PDA

View Full Version : A look into GT armies and Fine chedder



Reinnon
07-10-2005, 22:53
hi hi

this thread is not "heres a cheesy (or as i like to call them, "armies that are about as much fun to use and play as trapping your foot in a x-mas tree", funny at first....annoying as hell later) army look at moan about it" sort of thread, but instead a look into these armies as a whole.

This is an issue that has been on my mind ever since i started to go to GT's with my thousand son army (perhaps the least cheesy chaos army in the universe), and of several posters on these very forums that seem to believe that:

1) winning is everything

2) Army comp gets you everywhere

i won't mention names (as i really don't think i have to), but i just find this philsophy quite hard to imagine.

It is however true that the top tables in GT are generally filled with the following:

1) Space marine armoured companies

2) all infentry chaos

3) nid swarms

4) eldar starcannon ranger forces

theres really no deniling that, but is a GT about winning?

No, i don't think it is.

Surely peoples view that somehow your army comp = skill is a bit crazy, there are many examples of these views on the forums (most famous happens to be here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=247310#post247310) on the fantasy forums and in fact, pretty much any defence of his lists by BE) where he defends his success by saying he is "skilled" when "skilled" isn't measured by tournie success.

Tournie success is linked to what army you happen to fielding + ability to use your army, so some armies are very unlikely to win a GT (my thousand sons for example, although i would like to win its very unlikely i will with a thousand son army), therefore if as brother edwin himself has said "an imperial guard army will enever get into the top tables" (or words to that effect) he is admitting that Gt success is not a direct rep of "skill", but instead is linked more to your army.

If a GT was totally dictated by Skill then it would be possible to win it with an army totally consisting of grots, as clearly someone can be so skilled with grots that he transcend the petty problem of having crap troops.

note: i fully admit that it requires great talent to win a GT, but i'm just trying to argue that one can't say "i got into the top tables, therefore i'm the elite of 40K".

Therefore, i don't see a GT as "i must get to the top tables", but more "how far can i get with an army that fun, fun being the first rule of 40K.

As far as i can see, whats the point in winning a GT, a phote on the net and a glass plaque with "40K grand champion", a great achivement yes, but not the reason to go to a GT.

For example: if you had to sit through a subject that gains you nothing (ie, no help for uni (AKA: general studies)) would you spend money in trying to get a high mark in it, no.

Theres a differnece between "powerful" and cheesy, powerful armies are totally acceptable, cheesy armies are armies that are so focused upon one area of the list that they transcend "fun" and instead become"lets win win win", like winning somehows equals happiness.

Some people claim "but GT are so filled wth cheese that i might as well make a cheesy armies", imo only the top 12 tables of a GT are filled with cheesy armies (well, 12-20 as they keep slaughtering each other), the rest of the tables are filled with armies that are a joy to play, and imo the reason to go to a GT.

So, what am i trying to say here: basically that wnning isn't everything and just because you have a "cheesy" army doesn't make you a good player.

Also that a GT shouldn't be thought of as a "cheese fest" and that it isn't all about getting into the top ten. I would be happiler with my 46th place with my thousand son army after having 6 highly enjoyable games, then coming first with an army that i designed purely to win and coming first, at the cost of not enjoying the game.

Remember, having fun in 40K often means that both players have fun.

thanks for your time, and feel free to disagree/agree with me

Tadite
07-10-2005, 23:07
A GT is a compitition. So you should expect people to try to win. Frankly I can't understand playing a list that you don't think you can win with in any situation.

Besides love and happyness is part of any RTT/GT. You take Iron Warriors you can't win a GT. Hell you take more then 2 basilisk type weapons you cna't win a GT.... You shouldn't see to many completely crazy cheezy lists from people who know what they are doing.

Weird list frankly:

1) Space marine armoured companies

Who would call these cheezy? I see a space marine armoured company and I laugh. This is the age of indirect ordance and infantry. Tanks are a liabity.

2) all infentry chaos

So? With the expection of the devilor chaos tanks suck just as much as SM tanks. Its cheezy not to take a crapy unit?

3) nid swarms

its the nids. thats what they do. How do you even make a nid army thats less then 100 models?

4) eldar starcannon ranger forces

Eldar have so much going against them they may as well.

These are not cheezy armies by any means. Just normal and in a few cases below par.

Gaebriel
07-10-2005, 23:18
Well, I think that what's fun is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally agree with your point of view - I have more fun building and playing an army for fluff. But other people's fun obviously is in winning, with the army just being a tool. Or building an overly "effective" (not using the milk-product word here) army.

I think competitive games do recruit a great deal of the latter, competitive tournaments even more.

What I can do in retaining my fun without taking the other's is not to participate in Grand Tournaments, perhaps not in tournaments at all. I'm very choosy with opponents in regular games, so why should I limit myself to a crowd of 40 or so that are likely to play a style that annoys me?

Kahadras
07-10-2005, 23:18
GT leads to WAAC. Its sad but there you go. Basicaly it says nothing about you if you get onto the top tables of the UKGT. People are not going to bow before your brilliance nor are girls going to sleep with you when they find out you win at wargaming.
Tournaments IMO are bad for the game in general by creating a desire to outdo other gamers and setting up a very competitive arena in which people can play. Mostly I don't care about GT or any other tournaments that are held by GW. What does get on my nerves is when people bring armies into Games Workshop that are obviously designed for tournament play and do so under the pretences that they want to 'test' the list (despite the GT being months away). This kind of thing should be laughed out of the store (several people I know just tell them to come back with a regular army). Tournament play is all well and good but leave it for the tournament.

Kahadras

Brushmonkey
07-10-2005, 23:20
I write tough lists.

I play to win.

I still have lots of fun, so does my opponent.

I do well (ie top tables).

Hmmm, something doesn't add up.

Perhaps having fun in a game has little to do with the list you're playing with or against. Perhaps it has to do with the attitude the players bring to the table.

Oh and just to correct you; cheesey lists are not often seen on top tables. The experienced players know all of their tricks and are adept at taking them down. A 'template army' is a liability in big tourny play.

Brushmonkey
07-10-2005, 23:26
GT leads to WAAC. Its sad but there you go. Basicaly it says nothing about you if you get onto the top tables of the UKGT. People are not going to bow before your brilliance nor are girls going to sleep with you when they find out you win at wargaming.
Tournaments IMO are bad for the game in general by creating a desire to outdo other gamers and setting up a very competitive arena in which people can play. Mostly I don't care about GT or any other tournaments that are held by GW. What does get on my nerves is when people bring armies into Games Workshop that are obviously designed for tournament play and do so under the pretences that they want to 'test' the list (despite the GT being months away). This kind of thing should be laughed out of the store (several people I know just tell them to come back with a regular army). Tournament play is all well and good but leave it for the tournament.

Kahadras


But how will the player get to know what options in his army work and which ones don't. How will they get experience of which armies have a natural advantage over them? Its all a learning curve. Your attitude of 'laughing people out of the store' is very lame, and thoroughly elitist. It's just as snobbish as the 'win at all costs' mentality. Hardly a welcoming feeling in a store.

Kahadras
07-10-2005, 23:39
But how will the player get to know what options in his army work and which ones don't. How will they get experience of which armies have a natural advantage over them? Its all a learning curve. Your attitude of 'laughing people out of the store' is very lame, and thoroughly elitist. It's just as snobbish as the 'win at all costs' mentality. Hardly a welcoming feeling in a store.

'Testing' an army hardly takes seven months. Maybe 'laughing people out the store' as you put it is lame but so is having such a burning desire to win at a game of model soldiers that you build a cheesefest of a list then spend the next seven months 'testing' it against people who have turned up for a quiet, friendly game and find themselves in a tournament atmosphere.
As far as I can see a line has to be drawn where ultra competitiveness needs to stop. Leave it to the tournaments at least there there is a prize (of sorts) to win.

Kahadras

shutupSHUTUP!!!
07-10-2005, 23:50
People often come to my store and say they are testing their tournament army, I know I would and I am happy to play them, experience for me. I also let them know I will tweak my more relaxed store gaming army to fight them.

I enjoy games where we both play mediocre and laugh at everything that happens, bemoaning the bad luck of a particular model etc. At other times I enjoy a tense match against a tough contender. Different people enjoy either.

The only thing I don't like is losing badly, being butchered by a far more refined army list. I think competitive lists are fine as long as they play against other competitive lists, at least giving an unprepared gamer fair warning. I will play a tourny list but I do not expect it to be pulled out on me in surprise.

Since I am making a tourny army at the moment, I enjoy watching good lists play good lists just as much as I enjoy hilarious fluffy games. I dislike elitism in this game whether it comes from tourny players or those who eschew competition.

Brushmonkey
08-10-2005, 00:07
I have tourny armies that are years old and still need 'testing' against various oppnents. GW and players are always bringing new ideas and armies to the tables and you need to see if their stratagies and troop choices highlight new things as regards to your army.

Again you mention this 'tournament atmosphere'. What is it exactly? Do people tie you into a chair and shine a light in your eyes? Push bamboo under your nails? It sounds mighty uncomfortable whatever it is. However, I have rarely actually encountered it at any events that I have attended. Please explain this phenomena?

I must asume that at your local gaming venue that you sign contracts in blood, promising that you will take on all of the 'powergamers' or forfeit your worldly possesions, your first-born, your soul, and that nice general you converted last week. You don't HAVE to play them if you don't want to.

Is it not possible for you to just explain to the gamer in question that you would rather not play their army as it is geared towards a different kind of play, but that you wish them well in their games? I guarantee that any kind of negative atmosphere at your venue is the result of your own negativity as well as that of the other gamer.

I would prefer to point them out to another gamer (or club) that shares their tourny enthusiasm and make them feel welcome in the hobby.

Besides, regardless of army list, if a player has put in the effort of painting (sometimes converting) their army and seem nice folk, them I would be honoured to play them.

Brushmonkey
08-10-2005, 00:09
People often come to my store and say they are testing their tournament army, I know I would and I am happy to play them, experience for me. I also let them know I will tweak my more relaxed store gaming army to fight them.

I enjoy games where we both play mediocre and laugh at everything that happens, bemoaning the bad luck of a particular model etc. At other times I enjoy a tense match against a tough contender. Different people enjoy either.

The only thing I don't like is losing badly, being butchered by a far more refined army list. I think competitive lists are fine as long as they play against other competitive lists, at least giving an unprepared gamer fair warning. I will play a tourny list but I do not expect it to be pulled out on me in surprise.

Since I am making a tourny army at the moment, I enjoy watching good lists play good lists just as much as I enjoy hilarious fluffy games. I dislike elitism in this game whether it comes from tourny players or those who eschew competition.

Spot on! Its the sign of a good gamer when they communicate what they want and expect out of their gaming. It doesn't take much.

The Machine GoD
08-10-2005, 05:57
I have a tournament untweeked IG list ive used on someone and only I use it on people who persist on there gonna win or they only play to win. I actually enjoy playing to win. That is the objective of the game to win. Do I aim to win? Yes but all my lists are usually made within minutes of playing a game.

Str10_hurts
08-10-2005, 06:38
This is about people...well someone once defined people in a GT like this:

Top 1-10: Great people, fun, and have enormous tactical insight.
Top 10-30: These people have horrible fully min-maxed army's and arent such tactical geniusses as the top players, because of that they start bitchting as a weapon to win.
30 and below: mostly people having a good time and are there for the fun.

This is only my opinion and its from stuff I pick up this does not have to reflect on anyone personal, there are always exeptions.

Reinnon
08-10-2005, 09:01
maybe i didn't explain myself.

theres a difference with making an army thats designed to win, and making an army thats cheesy.

an example below of a cheesy army:

Tigarius (the only reason to take ultramarines)

cheap no upgrade command squad, 5 man with drop pod

5 scouts: missile launcher

5 scouts: missile launcher

9 landspeeders with assault cannons

2 dreads with extra armour and if you can fit it, both in drop pods

thats just taking it to the exterme, it is these sort of armies that imo are the problem with GT's, with 11 assault cannons and a 24inch FotD

my real point is however, you can design a list to win but still requires skill to use, and not like above where you point your army and fire 44 assault cannon shots, and also i was questioning why would you make such a list? Surely a GT is about winning with tactics, not with your army comp....GT is more about having fun then winning (it even says so in the booklet in front of me!), no where does it state "all players MUST win", as that attitude can make for a really crappy game.

i fully admit, i wanted to go to the GT final so played my TS army to the best of its ability, i can except competiviness, but too much competivness is a bad thing.

Brushmonkey
08-10-2005, 09:26
You consider that army cheesy? I would consider i points in the bag. The Ultramarine player is going to have to work DAMN hard to get anywhere playing against my army!

There is no one-size-kills-all solution to 40K. Template-Uber-Beard armies don't win these things.

I don't care what the opposition takes so long as they have shown some love by painting their minis, and bring a good attitude to the table. They've made their choice, i've made mine, now lets play.

zealousheretic
08-10-2005, 09:38
Tournaments are all well and good, but I wish people didn't treat them like the be-all and the end-all here.

Let me provide an example.

I run a Tyranid swarm that I'm usually told is fun to face, and I win at least as often as I lose with it. It's an army I like fielding, and I've spent a fair amount of time getting it to work the way I want it to.

I wouldn't ever take this army to a tournament, based on what I've read and heard about them. Why? Because I use a ton of units options that the highly competitive Tyranid players tell me are utter garbage. These "useless" units usually perform well for me, but my normal opponents don't built tournament-oriented lists.

I've heard all the arguments.

"This is war, in real war there are no compromises, armies use what wins, you should do the same." Because it's well documented that in real life, Eldar totally max out on starcannons before they fight the Word Bearer Chaos Space Marines. Arguing reality in a science fantasy game that includes daemons, horrible planet-devouring aliens, and monastic warrior-monk super soldiers, some of which are spikey and worship daemons, just doesn't work all that well (note: I consider the flip side of this argument, the whole "it's totally unrealistic to field more elites than troop choices" line, equally stupid).

"The objective of the game is to win, you should play to win." I don't play to lose, but I'd rather lose a close-fought game than utterly clobber someone. I prefer the close game, I think it's more fun, and my main objective here is to enjoy myself. I'm wierd like that.

Brushmonkey
08-10-2005, 09:46
Do you think that maxed out armies don't have close games? You would be wrong.

Gaebriel
08-10-2005, 10:04
You are all aware that this discussion is about ideologies?

I don't think there is good or bad in styles of playing. There is different styles. Some like it this way, some another. Person A builds his armies with winning in mind. Person B builds his army for fluff. Then there is Person C who also builds his army for fluff, but would again be called the c-word by Person B.

Then there's different environments. Some people play all-comers. Some people tool their armies. Again a clash of philosophies. But in some gaming circles playing all-comers wouldn't make sense, because there are only two opponents. In others tooling an army would be bad, because you don't know what you'll be up against.

At the end of the day, there is only one decision, who do you play, and who do you not? Everybody has a free will on that, as no-one forces those who dislike minmaxing to play at tournaments, and no-one forces those who despise weak armies to play all-comers...

It's easy to deal with, isn't it?

Insane Psychopath
08-10-2005, 10:13
IP view:

I started attending Tournaments since 2002 & to this day I still go & have fun yet take what you lot call "Cheese army" just because I take a 5 man squad with heavy weapon/spaicl weapon.

Now in my view you lot should not be judgeing the army, but more the gamer useing them.

Exsample:

Thought out all of heat 1 of the UK GT, all my oppeont had a fun time again my Iron Warriors (no Ord weapons mind you), why some of them wanted me to win most sporting award. Also my freind Stein who just won the UK GT heat 1 he also take what you lot call a cheese army, but end of the day he a great person & alway a laught to get a game against.

While in one of the rounds... a little further down from the table I was playing with. It was a person with what you lot call a comp army, he was a right git to his opponet.

End of the day if it is the UK Grand Tournament, you are gaming for a FREE ticket throught to the UK GT finials.

So you should judge more on the Player/Person rather than the army.]

End of the day, people play diffretn style of gaming from: one off games, Tournament or Campinge (sp?). Just agree before hand what style you wish you & your oppeont to play.

With myself, as long as the Gamer/Person is all right then yes I will be more than happy to give them a game. Against Newer gamers, they will fight against my UK GT Iron Warriors army... however because it is there first game I will let them win or if they do loss, I just say well make it a draw (as long as there squads on the table). Then after the game agasint the newer gamer I will help him out on what I would of done if I was playing his army... & if he/she ask help them with a army list.

That my view

IP

nightshade_eyes
08-10-2005, 11:26
To the original poster, I wouldn't worry to much about BE. He kinda gets picked on over at the Dakka forums and trys to pass himself off as a tactical genius. That Chaos Dwarf list he put out has been posted on different boards years ago. It's nothing new and certainly not an original list or idea. :rolleyes: Take his posts with a grain of salt.

I play power lists at times but only to play them against others who are prepared with one of their own. Vicious battles between vets are lots of fun. Others use a powerlist as crutches or get that slight edge to win. Some players play this way 100% of the time but I'm pretty sure some are just doing it be at par with everyone else.

my 2 cents

I personally would never bother with a GT.

GT's aren't my cup of tea for several reasons:
1. I'm not paying for a plane ticket to go play warhammer somewhere
2. I'm not paying to attend a sausage festival
3. %#$@ the GT's
4. plenty of cheese here in California..no need to go anywhere else
5. see quote below..


GT leads to WAAC. Its sad but there you go. Basicaly it says nothing about you if you get onto the top tables of the UKGT. People are not going to bow before your brilliance nor are girls going to sleep with you when they find out you win at wargaming.

For those who do enjoy the GT's, I hope you continue to enjoy them. That's what they are for. If Warhammer groupies start showing up to GT's, somebody let me know :p

BTW 1st post here omg hi2u all ^.^ keke and all that good stuff.

zealousheretic
08-10-2005, 18:56
Do you think that maxed out armies don't have close games? You would be wrong.

Not saying they don't. Just saying that the win at all costs mentality doesn't appeal to me; someone playing to win at all costs will usually trounce someone playing for fun, and most of my regular opponents play for fun.


Gaebriel: That's an accurate summation of why I avoid tournaments like the plague. Nothing against people who play them and like them, they're not my thing.

Rabid Bunny 666
08-10-2005, 20:43
Tournament armies are bearded up, my devourer list(400pts) is made to trash marines and light tanks, it beat 400 pts of black legion on 2 turns, losing 4 men, 1 to the enemy, 3 to overheating

but when i get into 1,000 pts, it will get toned down alot, my 400 pt list complements my mates deathguard list

people play tournies to win, so min/max is to be expected

C'tan
08-10-2005, 21:02
Tournament armies are bearded up, my devourer list(400pts) is made to trash marines and light tanks, it beat 400 pts of black legion on 2 turns, losing 4 men, 1 to the enemy, 3 to overheating

but when i get into 1,000 pts, it will get toned down alot, my 400 pt list complements my mates deathguard list

people play tournies to win, so min/max is to be expected
That was a classic game.

shaggybandito
08-10-2005, 21:14
I must be missing the point of tourneys. I always thought it was pretty cool to get three or more games in an afternoon against people I probably would have never met otherwise. Seemed pretty awesome to see a big room full of painted/converted armies with people enjoying themselves and the company of others with a common interest. I've always had loads of fun playing tourneys. Guess I lack the insight to be salty over little things that are beyond my control. Oh well.

Spell_of_Destruction
08-10-2005, 22:12
I have no experience of tournies and I'm not particularly interested in attending them TBH. I find that you still encounter cheese-mongers outside of tournies however and I will generally refuse to play them. I play the game to have fun so I'm not going to waste my time against a beardy unfluffy list.

As far as my own army composition goes, I generally go for a happy medium. I feel that I have a strong list that is perfectly fluffy. I took it to my local GW last week and someone remarked how amazing it was to not see a starcannon cheesy eldar army.

My point is (yes there is one) that, yes, I like to win. But I also like to have fun. Each game is a story and if the army lists make it difficult to create a meaningful narrative out of the events on the table then I don't see the point. I would rather just play chess instead.

AmasNagol
09-10-2005, 12:07
Win at all costs is healthy for the game and for the development of the rules.

It's just the company doesn't appear to actually use much of the feedback it can get from the GT's for rules updates.

Imus
09-10-2005, 12:29
hmm, there no point refusing to play someone. Even if the list is "beardy" (i wonder how ppl actually know the true meaning of the word?) The only way you improve is by playing better people. Now i am not saying because the list is cheese that there better. But it does give you a dam gd insight on how people think and play. Use the experience for further games. Its very handy and helps you become a more tactical general so to say. The only thing that i see a problem with is the people who play the armies. Sometimes you will get two people both with similar cheeesy armies but its the personalties that make it fun to play. On teh odd occsion you may get a player that just argues over everything and that is not fun. But for the most of it most people i have played at various tournaments are quite nice and i only ever had 1 or 2 real problems with players but nobody is perfect.

Brother Edwin
09-10-2005, 12:48
Talking from a person who knows most, GT games come down to:

Army.
Skill of player.
Who gets first turn.
Terrain.

If you face a iron warrior player on a open board and he gets first turn you are likely to lose no matter how good you are.
If however you are useing guard and your opponent happens to have a siren lord you will likely lose no matter what.

I agre with Ruenion to some extent, IMO people should take hard armys, for example, 3 wrathlords, seer council, some min maxed guardians, or marines with some tornados, some min-maxed troops, maby terminators with assalt cannons or some tanks etc, these armys are hard yet balanced.
What I dont like is the armys which are so over the top in one area that they become paper siccor stone, for example 9 tornados or a 100 man seer council, these are the armys which make the game come down to what is in the army. However I fully support anyone to take these armys since it is there choice.

If I had my way the GT would be:

1 HQ
2 elites
4 troops
2 fast attack
2 heavy support

1,500points spent on the army.

I would also make sure that EVERY table had a balanced amount of terrain.

My solutions would remove factor one by makeing everyone take balancedish armys, and hopefully remove factor 3 and 4 by makeing the terrain fair. Leaveing factor 2, which is what it should be.

Cheers.


1) Space marine armoured companies



2) all infentry chaos



3) nid swarms



4) eldar starcannon ranger forces


These are not cheezy armies by any means. Just normal and in a few cases below par.

How true.....and I guess thats why these armys are placeing in the top ten of the UKGT.


He kinda gets picked on over at the Dakka forums

Only by mauleed, and who dosent? :p

Spell_of_Destruction
09-10-2005, 13:30
hmm, there no point refusing to play someone. Even if the list is "beardy" (i wonder how ppl actually know the true meaning of the word?) The only way you improve is by playing better people. Now i am not saying because the list is cheese that there better. But it does give you a dam gd insight on how people think and play. Use the experience for further games. Its very handy and helps you become a more tactical general so to say.

Maybe you have a point but I personally don't play 40k for these reasons. I'm not saying that tactics are irrelevant and I actually consider myself to be a decent player but if I wanted to take something to those extremes, I'll just play chess; a totally balanced (okay, white has an advantage) and 100% tactical game. I don't think 40k is supposed to be taken to those extremes.

I accept the point someone else made about competetive lists being useful for rules development, although I can also see this being of limited utility. I don't think the game should be balanced to take into account totally unfluffy armies that abuse the list. Of course, they should be eradicated if possible.

zealousheretic
09-10-2005, 17:41
On the contrary, the assumption that everyone will (or should) make the most destructive list possible, complete with endless number crunching over killing efficiency, is bad for the game and rules development.

"Well, an Eldar army as described in the background has a really hard time with Space Marines, but then again, an Eldar player can take an awful lot of starcannons, and then they have no problem with power armor. I guess they're balanced!"

What it can easily lead to is a situation in which a player must field some variation on an extreme army list to stand a chance. Why does nearly everyone agree the Eldar need a new book, if not because the most viable form of their list is a min-maxed starcannon battery?

Maybe that's an acceptable result to some folks, but one of the things I like about the 4th edition codexes so far is that they made a real effort to make more of the units in them viable, allowing people to make, and have fun with, the armies they want to make, instead of being restricted to about half of the list.