[HraTaika]

I would like to point people towards this site, which talks about cheese etc. I recommend all those kids who cry cheese to read it. Maybe it might just change your misguided oppinions about the matter.

http://us.games-workshop.com/e-zine/...se/default.htm

Now, would you like to have some cheese with that whine?

[Farseer Cold-Beer]

What the hell does cheese mean?

Edit: Dont worry, I read the site and now I know...

[Wargamer]

It's an old piece of work, one that fails to acknowledge the simple truth that not all armies are equal. As such, not all armies are "fair". Thus, Cheeze by its simplest definition could be considered "playing with an army of a higher standard than your opponent's".

Put it this way; there's a reason Boxing has weight-classes. If you took a featherweight and a heavyweight, we all know which one would be out cold by the end of round 2.

The same applies in 40K; if you take a Heavyweight army against a Featherweight army, you're being cheezy.

[Farseer Cold-Beer]

Define heavy and light in 40k... Were does Eldar fit?

[Wargamer]

That is the second part of the problem...

Each army can potentially be in several categories. For example, the Iron Warrior lists with 9 Oblits, Basilisk, Vindicator, 2 5-man Havoc teams with 4 Lascannons and 2 5-man Chaos Marine squads with Lascannon, all lead by a Daemon Prince, are abhorrantly beardy no matter who you face. As such, let's put them up in "Beardier than Karak Eight Peaks" category.

Now, if you're opponent's army is not as Beardy as that (like, for example, my Ultramarines army), then the guy who brings the above Iron Warrior list is Cheezy for doing so.


Some armies, however, are inclined to different regions. Chaos is sickeningly Beardable, as was the Craftworld Eldar Codex (Biel-Tan Reaper Army, Ataloic All-Ranger army, 50-man Seer Councils... need I go on?).

On the other hand, armies like Dark Eldar, or "Unofficial" lists like Arbites, start out at a disadvantage. If we were to rate armies on how forgiving they are (eg: how many mistakes you can make, how many 'wasteful' units you can include and so on), then armies like Marines would be 6-7/10. Armies like Dark Eldar would be 1-2/10. As such, as you can plainly see, in order to be equal to a Marine army, a Dark Eldar force has to powergame their list far more than the Marine player does.

Bear in mind, this does not make the Dark Eldar player cheezy; powergaming is using units and tactics that are very strong for their points, whereas Powergaming (capital P, you'll notice) is a mindset, one that no player should possess.


This is why I disagree with the claim that "if it's Codex legal, it's okay". Marine armies are much easier to use than, say, Guard or Dark Eldar (Eldar are getting easier with all that AP3...). As such, in order to balance it out the "weaker" army has to have its lists geared more competitavely.

Now, with this in mind, it is not unreasonable to conclude that if an army starts "weaker" than normal, then it cannot be as powerful on the top-end. To explain, the Beardiest Dark Eldar army you can imagine would not be as Beardy as your average Iron Warriors army, which scores a 8/10 on the Beard scale under normal conditions, and often jumps to 12/10.

[Deadnight]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

It's an old piece of work, one that fails to acknowledge the simple truth that not all armies are equal. As such, not all armies are "fair". Thus, Cheeze by its simplest definition could be considered "playing with an army of a higher standard than your opponent's".

Put it this way; there's a reason Boxing has weight-classes. If you took a featherweight and a heavyweight, we all know which one would be out cold by the end of round 2.

The same applies in 40K; if you take a Heavyweight army against a Featherweight army, you're being cheezy.

well, if that featherweight is bruce lee.... i've seen too many instances of the big burly fighter who weighs 100kg go up against a sparrow fart of a kung fu fighter only to get his ass kicked. speed beats strength. Now, here's the thing. If everyone boxes, plays to the same rules (say, marine v marine) then that analogy applies, but if its boxing v aikido where the bigger you are, the worse you are at the game, kickboxing (hey, watch this boxer! i can kick!) if its any of the disciplines of kung fu... your analogy is correct to an extent, but there are other factors...

the way i see it is that cheese is in the eye of the beholder. I'm a new marine player so i paint my dodgy marine list. i have my 2 devestator squads, my couple of 10-man las plas squads, an assault squad and a dodgy painted chaplain. Now, with the old dex, i go up against biel tan with 6 dark reaper squads and 9 war walkers.... and its planet bowling ball. obviously i'm gonna cry "cheese"! then deadnight comes along with his tournament mechanised IG company against eldar list. Onto the table go 2 leman russes, a basilisk, 3 chimeras and 2 hellhounds. a wall of AV14 faces that starcannon army. now this is a themed, fluffy and balanced tournament force. the cheese of the eldar starcannon army doesnt exist.

as such, cheese can't be fully described. its on a case by case basis. Only time i'd consider stuff "cheesy" if a list is specifically designed to take mine on. Now, i know a smart player wont take that eldar list because its a one trick pony designed to get one type of enemy, but i'd fully expect someone other than myself to take than mechanised force. Now, while the eldar list is cheesy, i would look at that wall of AV14 with my tau, gulp and shake hands and say "bloody fine list" and play against him. because its a damned fine list and one hell of a challenge to take on.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

Each army can potentially be in several categories. For example, the Iron Warrior lists with 9 Oblits, Basilisk, Vindicator, 2 5-man Havoc teams with 4 Lascannons and 2 5-man Chaos Marine squads with Lascannon, all lead by a Daemon Prince, are abhorrantly beardy no matter who you face. As such, let's put them up in "Beardier than Karak Eight Peaks" category.

Now, if you're opponent's army is not as Beardy as that (like, for example, my Ultramarines army), then the guy who brings the above Iron Warrior list is Cheezy for doing so.

Some armies, however, are inclined to different regions. Chaos is sickeningly Beardable, as was the Craftworld Eldar Codex (Biel-Tan Reaper Army, Ataloic All-Ranger army, 50-man Seer Councils... need I go on?).

i've beaten that IW list with my standard tau. that said, while i admire the sheer efficiency and competitiveness of iron warriors, they can be "too" competitive, and do for the most part play at a level of competitiion that is higher than most armies can hope to acheive. that said, it can be beaten. with effort, skill, and luck. hopefully with the next chaos codex, they'll un-pete haines-ise the the chaos codex.
it seems they will, if they do to chaos what they did to craftworld eldar.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

On the other hand, armies like Dark Eldar, or "Unofficial" lists like Arbites, start out at a disadvantage. If we were to rate armies on how forgiving they are (eg: how many mistakes you can make, how many 'wasteful' units you can include and so on), then armies like Marines would be 6-7/10. Armies like Dark Eldar would be 1-2/10. As such, as you can plainly see, in order to be equal to a Marine army, a Dark Eldar force has to powergame their list far more than the Marine player does.

i will stand by the statement that DE are not at an advantage. DE are one of the most obscenely vicious lists in the game. good use of terrain, good use of deployment (and wyches roll a 1 on their combat drugs) i've got a first turn assault. and no one likes to go up agsinst wyches!

Originally Posted by Wargamer

As such, as you can plainly see, in order to be equal to a Marine army, a Dark Eldar force has to powergame their list far more than the Marine player does.
Bear in mind, this does not make the Dark Eldar player cheezy; powergaming is using units and tactics that are very strong for their points, whereas Powergaming (capital P, you'll notice) is a mindset, one that no player should possess.

the Powergaming you describe is just being a prick. heh, i like the way you set apart using smart play and playing to win. kudos. but in fairness, i would disagree with saying DE must be powergamed to win against marines. my standard list has 2 ravagers, 3 wych squads in raiders, 3 warrior squads and an archon on a skyboard. and its a vicious and evil list against marines. i dont regard it as powergaming in any shade or form, just as i dont regard the mech IG i mentioned above as powergaming. weird standards, but there you go.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

This is why I disagree with the claim that "if it's Codex legal, it's okay". Marine armies are much easier to use than, say, Guard or Dark Eldar (Eldar are getting easier with all that AP3...). As such, in order to balance it out the "weaker" army has to have its lists geared more competitavely.

Now, with this in mind, it is not unreasonable to conclude that if an army starts "weaker" than normal, then it cannot be as powerful on the top-end. To explain, the Beardiest Dark Eldar army you can imagine would not be as Beardy as your average Iron Warriors army, which scores a 8/10 on the Beard scale under normal conditions, and often jumps to 12/10.

i would strongly disagree with this. my above DE list has 9 dark lances, 6 disintegrators, 6 blasters and nasty archon. i can take on the IWs with it, and i feel i've a good chance of beating them. dont look at DE and see weak. too many foolish mortals have said that about them! DE are one of the best lists in the game.

first point: i dont get how you can hold to that cheese and powergaming are bad, and then justify it for supposed "weaker" lists. can you explain that to me?

another point: you argue that "weaker" lists must be geared to face easy to use lists. i have to strongly disagree with this point as well. there is smart list designing, and then there isn't. too many times though, people see smart list building as powergaming. its sad really. just because something is easy to use, and another thing isnt, its not like they're at too different levels of play. you play smart in either case with a well rounded and baanced army.
I dont see my DE list geared for anything other than taking on anyone. its got, in my opinion everything it needs to do its job. and i know i am at no disadvantage against any easy to use army with it.
i cannot agree with you when you say my "weaker" DE army must be geared to take on an IW list. Nor can i agree with you on saying that it wont be as powerful on the top end. anyone who faces DE played by someone who knows what they're doing will testify to this...

[elemant]

Full Disclosure: I'm a noob still assembling my army and haven't actually played this game yet.

As a noob, I am a little bewildered by all of this talk of cheesiness. Is 40k not a game? Aren't the point of games to figure out how to win? SOme people think that by putting a dozen tanks on the field they are sure to win. And they may win. Maybe thats because their opponents play like they have something other than a dozen tanks on the board.

If you choose only units that look cool to you in stead of units that work together according to a game plan you devise, don't expect to be that competetive. But if you are really competitive there is no reason to gloat over a hobbyist if you destroy them. I think any one, if so inclined, can (and should try to) learn from any game they play. In this situation, the competitive on works on the efficiency of his offence. And the poor hobbyist gets an opportunity to work on his durability/defense.

From what I can tell, every unit has counters. All-tank cheesiness seems to me to be like repeatedly doing "hey-doo-kens" in SFII. Annoying to deal with and it kills you when you start out, but once you time your jumping right you can avoid them every time. And once you develop that timing, when your opponent tosses an an occasional "hey-doo-ken" you are able to jump it no problem.

I don't understand what the GW link means when you design an army to annihilate a "take-on-all-comers" army. If it can be annihilated by an army, its not really a "take-on-all-comers" army is it?

To add to the martial arts analogies above, i guess a "take-on-all-comers" army is kinda like "orthodox" techniques. In MMA, is guess that would be like Tito Ortiz or George St. Pierre who know a bit of everything and are quite flexible. Cheesiness I guess would be like specialists, like Chuck Lidell or one of the Gracies who do one thing well and look out if they can dictate the game.

Anyway, I guess I look forward to figuring out how to get to the chinks of the armor of "cheesy" armies.

By the way, I am a assembling a rather unorthodox speedy eldar army.

My .02.

See you on the table.

[Fish Ead]

The thing is (if you ask me anyway) that things would be fine if the army lists were truly balanced. But they're not. While a balanced force from different army lists may be about equal in power, a good number of codexes "top out" higher than others. For instance you can make a chaos list far more powerful than an ork one if you took nothing but the most effecient units. That is where the "cheese" comes in, when something is almost impossible to counter with one or more armies.

And another note. Balanced (see definition below) lists are designed to take all comers that also use balanced lists, not absolute top-out armies. Why? Because some armies just cannot reach that top-out level. When balanced armies are used it often helps iron out some of the imbalances between armies. Now some balanced lists used come very close to the top-out level of an army just so the army can be competitive even against the balanced lists of other armies (in this case the game balance is obviously skewed).

Wow I used the term balance alot there didn't I?



-Balanced Army list: (Bal-ans-ed-ar-mee-list) noun. An army list that seeks to level the playing field so that all parties involved in the game have an equal chance of victory. The aim is to make it so the game is decided more by how the game pieces are used, rather than by what pieces are actually taken

[saffo]

Originally Posted by elemant

As a noob, I am a little bewildered by all of this talk of cheesiness. Is 40k not a game? Aren't the point of games to figure out how to win? SOme people think that by putting a dozen tanks on the field they are sure to win. And they may win. Maybe thats because their opponents play like they have something other than a dozen tanks on the board.

40k is complex enough to support a whole range of players. From those who just love the hobby and the "fluff" to those who love to min/max and try to dominate every game. Each is fun. In fact, in the rule book, the number one rule is "have fun". That is pretty broad and not easily defined. One might have fun by watching you get destroyed on the first turn. Another might have fun by pulling out a dazzling victory at the last second. Another is just satisfied to drink a beer (or soda) and hang out with his buddies and discuss their paint jobs while they play.

My opinion is that cheeze only really becomes a problem when two players don't "share reality" about what the game means to them. If one player put together an army to show off his recent paint jobs and he starts a game against someone who rebuilt their list 500 times and has competed 200 times and fine tuned it to hell just to beat any list.... Well you have cheeze. If players come to an understanding of each other, and agree to a play style you will all have fun.

Now tournaments are a different story. If your playing a tournament, expect the attitude of "If its in the codex its legal". You might even see a person testing the limits of the codex and requiring some ruling or another from the judges.

[Deadnight]

I don't understand what the GW link means when you design an army to annihilate a "take-on-all-comers" army. If it can be annihilated by an army, its not really a "take-on-all-comers" army is it?

best way to put it is a "take-on-all-comers" army is one that can do what it says on the tin: compete effectively with any other army in the game. the fact that it can be beaten is irrelevant. it means the other guy had (a) a better list (b) played better. but in any given scenario, i could have beaten him, and he could have beaten me.

Originally Posted by Fish Ead

The thing is (if you ask me anyway) that things would be fine if the army lists were truly balanced. But they're not. While a balanced force from different army lists may be about equal in power, a good number of codexes "top out" higher than others. For instance you can make a chaos list far more powerful than an ork one if you took nothing but the most effecient units. That is where the "cheese" comes in, when something is almost impossible to counter with one or more armies.

bear in mind how much orks rock. i can put in over 25 rokkits (with a load of ammo runts) into an ork list at just 1000pts.

Now, you are correct in that some armies get some advantages that are too much.
iron warriors. seriously need to be un-pete haines-ed. that guy should not be allowed to design rules for any army he himself plays. because as fluffy as the IW rules are, they allow them to be played at a higher level to most armies.
drop troop guard. i dont get how guardsmen get to deep strike for free when the guys who frequently have to do it (stormtroopers) have to pay. they pay to infiltrate (light infantry), they pay to be mechanised. they should pay to DS. ditto with close order drill. +1I and +1ld for free. too much.

essentially though, i think im agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Fish Ead

And another note. Balanced (see definition below) lists are designed to take all comers that also use balanced lists, not absolute top-out armies. Why? Because some armies just cannot reach that top-out level. When balanced armies are used it often helps iron out some of the imbalances between armies. Now some balanced lists used come very close to the top-out level of an army just so the army can be competitive even against the balanced lists of other armies (in this case the game balance is obviously skewed).

Wow I used the term balance alot there didn't I?

-Balanced Army list: (Bal-ans-ed-ar-mee-list) noun. An army list that seeks to level the playing field so that all parties involved in the game have an equal chance of victory. The aim is to make it so the game is decided more by how the game pieces are used, rather than by what pieces are actually taken

fair enough. id define balanced a different way, and thus, would have to disagree with you. i look at it purely from a wargaming perspective. my balanced army must bend and flow, adapt and be able to conceivably react to various opponents in any given situation. the power level of my armies is fairly high, but i'd still regard them as very balanced in that they can deal with most opponents.

to be honest, my point of contention is the separation of "top out" lists and "balanced" lists. To me, your "balanced" list seems to be essentially watered down to cater for your opponent. now, i wont hold your hand in a tournament, but if you're new to the game, then its a different story. i will seriously underpower my list.


i would like to say against this:

The aim is to make it so the game is decided more by how the game pieces are used, rather than by what pieces are actually taken

now, i plat powerful armies. trouble is, i know how to play them quite well. i see no problem with composition. frankly, the way i figure it is you should be allowed to design the army you want, like a first co. strike force, or my mechanised company above. the above seems to me to be an artificial standard that says that "taking powerful stuff is a no-no", and fails to take into account that composition does affect how the game goes, and says this is a bad thing. Now, i fail to agree with this.

Apologies to Fish 'ead, but i figured i'd point out a different viewpoint. cheers!