Funny story...

[Master Of Malfeasance X]

So I posted a rant about having to go and get armies that may or may not be shooty who hole up in buildings and force me to weather a blistering salvo of fire until zerks get into CC and kill, pillage, and burn.

 

I posted a basic rundown of my list that looked something like this:

Lash sorcerer

Kharne or Undivided Chaos Lord or Slaanesh Prince with Warptime

2x Zerks

1x PMs

1x TS

6x Oblits

1x Defiler

 

And oh, how the accusations of cheese began to flow. I asked around my LGS and had conversations like this:

 

Me: Hey, Ninjafeet, is my army cheesy?

Ninjafeet: Uhh... what do you mean by cheesy?

Me: Like, do you dread playing against it?

Ninjafeet: Yes.

Me: ..... Seriously?

Ninjafeet: I don't know.

Me: Thanks, Ninjafeet, you're about as useful as fake tits on a zombie.

Ninjafeet: No prob

 

Me: Hey, Meatbun, got a sec?

Meatbun: I'm really drunk, so I might not be my logical best.

Me: I need your honest, drunken opinion, is my army cheesy?

Meatbun: No.

 

Me: Hey Fagammemnon (mods, I swear before all that is holy that I'm not making a gay joke, and this is what this individual calls himself) is my army cheesy?

Fagammemnon: Dude, I play Tau (you should see his Ethereal) nothing is cheesy to me now.

Me: but is it cheesy?

Fagammemnon: Are you going to hook me up with one of those hot gay waiters you work with (I work in a really popular club as a bouncer)?

Me: Sigh. This experiment is out of control.

 

So I played 3 games and did not use...

Lash

Oblits

Zerks

Defiler

 

Game 1: vs 2 warbosses, 2 nob biker squads and lootas

loss

 

Game 2: vs Eldar with 2 squads of dark reapers raining hot death on my army the whole game. I didn't kill them because they were defended by 2 maxed out squads of harlequins.

barely a loss

 

Game 3: vs Tau with 9 broadsides, 2 full squads of pathfinders in smartfish, 2 full fireknife squads, 2 squads of firewarriors, Ethereal and honor guard.

loss

 

The moral of the story here, kids, is that cheese is completely relative, and bandying around words like cheese is like saying someone is stupid. This sort of subjective label is ultimately meaningless and anyone who wants to level it should be clear on the environment from which that army list was born.

[cathar the great]

You completely misunderstood absolutely EVERYTHING people told you in that other thread (just read it through).

 

It is not just about your army list it's also the way you play. But judging from your opponent's list and the dialogues you posted, that isn't all your fault, obviously. You should try and play against some other people at your local GW/gamestore and see some other lists/people.

 

And of course your army will fail if you remove all the good units. It was just a combination of (background-story-wise) totally unfitting units to form a better-than-average list that any hobbyist would frown upon, mainly because of the odd combination of chaos-marks.

 

Six oblits are cheesy, as are three different legion units as troops choices.

[Cornelias]

i didn't say anyone was stupid, that was just an assumption you made, but it's a basic fact that the list you posted is for the most part is considered a "cheese" list. it gives you the best chance of winning vs any opponent without having to think too much and 9/10 people who play warhammer will do fairly well with such a list. the fact that you dropped some of the units for your list and didn't manage to win a game kind of backs up this fact but i'd need to see all 4 army lists to say for sure.

in short it's the easy way out, at the end of the day it's your army and if you want to play such a list is all fair and well but you can't really complain about other people holing up in cover, trying to shoot you to death before you get close.

 

you came into criticism mainly because you object to other people playing to their strongest setup and tactics which is something your list suggested you have no problem with doing yourself. many people here on the board play lists without containing lash princes,zerkers,PM,oblits (for instance last weekend i played 4 games against MEQ without any of these units and only lost 1 game to blood angels) and do well, if you couldn't manage a win it's down to 3 things......

 

1. your list wasn't in good shape

 

2. you had back luck/dice rolls

 

3. the other players were simply better tacticians than yourself

 

that may come across a little harsh and that's not my intent, your entitled to play your army any way you like and at the end of the day my opinion and that of others is only just that, "an opinion".

[Hellios]

Six oblits are cheesy,

 

Even in the Dark Mechanicum list I'm working on?

[Cornelias]

Six oblits are cheesy,

 

Even in the Dark Mechanicum list I'm working on?

 

that would depend on wither you have zerkers, plague marines and lash in the same army :D

[Master Of Malfeasance X]

So, basically, what you're saying is that I'm a piss-poor player who relies on 'cheesy' units and that in order to be a good little fluff-nazi and keep my red armband, I have to intentionally ignore the existence of half of my codex AND only take one or two of each sub-par unit so that I don't offend my fellow players who believe that 6 squads of chainaxe-wielding maniacs will consistently win every battle? Sorry, I've been to real war and seen how it's won. It's won by commanders using various types of specialist and generalist troops to take objectives as the situation requires. A good commander will have the right troops in place at the right time.

 

My army reflects this, purely from a game mechanic standpoint in that I have the troops and units to deal with any threat. Moreover, even with all my 'cheesy' units, it is still barely possible to eke out a win against the above well-honed armies played by seasoned vets (some of them are even real vets).

 

@ Cornelias: I've been playing this game through 3 editions and I took 8th in the state of Texas in the first 'ardboys tournament (the pool was almost 40 players from across the state) with what most people regarded as an extremely underpowered army. I am proud to say that, tactically, I am on the level of most of the people I play with.

 

As for fluff, you can take any unit and say that it belongs to any other chaos god. In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

[Hellios]

So, basically, what you're saying is that I'm a piss-poor player who relies on 'cheesy' units and that in order to be a good little fluff-nazi and keep my red armband, I have to intentionally ignore the existence of half of my codex AND only take one or two of each sub-par unit so that I don't offend my fellow players who believe that 6 squads of chainaxe-wielding maniacs will consistently win every battle? Sorry, I've been to real war and seen how it's won. It's won by commanders using various types of specialist and generalist troops to take objectives as the situation requires. A good commander will have the right troops in place at the right time.

 

My army reflects this, purely from a game mechanic standpoint in that I have the troops and units to deal with any threat. Moreover, even with all my 'cheesy' units, it is still barely possible to eke out a win against the above well-honed armies played by seasoned vets (some of them are even real vets).

 

@ Cornelias: I've been playing this game through 3 editions and I took 8th in the state of Texas in the first 'ardboys tournament (the pool was almost 40 players from across the state) with what most people regarded as an extremely underpowered army. I am proud to say that, tactically, I am on the level of most of the people I play with.

 

As for fluff, you can take any unit and say that it belongs to any other chaos god. In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

 

No one said that... What they said was you may have crippled your army list when you changed it (also not used to playing it if you don't normally could have a negative effect.)to be "uncheesy".

 

Or that your opponents are better than you... you should know if that's the case or not. Or if your luck was unusually bad.

 

Anyway its mostly about metagame If everyone is using "power" gaming lists then there isn't really a problem. Its maybe when you use "power" gaming lists against people you know are fluffy who play for fun with the intention of crushing them entirely (not a balanced game) and/or being generally unfriendly/bad sportsman. What you've got to know is a lot of people complain for no good reason.

 

On an Eldar forum I'm someone has just said they were called cheesy by a Marine player who caused 9 wounds on a Unit of Warp Spiders and only one died... what did the Marine player say? A 3+ army save that's cheesy! (Yes a Space Marine player). So yer people are full of crap.

 

Basically every army seems to think every other army except their own is potentially beardy (although not all lists would be deemed cheesy) so yer just enjoy the game and don't worry about it.

 

Modern commanders in real life are also really restricted :) and Modern warfare on the whole is won and lost by air support. Which basically doesn't exist in standard 40k (Yer some FW and Apocalypse). Comparing reality to 40K isn't really practical especially if you consider 6 squads of chain-axe wielding maniacs in the background actually have a good chance of winning a battle as they can put their hands through the armour of a tank.

[eyescrossed]

So, basically, what you're saying is that I'm a piss-poor player who relies on 'cheesy' units and that in order to be a good little fluff-nazi and keep my red armband, I have to intentionally ignore the existence of half of my codex AND only take one or two of each sub-par unit so that I don't offend my fellow players who believe that 6 squads of chainaxe-wielding maniacs will consistently win every battle? Sorry, I've been to real war and seen how it's won. It's won by commanders using various types of specialist and generalist troops to take objectives as the situation requires. A good commander will have the right troops in place at the right time.

 

My army reflects this, purely from a game mechanic standpoint in that I have the troops and units to deal with any threat. Moreover, even with all my 'cheesy' units, it is still barely possible to eke out a win against the above well-honed armies played by seasoned vets (some of them are even real vets).

 

@ Cornelias: I've been playing this game through 3 editions and I took 8th in the state of Texas in the first 'ardboys tournament (the pool was almost 40 players from across the state) with what most people regarded as an extremely underpowered army. I am proud to say that, tactically, I am on the level of most of the people I play with.

 

As for fluff, you can take any unit and say that it belongs to any other chaos god. In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

Honestly, no offense intended, but it looks like you're just coming up with things to make people look bad, or look like they're insulting you - my mother does it all the time (you can't win an argument against women :) ).

[chillin]

the point of this post was what exactly ?? :)

[Rain]

The problem with your real war example is that say, Bradley drivers don't religiously hate dedicated marksmen like berzerkers religiously hate Slaanesh worshipers. That said, people's point isn't even that you ignore fluff since that's your choice and playstyle but that you had a thread ranting about people using a cheap tactic just to win when your army appears to be created just to win.

 

Nothing wrong with that in of itself, but then you should be ok with cover campers or anything else as they are also trying to win, oh and while we are making irrelevant parallels, don't troops use cover in real war?

[Schultzhoffen]

I see no reason why you would not want to field your toughest units if your friends likewise fielded their toughest units.

 

Cheese is relative. I think that is what you're saying? I don't think anyone was trying to offend you by making various comments.

 

Sometimes(perhaps not in tournament play) a "gentleman's agreement" between friends could be in order so as not to max out on the uber units.

 

I do agree that some codexes have sickeningly broken units (ie x10 Biker Nobz, etc) that can only be countered with an equivalent version, however. In any case, you seem to have made that point in your first post (and to a large extent I agree).

 

Oh, by the way, I've served in the military, too, and I did not find it to be great training for a table-top minatures game set 40 000 thousand years in the future (admittedly that could simply be due to poor training or lack of aptitude on my part).

[Brother Nihm]

And with that this topic has come full circle.

The eternal debate about what's cheesy and what isn't has been raging for years.

Schultzhoffen's post summed things up well in my opinion.

 

Non-constructive topics like this should not have been allowed in the first place however.