| Cheese Please; Q | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 10th November 2009 - 12:46 AM (1,314 Views) | |
| Warlord Snickers | 10th November 2009 - 09:32 PM Post #16 |
|
Stormvermin
|
Big difference between training wheels (aka a list that is so stupid badly written you had to try to make it as bad as you did) and being a cheeseweiner (aka bringing 13 levels of magic furnace tons of PCB 2 Abombs etc.). There is a middle ground... |
![]() |
|
| deathmaster riddick | 10th November 2009 - 09:52 PM Post #17 |
|
I Am The Monster
|
my point was some armies can't field shooting. chaos warriors have exactly 1 unit with ranged capabilities. beasts of chaos i don't think have any(also have heard their magic is bad), VC have absolutely no shooting(although they are VC), ogre kingdoms have A special unit that can shoot, and i don't think their magic is that good either. then there are the people(like me :D) who don't like shooting much, and rely mainly on magic for ranged capabilities, or, like a lot of bretonnians, don't bring anything ranged at all. the point is, VL is something which would be really hard to take down if indeed it is possible, unless you brought a special build. all my friends ALWAYS, bring those builds so i have no problems, but, a lot of people don't. also, abom 'brought easily' down by flaming attacks? it still has regeneration against non-flaming things, and unless you're either a daemon, or a lord level character, you probably don't have flaming attacks in CC, and there are only a few armies that can bring flaming shooting. magic is the main issue, but just keep 30'' away from the enemy wizard. even then the thing still has T6 and a lot of wounds. furnace an 'expensive mount?' the thing makes it's unit unbreakable, which allows us to pin any unit in the game for a counter-charge, and is brutal in close combat. i don't think it's even as expensive as the bell. dude, give us an example of what you do consider 'competitive'. because you just eschewed all of most powerful stuff as 'meh'. also, first of all i find the implication that candyland is not a game for a adults entirely offensive . second, 'if you don't want to be competitive go play candyland and let us be' so if you don't have the money to bring a 'competitive army' you shouldn't play. if you like the fluff of the game, and can't 'play competitively' because of it, you shouldn't play. if you don't like the models of a 'competitive army' you shouldn't play. i did a pole a while back and found out that something like half the people who play warhammer do so because of the fluff, another 20% or so did it because of the painting, and only 30% did it for the strategy. these were the primary reasons not the only reasons, but still, you're telling 70% of us (roughly), that we shouldn't play a game we're fond of.dang it, now i'm sounding all angry .
|
The best way to configure an army is to go play demons.-Nevamore Posted on Nov 6 2009, 04:02 PM
| |
![]() |
|
| drrat | 10th November 2009 - 10:27 PM Post #18 |
|
Grey Seer
|
On a different subject, I actually don't think the bell is that good. No more extra dice, and the bell effects are ok, but for the points it is not that effective. I also think it makes the seer really vulnerable. What's to stop a unit of reasonably hard infantry or a 5 strong unit of cavalry without characters charging into it and attacking the seer and killing him. Yes that unit will get broken and run down but who cares? They will have killed your general and taken out your most expensive character. I am still not that convinced by these big units pushing bell/furnace. A decent player will play avoidance. The biggest benefit is points denial but the seer on the bell as I have just described is very vulnerable. As to the subject of the thread.....there is a world of difference between cheesy and competitive. People are challenged and enjoy the challenge of playing a competitive list, most people hate the idea of cheesy list and they are usually no fun at all for your opponent. The other main difference is that cheesy lists don't tend to need a great deal of tactical ability to use, they are usually point and click and one dimensional. Anyone who tells you different is usually someone who uses such lists. That's why the best tournaments have a comp system and the stupid tournaments like the GW warhammer GT don't. |
| warpstone, more warpstone, yes-yes, more warpstone.... | |
![]() |
|
| reddogfish77 | 10th November 2009 - 11:26 PM Post #19 |
|
Grey Seer
|
i have to say... i dont appreciate people at the ultra extreme level that will stop at nothing to win... but... in saying that there is no point complaining about the lists you face at competitive gaming tables... seriously if people dont take hard armies to comps then what is the point of playing them. that list with 2 furances 2 abombs, 2 monk units, 2 censor bearer units and a few slaves is pretty poor... 2 abombs = about 500 2 furnaces with priests with gadgets and gizmos = close to 700 2 censor bearer units with a decent number of troops = 230 2 monk units with enough troops to last more than 5 turns and still move = 500+ 3 slave units to make up core choices = 120 so so far we have 2050 points and that is not including a) a level 4 mage meaning your opponent will prob dominate in the magic phase, a lord level fighter meaning your opponent will prob beat many of these units in close combat c) number of wounds compared to cost of army i.e. 2000 points is low yet you have no armour at all on any of these troops and only regen on the abominations d) basically no range units except for flame templates meaning you will be owned in the shooting phase.all in all this army is good for charging straight ahead and grinding... unfortunately warhammer isnt about placing your units opposite and seeing who dies first. a dwarf gunline army should make life hell for this army, especially with flaming bolt thrower shots and cannons targeting furnaces. VC will pawn this army... abombs are good as long as they are fighting something worth killing... not 4 point zombies DoC might find it hard unless they take a tzeench army which would prob end up pretty one sided... DE and even HE should make short work of this army list... sure you can take the stormbanner, but it is no garrantee. the best skaven list will be one with a bit of everything and a strong emphasis on magic. my 2 cents. p.s. the people who win at all costs i am generally talking about those that will ummm bend the rules to suit themselves not people who take hard armies... |
![]() |
|
| scrivener | 11th November 2009 - 01:44 AM Post #20 |
![]()
*toot*
![]()
|
A tough army is not necessarily a cheese army. IMO that's a simplified way of defining cheese, but these days cheese tends to be used to describe any maximised army. To me that's a result of everyone bandying the term "cheese" around whenever they see an army they are afraid of fighting against. The cheese element lies more in the mentality of the player than the build of the army. A cheesy army arise from a player who attempts to maximise winning potential while minimising effort. These are usually players that want to win at all cost but don't actually want to learn how to win. It comes down to the thinking of "I can't be bothered to learn this game, I just want to immediately be able to defeat anyone". Whether or not a cheesy army is invincible is not actually a criteria, many cheesy armies are easy to beat with the right tactics. The SAD is a classic example: the army just sat there and shot away with a dozen ratling guns, there's no movement, no tricks, no unpredictability. Or the single-unit deathstar army that rely completely on one maxed out unit that gets sent off in whatever direction in the expectation that it will squish whatever gets in its way. These armies are cheap because they require no effort beyond pinching the army list off someone else. As long as an army build still requires some degree of tactics in its design, that's not cheesy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| reddogfish77 | 11th November 2009 - 01:49 AM Post #21 |
|
Grey Seer
|
you know what they say... the best laid plans of men and mice...
|
![]() |
|
| Polymphus | 11th November 2009 - 01:30 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Black and White again
|
I don't think the list I posted before is unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a combination of all the overpowered units in the army. It's the standard 'cheese list' because it's the sort of thing someone puts together with very little thought, deploys and expects to steamroll the opponent. I think the term cheese is bandied about far too much, and means little in the current scheme of things anyway. If you want to win tournaments, play daemons. If you want to come in the top 5, play VC or DE. Otherwise just sit back with some mates, some beer and some minis and have a damn good time. I guess I should explain myself here. I never really liked the tournament mentality. For my first three years playing GW games, I won about 4 games. 4 games in three years. I stopped playing for a while because I was sick of it. Then I did a bit of travelling, played against people who weren't from my old club and started actually having fun again. See, my old club were in tourney mode all the time. I remember suggesting cracking open a few beers and getting almost shouted out of the room. I remember electronic angle measures and being told that an ogre list that's 2001pts in a friendly game just needs to drop a unit of bulls, if that's the cheapest thing in the list. I remember every game being an exercise in frustration because I was playing against falconspam/nidzilla/gunline and the every game was serious business while all I wanted was to roll some dice, hang out with some mates and have some fun. Which is why, all in all, I think tournament mentalities belong in tournaments. If I go to a tourny of course I'll crack out the lash princes and obliterators. Everyone brings hard lists to tournaments. Would I ever do that in a friendly game? No, never. Because while some people bring hard lists to friendly games, they're in a minority. In a friendly environment, players tend to handicap themselves for the sake of theme or fluff. This isn't a bad thing at all. In friendly games I love to sit back and pretend I'm a great big omniscient general in this fantastic universe and having a coherent, themed army helps a lot. It's blatant escapism but so's most good entertainment, no matter what the Oscars try to tell you. Also I don't consider list building fun any more than I consider statistics fun. It's an important part of what I do, but it's not the sole point and certainly not the most important. As I've said, a good general should be able to win with any army, and if I see a tournament list in a friendly game I don't think I'm facing a good general. I think I'm facing someone who lacks confidence in their abilities as a general and uses their list as a crutch. They're coming into an environment where players wilfully handicap themselves for immersion's sake and breaking that immersion with a big ole' sledgehammer of cheese. Hoping I'm coherent at 3am, Poly |
| Polymphus is too busy and/or lazy to update song of the week this week. Stay tuned! | |
![]() |
|
| Warlord Snickers | 11th November 2009 - 03:06 PM Post #23 |
|
Stormvermin
|
This is very true, I do not think TOUGH lists are cheese if they are themed. It's lists that completely break the fluff of an army's background to win at all costs and makes the game no longer an enjoyable experience. I've played "cheese" but had a good time. And that's the point...having fun. |
![]() |
|
| ==Me== | 11th November 2009 - 10:51 PM Post #24 |
|
I miss ==My== Bell
|
Seems I've touched a nerve...goody I'm not discounting what's good, merely pointing out that the so called "cheese" units are not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination. Playing competitively and wanting to win are not bad things, as so much rhetoric bandied about seems to imply. It's fun to pit your army and your generalship against another like-minded player. It's not about pwning some noob or cheating or breaking fluff or whatever you want, that's just being a dick. Competitive = fun for some people, they aren't mutually exclusive. |
|
Your friendly neighborhood powergamer. Check out ==My== blog: Blackjack & Hookers | |
![]() |
|
| Warlord Snickers | 11th November 2009 - 11:51 PM Post #25 |
|
Stormvermin
|
Whenever I use the term cheese, it means fluff breaking. Because in that instance you have stopped playing for fun...and started trying to win at all costs. I agree with ==Me==. Competition is fine, bring a tough list. But at least do me the favor of having flavor in your army. |
![]() |
|
| Rubberchrist | 12th November 2009 - 02:50 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Shennanigans are out of the question!
|
Honestly, I don't find that there is such a thing as a "cheese" list. There sure as heck are "cheese" players, and you know the ones I'm talking about. They are rude when you play them. They argue rules rather than discuss them. They get overly celebratory whenever anything good happens, and get overly pissed whenever anything bad happens. They sit on the sidelines of a game that you are playing against someone else and talk crap about "oh, why do you take Giant Rats? They are worthless", and "Dude, I can't believe you let your Carnosaur get beaten by five jezzails and 7 Plague Monks in close combat! You suck". I like to win when I play. I don't exactly like losing, but I view it as an opportunity to understand my army better. If I don't enjoy my opponent (see: above), it doesn't matter if I beat them or not. I will NOT be playing against them again regardless of if they brought what would be considered a "cheesy" list, or one that I would choose to run. |
|
"Nurgle has got to be my favorite chaos god, fluff wise... He's portrayed as this sort of jovial, jolly old guy who thinks that rotting apocolyptic plague is funny as hell... So basically he's a big ole fat bastard who thinks giving you a scorching case of the herp is a big laugh." ---Kadrium 7th Edition Fellblade Kills: 1 Steam Tank, 1 Warrior Priest, 4 Greatswords, 3 Treekin, 1 Chaos Sorcerer, 5 Chaos Warriors, 13th Spell Kills: 8 Chaos Chosen. | |
![]() |
|
| Tenno | 12th November 2009 - 05:01 AM Post #27 |
![]()
|
this truly is the dumbest bugger i have ever read. i play cheese, i play to win fluff be damned, so do my friends, but we are not dicks we dont throw a tantie when we loose (we do rub it in when we win its ur right as the winner) what im seeing is u people (and its every forum not just here) are confusing baddies with power gamers. i understand not playing some one coz there an arsehat but playing to win dosent auto make u one so any way point is dont over generalise and nerd rage at power gamers if some one playes to win its just how they enjoy the game |
![]() |
|
| scrivener | 12th November 2009 - 05:16 AM Post #28 |
![]()
*toot*
![]()
|
@Tenno: some of the posts just above yours actually do attempt to distinguish powergamers from cheesers. Did you read those? I think they actually do agree with you to a degree. A gamer who plays to win is normal, but a gamer who wants easy wins without having to try (or who whine or rule-lawyer to get their way) are the ones who peeve us. |
| |
![]() |
|
| chieftainskritchskritch | 12th November 2009 - 05:22 AM Post #29 |
|
The Freshmaker
![]()
|
I think I may weigh into this discussion myself, being primarily a tournament player. I myself dont like playing with or against "cheesy" lists, and here's why: When someone employs a cheese list, they arent really trying to create a gaming challenge. What they ARE trying to create, is a massacre victory. The primary reason why people dont like cheese lists is because they tend to employ a lot of "point and click" type of units. They require next to NO strategy to use, and dont lend themselves to players who enjoy strategy. Just because you can throw 40 dice worth of tzeench flamer shots at an enemy army and win, doesnt mean that you're a good player. It means you won because you threw more high strength dice at your opponent than he did at you. To play a cheese list basically says that you dont want to have to try to win. You dont want to use starategy, you dont want to be tactical, you just want to win in the easiest possible fashion. That is why cheese is bad. You arent playing against a good general, you're playing against a set of models that were put on the board because they can throw a crap load of dice at you and win. Throwing dice is not a skill. If I wanted to play against someone in a game where dice rolling was the only winning factor, id go to a casino. |
| You kids these days have it so easy, what with your Plague Furnaces and your Hellpit Abominations and your Bonebreaker Warlords. Back in MY day, all we had was Slaves and Clanrats!...and auto-hit Ratling Guns...and skirmishing Jezzails...and 2D6 Warp Lightning...and Lead From The Back...wait, what was my arguement again? | |
![]() |
|
| reddogfish77 | 12th November 2009 - 05:29 AM Post #30 |
|
Grey Seer
|
i find the people who like to rub peoples nose in their win and do everything in there power too win are generally the first to bend a rule or interpret something different for them than there opponenet... like the people at a club in darwin who were all buddy buddy... and when it came to me using swarms they all agreed i didnt have 360 line of sight with them cause they were not on 20x20 bases... its these kinds of people i dont like... if that is not you then this is not aimed at you... but for those people who do play 1 set for themselves and another set for their opponet then you are pretty shocking player if you cant even win without cheating... i hate to say it but it doesnt matter where i go there are always some and most of them are the powergamers or the cheese players or whatever. i will play a hard army, i dont always cause it is sometimes fun to play silly buggers. but those who only play to win every time are those i have found to do whatever they have to to win... cheating or not... this isnt aimed at anyone so dont worry im just saying it is prevalent and writing ambiguous rules just makes things worse. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic » |







. second, 'if you don't want to be competitive go play candyland and let us be' so if you don't have the money to bring a 'competitive army' you shouldn't play. if you like the fluff of the game, and can't 'play competitively' because of it, you shouldn't play. if you don't like the models of a 'competitive army' you shouldn't play. i did a pole a while back and found out that something like half the people who play warhammer do so because of the fluff, another 20% or so did it because of the painting, and only 30% did it for the strategy. these were the primary reasons not the only reasons, but still, you're telling 70% of us (roughly), that we shouldn't play a game we're fond of.
.
a lord level fighter meaning your opponent will prob beat many of these units in close combat c) number of wounds compared to cost of army i.e. 2000 points is low yet you have no armour at all on any of these troops and only regen on the abominations d) basically no range units except for flame templates meaning you will be owned in the shooting phase.




