PDA

View Full Version : Geneticly corrupt Marks



RUSSADER
06-02-2008, 02:15
I was playing a game the other day and my opponent cried out the famous "CHEESE!" With the elimination of the wargear and other such grumblable changes in 4.0, I never thought I would hear anyone say such a thing about my army agian. I did not run with anything Slaanesh, so the whips were gone. I did not run with 9 oblitorators nor anything like that. I didn't even run with a landraider that did not take up a heavy slot by being my Terminators transport.

Instead I feilded a basic army of

Ahriman,
9 Tsons,
1 pack of raptors with mark of Tzeench
Fabius Bile
20 Genetically Corrupt Marines with the banner of Tzeench
2 Rhinos

Apparently the commotion came about when he found out that my geneticly corrupt marines had an invulnerable save.

I always used Fabuis in my IW army and I alway had my 9 Tsons before the Codex swap. Further more I was afraid that people would yell about me going cheese if I ever bought more so I figured I'd try an Tzeench based army without all the Tsons.

I never thought after all the downgrades I would still be hearing people yell Cheese at my army. Are geneticly corrupt CSM with the mark of Tzeench really cheesey?

You tell me?

==Me==
06-02-2008, 03:05
Sounds like sour grapes to ==Me==, so no.

For what it's worth, I think that's a nice concept. It's always nice to see something different.

Jackal_Strain
06-02-2008, 03:19
I think that just shows immaturity from your opponent.

Champsguy
06-02-2008, 03:53
Your opponent is a puss. Tell him you'll play him again once his balls have dropped.

New Cult King
06-02-2008, 04:44
Your opponent is a puss. Tell him you'll play him again once his balls have dropped.

Crude, but I completely agree. What army was he using?

Havarel
06-02-2008, 05:54
Heh, sounds like he should relax and remember its a game.

Anyway, I'm a Slaaneshi player by heart, but with the new rule-set its not as much fun dedicating yourself to just one god (unless its Tzeentch), so I decided to use Undivided, but write fluff to allow me to use the other marks. I use the Mark of Nurgle as my Mark of Genetic Corruption, and Plague Marines are my Abominations.

Ddraiglais
06-02-2008, 13:18
As I've always said, cheese is any army that beats you. I've never believed that cheesy armies exist. Some builds just take a little more thought to beat than others. :eek: As far as your list goes, that is definately not cheesy. It looks like an extremely fair and balanced army. What you should do is power it up and play that ***** again. Then he'll realize that the original list wasn't all that bad. :evilgrin:

Luna de hierro
06-02-2008, 14:01
tell your opponent to play with barbies, your list is fine.

Thoth62
06-02-2008, 14:10
As I've always said, cheese is any army that beats you. I've never believed that cheesy armies exist. Some builds just take a little more thought to beat than others. :eek:

Quoted for absolute truth. I've never been a proponent of labelling armies cheesy. Are certain builds harder to beat than others? Certainly, but you will never hear me call an army list cheesy, unless it's in jest with several of my friends, and even then, it's more of a mockery of others who call armies cheesy...:angel:

Imperialis_Dominatus
06-02-2008, 18:22
Well, that depends. What's your definition of cheese?

tortoise
06-02-2008, 18:45
The boy who cried wolf eventually got owned by the wolf.

People who cry cheese at the drop of a hat deserve to face a genuinely cheesy army. After all, if you're going to have to listen to their pitiful whining anyway why not make it worth their while?

Next time you play him take as many Slaanesh characters with Lash as you can. Build the rest of the army around beating the type of force he usually plays.

Maybe after a few games like that he'll learn not to be such a juvenile loser.

Klozkoth
06-02-2008, 20:48
Your list is fine. Something fairly unique too. On that note I have to say I'd hate to fight em =P

guillimansknight
06-02-2008, 21:12
I was playing a game the other day and my opponent cried out the famous "CHEESE!" With the elimination of the wargear and other such grumblable changes in 4.0, I never thought I would hear anyone say such a thing about my army agian. I did not run with anything Slaanesh, so the whips were gone. I did not run with 9 oblitorators nor anything like that. I didn't even run with a landraider that did not take up a heavy slot by being my Terminators transport.

Instead I feilded a basic army of

Ahriman,
9 Tsons,
1 pack of raptors with mark of Tzeench
Fabius Bile
20 Genetically Corrupt Marines with the banner of Tzeench
2 Rhinos

Apparently the commotion came about when he found out that my geneticly corrupt marines had an invulnerable save.

I always used Fabuis in my IW army and I alway had my 9 Tsons before the Codex swap. Further more I was afraid that people would yell about me going cheese if I ever bought more so I figured I'd try an Tzeench based army without all the Tsons.

I never thought after all the downgrades I would still be hearing people yell Cheese at my army. Are geneticly corrupt CSM with the mark of Tzeench really cheesey?

You tell me?

CHEESE!!:cheese:CHEESE!!:cheese:CHEESE!!:cheese:CH EESE!!:cheese:
CHEESE!!


what ..........i like cheese, cheese good so this GOOD

its a fair list, a little funny considering TS have no bodies

i can just imagine Bile " WTF !! ?"

i'd give your army 9 or 10 out of 10 its funny not cheesy (okay well maybe a little but not in a bad way )

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
06-02-2008, 23:18
Ahriman


he is cheesy.

Fabius and his followers are only ok choice in SC section - as he gives you new option [similiar to Death/Ravenwing captains and this orky mad mek] i loathe other SC.

sorry.

Imperialis_Dominatus
06-02-2008, 23:44
Eh, I'll take a full Rhino-bound squad of CSM touting special weapons with a Champ and Icon anyday. Ahriman costs too much, and ain't a scoring unit. Bleh.

New Cult King
07-02-2008, 00:48
But Ahriman is cool looking and fits the flavour of a 1K Sons army.

*shrugs*

The "Win At All Costs" mentality is bad for the game outside a tourney environment.

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 03:36
Who's touting the "Win at all Costs" mentality? Certainly not I_D...

I'd say much the same thing. In fact, as much as I play to have fun, I still play to win. My lists are somewhat themed, but I still take the units and use the tactics that I feel give me the best chance of winning. It's a game. How is trying to win bad for the game?

Makiaveli
07-02-2008, 03:53
Who's touting the "Win at all Costs" mentality? Certainly not I_D...

I'd say much the same thing. In fact, as much as I play to have fun, I still play to win. My lists are somewhat themed, but I still take the units and use the tactics that I feel give me the best chance of winning. It's a game. How is trying to win bad for the game?


I would say it's only bad in certain select instances. Such as a newbie player trying to learn the game, ruthlessly pummeling him might not be the best way to teach. Not saying play to lose, or even not try to win, just no need to murder him.

And this comes from the first time I tried to get this hobby off the ground. Met one of those guys who just wanted to win. Didn't care I barely knew the names of my guys (a buddy getting out of the hobby gave me some stuff he laying around), he just wanted to win.

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 03:53
But Ahriman is cool looking and fits the flavour of a 1K Sons army.

*shrugs*

The "Win At All Costs" mentality is bad for the game outside a tourney environment.

Oh, it's a Thousand Sons army. Must explain all the, erm... Thousand Sons. :p

Besides, I was more commenting on Ahriman's frankly horrific cost. He's a cool character, but I'd not use him because a) I'd have to use some serious counts as and say my Chapter's Librarians are the equal of the greatest mortal sorceror around (:rolleyes::rolleyes:) b) his points. So pleh.


Who's touting the "Win at all Costs" mentality? Certainly not I_D...

I don't want to win at all costs, I want to win though. :angel:

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 04:03
I don't want to win at all costs, I want to win though. :angel:

Which is exactly what I thought you were saying, as well as being the point I was trying to make.

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 13:55
Which is exactly what I thought you were saying, as well as being the point I was trying to make.

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic and accusing me of being a WAACko. All's forgiven. :)

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 14:13
I guess the trailing periods (...) might have been misleading. No, I was not being sarcastic. And while I do have suspicions that you may be a Wacko, I do not think you are a WAACko. :D

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 14:19
I guess the trailing periods (...) might have been misleading. No, I was not being sarcastic. And while I do have suspicions that you may be a Wacko, I do not think you are a WAACko. :D

Sanity is for the weak. Only the insane prosper. Only the prosperous may judge what is truly sane. In a land of darkness, a blind man is the best guide; in an age of madness, look to the madman to show the way. Etc. etc. :angel:

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 14:21
You know I_D? I think I like you.

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 14:32
I'm going to drag this kicking and screaming back on topic.


I would say it's only bad in certain select instances. Such as a newbie player trying to learn the game, ruthlessly pummeling him might not be the best way to teach. Not saying play to lose, or even not try to win, just no need to murder him.

Of course it's like that. But why is 'trying to win' always considered 'trying to destroy my opponent, end him and all that he loves, pillage his village and ravage his women'? I'm just curious.


You know I_D? I think I like you.

You're pretty cool too. So long as that's a purely platonic 'like.'

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 15:01
Purely platonic. I don't even know who you are...

I remember taking part in a thread that discussed the good, the bad, and the ugly about playing to win vs. WAAC, and particularily how it applied to young kids just starting out in the hobby.

Needless to say there was a great amount of disagreement, and it invariably came down to one major point. Some people thought that playing to win was the same as [insert horrendous crime here], and that offenders should be taken out back and shot, while others thought that playing to win was just part of playing the game.

It's all about how you actually go about winning that makes the difference between regular gamers and WAACkos. I'm not going to lie. I like winning. I went through a volleyball program at a high school where in 3 years we won 3 conference championships, 2 provincial championships, and were finalists in a third. I'm used to winning, and I absolutely hate losing. It's in my blood. But that doesn't mean that my first objective when playing a game of warhammer is to win. In a social hobby where I enjoy making friends as much as actually participating, winning always comes secondary to having fun. But it doesn't change the fact that I still play to win.

In our group at my local GW store, when people want a challenging game, they often ask if I want to play them. I win a lot of my games, but I still try to make sure that my opponent has fun, and if they're not, than usually I'm not either.

I think I'm rambling...

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 17:04
I recall that conversation too, Thoth. What sights, what sounds, what flames and hatreds were unearthed that day...

There's a wise signature around here. The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused.

Then again, I am one of those evil people who finds fun in winning. Just as in football, when I'd have the most fun when I was running some guy into the ground and potentially crushing his ribs. But that's just me. :angel:

Emperor's Avenger
07-02-2008, 17:17
There's nothing wrong with your list whatsoever. Cheese would be if you had also taken lots and lots of Havocs with Chaos Glory, Bikes with the Nurgle mark and several squads of Khornate Terminators. In otherwords, something that doens't fit the fluff.

Imperialis_Dominatus
07-02-2008, 17:28
There's nothing wrong with your list whatsoever. Cheese would be if you had also taken lots and lots of Havocs with Chaos Glory, Bikes with the Nurgle mark and several squads of Khornate Terminators. In otherwords, something that doens't fit the fluff.

You forgot two Lash Princes.

Thoth62
07-02-2008, 17:41
But what fluff dictates that you can't take that particular combination? This game setting is all about using your imagination, isn't it? So why can't someone come up with a list like that and have to worry about the wails of cheesemongers everywhere? I've said it before (in this very thread), and I'll say it again.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a cheesy army list! It's just a passive-aggressive label that armies are given when the mongers have trouble beating it. "Oh, I can't beat that army so it must be cheesy."

Instead of trying to come up with excuses about why it isn't your fault that you lost, why don't you come up with ways to win. It seems much more constructive to me.