initiave high costing models that didn't add to my "necron' count and didn't have WBB. But because I wiped out a unit of 5 TH/SS terminators in a single round of combat due to some lucky dice that person still to this day claims they were an incredibly overpowered unit.

I bought a box of repentia like all old school sisters players before we found out how awful they are. (like seriously, worst unit in the entire game bad) And opponent knowing they were bad pretty much ignored them. They closed with his line, and then proceeded to hit multiple optimal targets. I think at the end of the game they had a kill tally of 2 carnifex and a unit of warriors before they were killed themselves. I am like 90% sure I even still lost that game too. And the person said something along the lines of "I can't believe I beat your overpowered army with my fluffy nids"

Because a sisters of battle player with repentia and penitent engines was overpowered but his nidzilla list was a-ok.

People don't like losing or admiting their own faults. When someone loses it isn't because they made bad tactical decisions. It is because your own units are too powerful, you abused a cheap tactic, you had amazing dice/they can't roll anything above a 1. There is always some external power at work that caused their lose.

It is human nature. Even I do it. It is one of the reasons why when playing a fighting game I record as many of my loses as possible. Because right when I lost. I am upset about losing. So I don't think rationally. I lost because he played a broken character or abused a broken move or there was lag or my controller didn't work. A little time and a shower after my matches though and I can go over the recordings. Suddenly that kick to the face hit me not because of lag but because I was trying for poke and missed it.

If warhammer games didn't take 2-3 hours I would love to record my games and then go over my loses here as well. Because I know I have on more than one occassion said something like "wow that unit is broken as all get out" And then the next day gone "oh i should have done such and such"

Of course I don't enter too many tournaments and when I do I am entering them for the chance to try out my newest concoction. If I go 0-4 in a warhammer tournament I still got to play my new list a few times and now I can go home and tweak it until im happy or want to play a different list. So deeper analysis usually isn't needed.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

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

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

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

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

Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

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

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

Why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ArbitorIan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:

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

When?

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

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

 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.

I could consider feeling bad if I ever had a cheese list but I don't and that sentence describes hypothetical situation to show my attitude on the subject. My Tyranid army has Carnifexes, others are CSM Nurgle no Epidemius, Black Templars and mechanised orkz. I'm a 40k hipster and will probably never come close to a cheese army.

It is it's not selfish, I care for my opponent by being polite and having fun with a game but I think forcing people to tame their lists is a terrible way to balance the game and a HAAC idea that helps GW slip by with their abysmal balance. Will you force random golf opponent to go buy worse clubs to match yours? 40k is a special snowflake with all the handicaping.

btw why are all the laid back, relaxed, fluffy beer and pretzels players so much not relaxed when it comes to take a beating from an OP list? Tabling is just another epic story of decesive victory, history is full of those.

Oh and here's a bit from Wikipedia entry on sportsmanship:

A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

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

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

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

aha so the better option is to have the person with the normal army , buy crap stuff and play with stuff he doesnt want to just that someone who plays a bad army has fun? Man that is like saying that to have fun at any kind sport , everyone who arent overweight should play with extra weights or at least with a broken knee.

I dont understand why people like you dont understand it . No one with good armies tells you to play with something else .But we are not donkey-caves we do tell you , that you may not have fun playing the game against anyone . just like plumb or others said you can play against SoB or nids and claim they are OP. Your faction on the other hand wants us to spend our money on armies or models we dont want to play . you try to force us and the whole community to buy more then it is needed to play a game and have fun . I play IG . I have won games , I have lost games . yet I always had fun . But you and dudes like Kaldor seem to have problems with other players and other players armies all the time . So maybe it is you guys that are the problem , not us ?

the only time I could agree with you is if I owned shares in GW . Then yes I would want people to own 10+armies , because more sells would be more cash for share holders.

 TheCaptain wrote:

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

While that's generally true that a player simply whines for the sake of it when they lose, keep in mind there are those rare times that a losing player has every right to be p -off and have a go at their opponent.

For example, how do I 'look to improve my own skill' after a situation such as;
- GK player wins first turn, then casts Warp Quake with every squad and spreads their models out the full 2" coherency to ensure near total coverage of the entire table!.
- My Daemons now auto-mishap no matter where they try to land.
- Opponent uses a RAW argument to juggle the auto-mishapping units between quake zones to ensure either auto-wipe results or simply go back into reserves to auto-die later.

Litterly my only hope that game was 'will my opponent fail a Ld9 psychic test?'

It's not like I can really control the main issue of 'win first turn', well not unless I bring a loaded dice! I didn't learn anything that game about how to counter the GK's abilities besides, "don't play this hole again!" and "don't ever lose first turn if you play Daemons!"
I didn't get any chance to effect the outcome, try to change my tactics, see what unit choices worked and what didn't... I just got 100% hosed by an insanely OTT ability that perfectly hard-countered my entire army and was abused to the nines.



So really, I think the point at which an army becomes 'cheesey' and thus is decryed as OTT/broken is; an army in which your opponent cannot do anything to effect the outcome of the game.
ie: Warp Quake spam vs Daemons, 9+ flyers vs anyone without anti-flyer options, 100% tailored lists, etc...

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

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

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

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

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

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

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

Plumbumbarum wrote:A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

Makumba wrote:aha so the better option is to have the person with the normal army , buy crap stuff and play with stuff he doesnt want to just that someone who plays a bad army has fun? Man that is like saying that to have fun at any kind sport , everyone who arent overweight should play with extra weights or at least with a broken knee.

I dont understand why people like you dont understand it . No one with good armies tells you to play with something else .But we are not donkey-caves we do tell you , that you may not have fun playing the game against anyone . just like plumb or others said you can play against SoB or nids and claim they are OP. Your faction on the other hand wants us to spend our money on armies or models we dont want to play . you try to force us and the whole community to buy more then it is needed to play a game and have fun . I play IG . I have won games , I have lost games . yet I always had fun . But you and dudes like Kaldor seem to have problems with other players and other players armies all the time . So maybe it is you guys that are the problem , not us ?

the only time I could agree with you is if I owned shares in GW . Then yes I would want people to own 10+armies , because more sells would be more cash for share holders.

First, i disagree with your use of 'normal'. The majority of 40k players play casual games, with models they like, and build lists based on what models are in their collection, changing them as they want. A tiny minority built super-optimised lists, play tournaments, or spend ages tweaking a 1750pt 'perfect list' before finally spending the money on ONLY the models in it.

What you mean is

the better option is to have the person with the super optimised tournament army play with stuff he doesnt want to just so that the vast majority of players with mid-tier lists have fun?

In which case, YES. That is a better option. It's fairer for the most people.

But i agree with your point on principal - people can play however they want, and problems only arise when the armies themselves are unbalanced - leading to some people claiming that they lost because the other person took a vastly more powerful army (cheese!), and the other player claiming they they are somehow 'more skillful' because they managed the incredible feat of buying models that have better rules.

I've won and lost games and had fun both ways. But I think most people would agree that the most 'fun' games are the closest - where the two armies are evenly matched. So as a community we should try and make this happen.

One way to do this is for everyone to always take the most powerful lists, but that doesn't take into account codex creep, model preference, etc. The other way is for people to be aware of what sort of game they're playing and bring the right sort of list. Easy.

I'm aware that this means that a small minority of players might have to play a less powerful list, but if someone really only has one army/list and that happens to be a ridiculously powerful one, then he should at least let people know so that they can bring something fairly matched. And if he plays someone with a much less powerful force, he shouldn't have the gall to claim that the win was down to 'superior skill'.

EDIT for spelling

Makumba wrote:
or how about the aegis gunline , that is "bad" too +3cover and I can stand up and shot after going to the ground .

Just wanted to say an aegis defence line can never give a 3+ cover on it's own. It's 4+ or 2+ when GTG

 ArbitorIan wrote:

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

"they should enjoy improving their skill and list"

"their skill and list"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So?

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

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

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

 TheCaptain wrote:

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list....

 TheCaptain wrote:

Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful

???

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

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

 ArbitorIan wrote:

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

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

So your point is:

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

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

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

If someone doesn't enjoy getting decimated, and gets decimated, they should enjoy improving their skill and list....

 TheCaptain wrote:

Never did I say that someone on the receiving end of a beating is less skillful

???

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

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

Now these are pretty extreme examples that you're talking about here. Most likely you will only encounter them in tournament play. Armies like the Necron Airforce just won't last in normal gamestores. Pretty soon, they will have no one to play against as most people just find it not fun to play against such extreme armies. And daemon players will just refuse to play against a interceptor-striker-GK army. Those armies just won't last in casual play because eventually, people won't want to play them (unless they are hardcore competitive as well).

But these lists are only just a small fraction of even the competitive gamers. After all, no matter how competitive you are, you can only play against the people around you. With the exception of taking your army to a tournament, if you go too extreme, you will be ostracized by your locals unless you have a group you play against who are just as competitive as you.

Armies like the Necron Airforce just won't last in normal gamestores.

what do you base this one ? we have 2 scyth wings here and I know people in other cities that play them too and there is no problems with playing those armies .

The majority of 40k players play casual games, with models they like, and build lists based on what models are in their collection, changing them as they want.

which are the best models for given faction . because bad models would mean a bad army and a bad army isnt fun to play , not matter if you play in a tournament or normal games at a shop.

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

wait . you guys own and use different armies for tournaments and games in shops ? So everyone of you owns 2 armies . Ok I get the difference now . Here few if anyone owns more then one army from a single faction, If we cab buy a different army or an army for another game , we would never put our army in to something bad.

Makumba wrote:

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

Usually; yes.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:A competitor who exhibits poor sportsmanship after losing a game or contest is often called a "sore loser" (those who show poor sportsmanship after winning are typically called "bad winners"). Sore loser behavior includes blaming others for the loss, not accepting responsibility for personal actions that contributed to the defeat, reacting to the loss in an immature or improper fashion, making excuses for the defeat, and citing unfavorable conditions or other petty issues as reasons for the defeat.[4][5] A bad winner acts in a shallow fashion after his or her victory, such as by gloating about his or her win, rubbing the win in the face(s) of the opponent(s), and lowering the opponent(s)'s self-esteem by constantly reminding the opponent(s) of "poor" performance in comparison (even if the opponent(s) competed well).

While true, the quote assumes a fair game. It's certainly true that you should lose with grace. But if there ARE external reasons why you lost (for example, "I thought we were playing a friendly beer&pretzels match, but my opponent brought the most OP list in the game") then it's only polite for both players to accept that.

Not sure if something like a fair game in sport happens too often. You have skill disparity, injuries, differences in equipment and so on.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
But i agree with your point on principal - people can play however they want, and problems only arise when the armies themselves are unbalanced - leading to some people claiming that they lost because the other person took a vastly more powerful army (cheese!), and the other player claiming they they are somehow 'more skillful' because they managed the incredible feat of buying models that have better rules.

But if they identified those models themselves and made the good list without Internet help, that is skill. Not as much a skill as it should be though, it's spoiled by GW crap balance that limits the number of viable builds and creates some obvious choices in the codieces. Claiming overal better skill (tactical) after winning a single game with list advantage in a system with fair amount of luck involved is far fetched to say the least but on the other hand, I as the loosing player wouldn't have a problem saying "you were better" to a guy that just have beaten me with Internet latest and greatest. It's better than going full sore not to mention still might be true, both Klitschkos are taller and have greater reach than 99% of their opponents and hardly anyone denies their superior skills.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I've won and lost games and had fun both ways. But I think most people would agree that the most 'fun' games are the closest - where the two armies are evenly matched. So as a community we should try and make this happen.

There is no better way to achieve that than GW doing their work with their ruleset.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
One way to do this is for everyone to always take the most powerful lists, but that doesn't take into account codex creep, model preference, etc. The other way is for people to be aware of what sort of game they're playing and bring the right sort of list. Easy.

Yep we are discussing a non specified situation, I assumed the pickup game and if you are steamrolling your friends last 3 months with the same list then it's probably about time to discuss the situation and it's either they decide to work on their lists or you handicap yourself somehow (and the former is so much a better option imo). Third option, noone changes a thing, you continue to steamroll them and if they don't want to play, you insult them through every chanel of comunication, make public fun of preferably with their girls around and constantly threaten with physical violence to force them to a game

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I'm aware that this means that a small minority of players might have to play a less powerful list, but if someone really only has one army/list and that happens to be a ridiculously powerful one, then he should at least let people know so that they can bring something fairly matched. And if he plays someone with a much less powerful force, he shouldn't have the gall to claim that the win was down to 'superior skill'.

Yep obviously, I actualy accidentaly deleted my first elaborate response to Kaldor where I stressed out that playing cheese I would admit having an edge thanks to a better list and generaly show "let's see what happens" attitude through the game.

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

Leaving the skill issue aside, as we're talking about lists and it's only fair to assume skill is roughly equal, why should a player have to enjoy 'improving' their list? If having to take certain models in their list to remain competitive reduces their enjoyment of the game, then 'improving' their list would actually be making their list worse.

If a competitive player wants a challenge, then perhaps he might consider the enjoyment of his opponent when creating his list, and create a list with obvious weaknesses, or units that are sub-par, so that he might enjoy a more close and challenging game.

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

All I'm suggesting is that players take the enjoyment of their opponent into consideration when building their list. From both angles: the player who only takes models he likes should consider that some people might want to play a more brutal game, and the competitive player should consider that not everyone wants to play the way he does.

Everyone needs to think about why other people play the game, and do their best to make sure everyone has a good time, the way they want to.

I seem to have touched on a subject which is quite divisive, but i would like to thank everyone so far for your constructive criticisms and points of view.

For my part, i have been a wargamer now for the better part of 20 years, and my original gaming group (GW Plymouth 94-99) were on the whole a competitive bunch, and this has had something of an effect on my outlook.
I can still remember when i started playing, and i had lovingly painted my army, only to have it routinely wiped from the board by players with more skill than i had. The best piece of advice i was given was:

You learn more from a defeat, than you do from a victory.

A defeat will show you (if you stop to analyse what went wrong) what unit and wargear combinations work and don't work, the importance of maneuver and tactics, and when to use sacrifice plays and so forth. Whereas a victory will reinforce your oppinion of your own ability, and you will learn a fraction of what your open minded opponent has.

Having had my formative gaming years in a competitive environment does leave me looking on in perplexed amazement at some of the arguments and discussions i've read in this thread. There seems to be a belief that there is a qualitative divide between competitive and fluffy armies, that the players who have, for whatever reason, brought a better list than his opponent should throw away his advantage and play to a lower level.
Now i will go far as to say if i'm playing against a very new player i will use a list with a little bit of everything to get them familiar with the rules, and i will explain before the battle starts exactly what everything does. but whether you are a fluffy themed army type of guy, or a competitive super optimised list kind of guy, i've never ever met a single person, EVER, who in a TAC pick up game plays to lose.
Maybe i've been playing the wrong kinds of people, and i do now have a much clearer idea of what people consider cheesy, and the reasons for it.
So another question seems in order

Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

 Kaldor wrote:

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

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

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

 Kaldor wrote:

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

Some people actually find designing the perfect list an interesting part. I probably spend more time tinkering with points and units than I do playing. Why am I a TFG just because I like to optimise the units I bring to a game?

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

 Griddlelol wrote:

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

Perfected Models: "Artist"

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

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

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

Perfected Models: "Artist"

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

I think that goes to show that people care when they lose more than they say...

I've never heard an accurate description of cheese, as I always hear some player's dislike of a play style or units that are effective against their army.

Lots of Heavy Bolters? The Ork player calls it cheese, the Necron player laughs.

Lots of flamers (weapon, not the demon)? The IG player calls it cheese and the Tau player laughs.

Multiple armor units? The player who didn't bring anti-tank calls it cheese and the player who did laughs.

There are a few things like knowingly using units that a certain army has a lot of difficulty against in a tailored list that is jerk behavior, but not really cheese as described by the community.

madtankbloke wrote:


You learn more from a defeat, than you do from a victory.

So give your opponent some extra points to work with... gives you more chance to learn and shuts them up complaining it was your list that caused them to lose.

So another question seems in order

Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

Last tournament I attended, I brought a list that was not optimized to win, but to show off my coolest looking models. First game I ran into an optimized Daemons list that spammed screamers and flamers. I have to say, although I did much better in the later games (playing against those low in the ladder), that first round defeat was the one I learned from the most and I'm most thankful for.

So I did not deliberately play to lose, but you can say I made some choices in my list that I knew were not optimal. Was I playing to lose? Not in the game itself... but I was limiting myself. Does that count?

So if bringing a less than optimal list... or handicapping yourself.... counts as 'deliberately playing to lose'.... then you answer your own question, your opponent should 'deliberately play to lose' in order to be better educated.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

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

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

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

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

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

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

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

Some people actually find designing the perfect list an interesting part. I probably spend more time tinkering with points and units than I do playing. Why am I a TFG just because I like to optimise the units I bring to a game?

You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

Because painting is a solo activity. If your opponent made you sit and watch them while they painted, it'd be just as boring and obnoxious. When you're playing a game, there's someone else involved and it's just common courtesy to consider their enjoyment.

You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

I completely and wholeheartedly support this statement. It's usually very clear when army lists do the direct opposite of this, and those are what I call cheesy.

A Grey Knights armylist designed to stop Daemons from barely even deploying, and the latest flyer-spam lists are good examples of this. Players who field them know full well that their opponent is going to have a terrible time with no fun against them, but do so anyway because they are hungry for the win.

Also, certain army lists show up can (usually) only be countered in certain ways, or by taking certain units. I don't like it when it's shoved at me that I'll likely lose or at best have a terrible game trying to make headway unless I force myself to auto-include certain units, even if I don't want to, in a game that's all about each player customizing their own army.

madtankbloke wrote:
Do you ever deliberately play to lose?
and if not, why should your opponent?

If the guy I play with takes like 5th hard beating in a row despite fielding what I guess most people here would call a better list, then it gets uneasy and I start to not care at all for the win and just try new things on the table, maybe risk a bit more etc. Trouble is, the more laid back I am with the game the clearer my thinking gets and ussualy in the end I win even more decesivly (that's from experience not only with 40k but boardgames etc). I play light heartedly and field worse units but never sabotage the game on purpose, that's disrespectful and his potential win would be meaningless, sth like reversed cheating if that makes any sense.

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

Isn't TFG a cheater who argues about everything, is rude and arrogant when winning and heavily sore when loosing? I play boardgames with many types of people and some fit your description and will blast you mercilessly off the table as early as possible but I would never stereotype them like that, sure we make fun of each other a bit I would say his spine will break from the muscle tension next round and he would laugh at my more peaceful decision at the table but that's it. Some people are more ambitious than others, if they are ok otherwise do not cheat etc I see no problem.

 Kaldor wrote:
You're not. But a game is an event shared by two people. If you don't consider the enjoyment of your opponent when you're participating in a game with them, then you're TFG. Maybe they want a tournament style, hard as nails clash with the best lists you can field. So consider than when building your list, and try to give them the best game you can. Maybe they only want to play with a strongly themed list that only includes models they like. So consider that, and try to give them the best game you can.

That's all I'm asking for here. Consider your opponent, and their enjoyment of the game. Don't just assume they have to play the way you like, and suck it up and play better.

I guess the problem is where do you draw a line. For me considering the enjoyment of my opponent is trying to have fun with a game, being polite etc. Being decimated is not exactly a pleasure but not the end of the world either and is to be expected in any game where you play against each other in order to win. So, I expect a little bit of maturity, distance to a game and understanding its nature from my opponent, if he builds a strongly themed army that lacks strenght, well that's his choice and not my fault that my current list is heavy for him. I understand where you're coming from and it also depends on the situation but I generaly disagree with the idea that caring for your opponents enjoyment goes as far as making the game easier for him. I may do it for my own challenge, or because it happenes too often or indeed his chances are bad as I'm hard countering him but that's my choice and imo not doing so does not make me a TFG.

btw what if the lists are equal but I am so much better tactician and he's in for a tabling, should I restrain myself or sabotage my win?

 Kaldor wrote:

We don't have a derogatory term for people who like to spend hours and hours making each model a work of art. It's part of the hobby like list building.

Because painting is a solo activity. If your opponent made you sit and watch them while they painted, it'd be just as boring and obnoxious. When you're playing a game, there's someone else involved and it's just common courtesy to consider their enjoyment.

Stretching that a bit, you're not asking the opponent if it's ok to show with an army that will make his/ hers look like cheap chineese 3+ toys in comparision.

 Kaldor wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

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

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

Such a sweeping, excessive generalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nerobellum wrote:
He powergames his list, but doesn't play like TFG, get what I mean?

No, I really don't. Considering what you held up as your shining example of "the opposite of TFG" it seems like you're saying that using your anti-tank weapons effectively against the biggest vehicle threat on the table is TFG behavior.


Also, "playing to lose" and making deliberate mistakes isn't fun.