PDA

View Full Version : Powergaming?? Chesy?? Beardy??



chabamkazam
05-12-2005, 00:35
Ok I wanted to start a new post as to where does the Powergaming/Cheesyness/Beardiness start? When is a Tactical squad to small to have a missile launcher and melta gun? Why shouldn't Eldar be allowed 2 or 3 Wraithlords, even though they are required those extra squads? Why shouldnt I be allowed to make an entire army out of battle suits and 2 minimum sized fire warrior squads?

I was just thinking we should make a list of where too much is too much.:cheese:

AgentZero
05-12-2005, 00:40
Obviously:min/maxing.
It's not even a question.

darghan
05-12-2005, 00:48
I think that public perception and possibly good taste is the answer here. Anything that's likely to frustrate your opponent to a great extent (and thus ruin the aim of the game, namely mutual fun) will be christened any of the less than complimentary names you mention.

I don't think wargaming lends itself very well to competitive play. There are simply to many variables, and more importantly more different attitudes amongst players, to make it a very competitive. Even tournaments, the name invoking a sense of competition, draw a very diverse crowd.

People all seem to have very different attitudes to what's fair and what's not. The internet community focusses the general opinion of what 'cheese' is. I'd say your best bet is to design a list that you'd like to play against. unless your tastes are very masochistic, you should be alright.

Minister
05-12-2005, 00:55
Opinion: Any Marine squad with heavy and special weapon which is not at full strength is cheesy.

Discuss.

Ouroboros
05-12-2005, 01:22
Not powergaming: I want a compotent army sure but I'm going to put in a few of these units because I like painting them and I think they're cool.

Powergaming: I want to put in these units/use this army but I better go and start a thread on dakka first to see if they're "competitive" enough before I do.

RdDragon5
05-12-2005, 01:22
@ Minister - So then in your opinion an 8 man stong Tactical squad with a missile lancher and a plasma gun (or even a flamer) is cheesy? I for one sware by 8 man squads. Also what if you want them to have a razorback, then you can only max out to 6 marines.

In my personal opinion something min/maxed by itself isn't cheesy (with maybe the exception of the daemon prince of doom). It is only when this min/maxing occurs throught the list. So a 5 man las/plas squad isn't cheesy, but 6 are.

But hey thats just my toonie's worth.

Occulto
05-12-2005, 01:37
Well if you find yourself choosing an army purely on the basis of it's stats, you're probably entering power gaming territory.

It's what I like to call the "Assault Cannon" mentality. If one assault cannon is good, then "obviously" that the "best" army will have as many assault cannons in it as humanly possible.

Who cares if it's about as interesting as a box of A4 paper? The power gamer applauds such a list because it's so brutal isn't it?

Strikerkc
05-12-2005, 01:45
To me, cheese and beardy depends more on the circumnces than the list. If your just down at your local indy store or GW, then you should try to kep your list balanced, especialy against new people untill you each get the feel for each other's play levels. Especialy true against those that you know are new to the game.

On the other hand, I'm a part of a fairly competative "prepare for tourny" type players. We tone it down against new players, but against each other any thing goes, it's about trying to pound the other guy into the dirt. Since we're to the point where we need that to actualy improve.

Kahadras
05-12-2005, 02:26
Powergaming and Cheese exist. Some may deny this but most people seem to agree that they do exist and are part of the game today. There is a thin red line between a 'good' and a 'cheese' list. People have different idea about what a cheesy army is or what powergaming constitutes as. Personaly I go by my own code and I make my decisions on whether an army is cheesy or not without imput from others.
We also have to remember that cheese and powergaming to not constitute as cheating (although again there is a fine line and they are very much in the grey area. In tournament play I don't really care what people do as I don't bother attending; but the annoying thing is when they start showing up outside tournaments. Some clubs I have visited (briefly) seem to assume it is the norm nowadays while others are dead set against it.
What I do think is that you should not deliberatly play a powergamed army against a list that has been set up as a balanced force. There are of course exceptions to this tenament (as there always are). One guy in our club could not play for toffee so more lee way was allowed for him when he brought in his armies. I was quite prepared to face a min/maxed, heavy firepower army as we could still have a fair game.
The main problem I have with cheese is the genericness of it. There seems to be little inovation in the world of the powergamer. The same lists pop up again and again and after a while it just gets a bit silly. If people do insist on building these lists why not at least go for some originality. When will they realise that the How many Starcannon, Assault cannon, Pie plates can I fit in my army theme has worn very thin.
The worst thing is that is infectious and can spread though a gaming group very quickly with people in an arms race as it where to build the 'best' list possible not realising they have lost sight of what 40K is ment to be about i.e fun.
Well this is turning into an essay but I'll close with this. Its your choice. If you want to power game, fine. If you want to build min maxed cheesefest, fine. However if someone turns you down for a game on the basis of your list or calls it cheese you really cannot complain.

Kahadras

Amon Ra
05-12-2005, 02:29
Strikerkc has hit it on the head. Powergaming is dependent on the environment.

If its competitive, then all's fair.

If its a casual group, then min/maxing COULD BE Powergaming.

Icarus
05-12-2005, 02:48
There are some armies which are obviously powergaming, and it can be a real pain in the ****. But really I think its a term that gets thrown around too much. A GW employee once told me my army was beardy because I took a unit of Bloodletters in my Word Bearers army! Obviously thats an extreme example, but some people are prone to crying 'cheese' just cause they got beat by a decent army.

And honestly, I'd rather have a game where some people can take advantage of a few rules, rather than a completely fair balanced game where no army is exceptional, because at that point the whole game becomes boring.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 03:01
The only people who have ever accused me of being cheesy are people who couldn't beat me. When those same people do beat me, the subject never comes up.

Odd.

cailus
05-12-2005, 05:59
Powergaming and Cheese exist. Some may deny this but most people seem to agree that they do exist and are part of the game today. There is a thin red line between a 'good' and a 'cheese' list. People have different idea about what a cheesy army is or what powergaming constitutes as. Personaly I go by my own code and I make my decisions on whether an army is cheesy or not without imput from others.
We also have to remember that cheese and powergaming to not constitute as cheating (although again there is a fine line and they are very much in the grey area. In tournament play I don't really care what people do as I don't bother attending; but the annoying thing is when they start showing up outside tournaments. Some clubs I have visited (briefly) seem to assume it is the norm nowadays while others are dead set against it.
What I do think is that you should not deliberatly play a powergamed army against a list that has been set up as a balanced force. There are of course exceptions to this tenament (as there always are). One guy in our club could not play for toffee so more lee way was allowed for him when he brought in his armies. I was quite prepared to face a min/maxed, heavy firepower army as we could still have a fair game.
The main problem I have with cheese is the genericness of it. There seems to be little inovation in the world of the powergamer. The same lists pop up again and again and after a while it just gets a bit silly. If people do insist on building these lists why not at least go for some originality. When will they realise that the How many Starcannon, Assault cannon, Pie plates can I fit in my army theme has worn very thin.
The worst thing is that is infectious and can spread though a gaming group very quickly with people in an arms race as it where to build the 'best' list possible not realising they have lost sight of what 40K is ment to be about i.e fun.
Well this is turning into an essay but I'll close with this. Its your choice. If you want to power game, fine. If you want to build min maxed cheesefest, fine. However if someone turns you down for a game on the basis of your list or calls it cheese you really cannot complain.

Kahadras

I agree with this.

Power gamer armies are the most boring armies to play against as they are repetitive.

Brother Noirceuil
05-12-2005, 07:28
Opinion: Any Marine squad with heavy and special weapon which is not at full strength is cheesy.

Discuss.

Someone has to come up with a definitive meaning for "cheesy". That way we can all carry on a discussion with a common frame of reference.

I think "power-gaming" is a term that lends itself more easily to a commonly accepted definition. We all know players who design particularly tough army lists that are designed to mercilessly crush all other armies. These usually defy what we expect to see of that army, based on the army fluff. Yet this is not always the case.

I think that over time, players begin to develop certain standards that they strive to maintain and expect others to meet. For instance, the person who introduced me to the hobby has certain minimum standards he lives by without expection.

1. He will never field any unit that is not completely painted.
2. He will never field a model that is not WYSIWYG.
3. He will never field the minimum number of models required in an infantry unit. He will usually field the maximum (i.e. 10-man tactical squad, never a 5-man tactical squad).

4. He will rarely every field an army list that is over-powered.

I should explain #4.

In an 1850 point Necron list, most players accept a single Monlith as a reasonable inclusion. A pair of Monoliths might be seen as excessive and three of them would be an example of a horribly unbalanced list. Throw in a C'tan and 2 10-man squads of Necron Warriors and you have what he would probably call a "cheesy" list. He would never do this.

Before any of you mention how vulnerable to phase-out this list would be, consider for a moment, that the 2 10-man Necron Warrior squads will remain behind cover the entire game. Unless you have a squad of Space Wolf scouts or something comparable, these units will remain unscathed while the C'tan and trio of Monoliths wipe the table clean of the opposing army.

An 1850 point Space Marine army entirely mounted in drop pods could be seen as an equally over-powered list. After losing horribly against 2 such armies in the 2005 Seattle GT, he decided to dilute his own Drop Pod army a bit to keep it more "balanced". Now he fields a varying combination of drop pods, tanks, infantry mounted in APCs, and infiltrating infantry.

Iron Warriors is another army that I often read about being a potential over-powered list with all of the heavy weaponry that can be fielded in a 1850 point army list. I know a very competent Iron Warriors player who fields a relatively balanced list and remains very competitive. I always expect to see four Heavy Support choices on the table, but these are always balanced out by tactical squads with 10-20 models in each.

Do I think a min/max'd 5-man Tactical squad with 1 special/1 heavy weapon "cheesy".

No. (However, the player I mentioned above sure would.)

Kahadras
05-12-2005, 07:59
IMO is perfectly OK to have five man squads of marines. The codex astartes lays the tenament down of spliting the squad up into two fire teams. The problem comes when the fire teams that people bring to each battle seems to be the one thats half inched the special AND the heavy weapon from the squad. There is now a fire team of five marine wandering round with just bolters (and concidering the amount of 5 man laz/plas I have seen this is not a rare occurence).
I don't mind different sizes of squads. Marines take casualties same as anybody but I do get fed up with the fire team with all the firepower idea that is popular in certain circles right now. One of the best ideas for an army I ever heard about was a guy who randomly rolled up his sqaud size and randomly rolled up what equipment they had (if any). It was a great way of showing what a Marine chapter might look like after it had been in the field for a few weeks or had just been through an epic battle. Now that was cool, won't win him as may games as a 5 man laz/plas squad army will, but his idea gets my vote.

Kahadras

Brother Noirceuil
05-12-2005, 08:11
There are some armies which are obviously powergaming, and it can be a real pain in the ****.

Any examples? I am truly curious :)



But really I think its a term that gets thrown around too much. A GW employee once told me my army was beardy because I took a unit of Bloodletters in my Word Bearers army! Obviously thats an extreme example, but some people are prone to crying 'cheese' just cause they got beat by a decent army.

For the most part, I agree with you here. From first hand experience, I have witnessed players utter that word after their opponent unleashed something particularly devastating, but entirely legal and a special feature of that army.

In another instance, I witnessed a player virtually ostracized after acquiring a reputation for fielding army lists that took ruthless advantage of all of the special units, rules, and wargear of a particular codex. His lists would be so powerful, his opponents would find themselves tactically crushed before the turn 3. This aptitude for building powerful lists combined with an acutely competitive personality, led to less and less players willing to play against him.

Is this an example of poor sportsmanship on the part of the alleged "power gamer" or those who felt he was fielding "cheesy" lists?



And honestly, I'd rather have a game where some people can take advantage of a few rules, rather than a completely fair balanced game where no army is exceptional, because at that point the whole game becomes boring.

I agree with part of what you say here.

I like the idea of exceptional armies with different special rules and distinct themes, such as the bloodthirsty berserkers of a Khorne army or the hedonistic raiders of a Dark Eldar army.

I have come to expect certain match-ups where one army will outshoot the other, while the other will outperform it in close combat. This is normal and creates an interesting situation where each player has to come up with tactics to compensate for the apparent weaknesses of their army in relation to their opponent's. This makes for a fun experience, in so far as that goes.

However, nothing takes the joy out of a game faster than when you are so obviously outclassed by both the composition of your opponent's army and the relative tactical skill of your opponent.

There are obvious permutations to this that would literally leech out the fun from the experience.

If I realize that I have absolutely no chance of winning early on, or my opponent feels that way, then that does not so much become boring; but it becomes the antithesis of what the game is supposed to be.

Brother Noirceuil
05-12-2005, 08:18
IMO is perfectly OK to have five man squads of marines. The codex astartes lays the tenament down of spliting the squad up into two fire teams. The problem comes when the fire teams that people bring to each battle seems to be the one thats half inched the special AND the heavy weapon from the squad. There is now a fire team of five marine wandering round with just bolters (and concidering the amount of 5 man laz/plas I have seen this is not a rare occurence).

This is first time I have ever heard this reason for disliking the min/max'd SM tactical squad. It is probably the fluffiest and most interesting :D



I don't mind different sizes of squads. Marines take casualties same as anybody but I do get fed up with the fire team with all the firepower idea that is popular in certain circles right now. One of the best ideas for an army I ever heard about was a guy who randomly rolled up his sqaud size and randomly rolled up what equipment they had (if any). It was a great way of showing what a Marine chapter might look like after it had been in the field for a few weeks or had just been through an epic battle. Now that was cool, won't win him as may games as a 5 man laz/plas squad army will, but his idea gets my vote.

That seems like a very realistic way to manage a min/max'd SM tactical unit. It also provides a random element before every game, which sounds like a great way for a veteran player to introduce a bit of a handicap for himself if he tends to easily beat his opponents. It also answers the common gripe about fielding min/max'd squads.

fubukii
05-12-2005, 08:25
Alot of people tend to cry cheese when something beats them, so the term gets mis used alot.

A cheesey player would be one who maxes out on elite and heavy units while taking 2 min troops. Also some unbalacned/overpowered units are considered cheese if taken in bulk (wraithlords, falcons, hammerheads :x). In closing 9 oblit4defiler IWS, daemon bombs, and other such lists would be cheesey

Brother Noirceuil
05-12-2005, 08:29
The only people who have ever accused me of being cheesy are people who couldn't beat me. When those same people do beat me, the subject never comes up.

Odd.

Perhaps, their idea of "cheesy" is whatever they cannot easily counter in terms of army composition or tactics.

Once they figure out the right combination of army list and tactics, your list no longer warrants the notorious title of "cheesy".

Kahadras
05-12-2005, 08:30
"Is this an example of poor sportsmanship on the part of the alleged "power gamer" or those who felt he was fielding "cheesy" lists?"

It all depends on the situation. If he wants to win really badly at the expence of others enjoyment then yes it is his fault. If he was reasonable he could ask people what was wrong, rectify his list and would probably still go on to win (if he was that good, tacticaly speaking). People can no longer cry cheese at his army as it is so blatently balanced and moderate. The most vital thing to do is make sure the other person has fun. No one enjoys being flattened every week and this leads to people stopping playing with you faster than powergaming or cheesy armies will.
This is of course then balanced by the people who cry cheese no matter what the circumstances. Its just a way for them to feel better about the fact that they lost. A good example of this was a while ago when I was playing Blood Angels. Yup they have a reputation and I got accused of cheese from the get go (he had yet to see my army which consisted of full strength tactical squads with heavy weapons, one assault squad, a Baal, a Landspeeder and a command squad in Rhino). All in all a very reasonable army and he soon shut up after I asked him exactly what part of the army was cheesy (no huge Death company, no maxed out Honour Guard, no five man scout squads etc etc etc)

Kahadras

Brother Noirceuil
05-12-2005, 08:32
A cheesey player would be one who maxes out on elite and heavy units while taking 2 min troops. Also some unbalacned/overpowered units are considered cheese if taken in bulk (wraithlords, falcons, hammerheads :x). In closing 9 oblit4defiler IWS, daemon bombs, and other such lists would be cheesey

fubukii:

This is an excellent and definitive explanation of what is "cheesy".

Finally, something I can apply when I see something that *feels* unbalanced, but I cannot quite put my finger on why.

Thanks :)

Hokkaido23
05-12-2005, 08:47
Theres alot to be said for this topic. As a veteran tournament player, I can say with certainty that I can accept any army that is legal as per the relevant codex. Fluff, while nice, cannot always be expected and in tournaments I dont expect it at all. I get irritated by armies that overuse one particular weapon or unit (overabundance of Tau missiles that dont need LOS are one such example, grrr) but if its legal I have no room to bitch.

Any list can be balanced, and any list can be specialised in a certain direction, ranging from mild to extreme. Alot of extremely specialised lists, what people often term 'cheesy', are designed to do one thing and do it very well. The plan for that army hinges on its specialisation and it is up to the opponent to nullify that by 1) not fighting in a way that caters to that specialisation, i.e. avoiding cc or hugging cover or whatever; or 2) fighting against the army's weakness -- assaulting a shooty IW army. If you cannot do this, it is not the fault of the list you played against. It is your obligation to fight on your own terms and not allow your opponent to dictate how you fight your battle. I have played against armies like this and been at a severe disadvantage; some of these games have been my greatest victories where I was forced to innovate and challenge myself to win against the odds. Some of these games have been hideous losses but I can look back at it and say, 'next time I will try this'. In the end, I become a better player.

So many times -- too many times -- there is often an outcry of 'cheese' when facing certain lists:
"The IW had 4 heavies and six 5 man las plas squads AND a daemon prince; that is cheese."
"The Blood Angel had min size scout squads and a huge Death Company, that is cheese".
"The Eldar player had 5 man guardian squads with Starcannons, that is cheese".
Therein lies the difference -- these lists are legal. You had just as much opportunity to take these so-called broken lists, then the battle would have been even. I will admit some do not find it fun to play against these types of armies, and thats 100% acceptable. Everyone has to find their 'sweet spot' between story driven fluff armies and min max win at all costs armies, and if you dont like someone's style then tell them why and dont play them. Dont bitch about cheese.

Same goes for rules that are often exploited. One I hear about often now is the interspersed units that disallow assaults. I am sometimes guilty of complaining about people taking advantage of rules that are worded poorly or exploiting loopholes, but once again the rules allow people to do things like this. In a tourney, you can call for a judge but oftentimes their hands are tied. In a friendly setting, you have the option of saying 'ya know what, I dont like the way you play' and walking away. No one can say a damn thing to you if youre getting what you want from the game, and if you having fun is walking away and finding a more agreeable opponent then you are 100% entitled to do so and to hell with anyone who disagrees. However, crying cheese is not acceptable to me as long as rules are not being broken. No one has the right to dictate how I play the game, whether Im the nicest most sporting guy on the planet or TFG who is totally unbearable.

Kahadras
05-12-2005, 08:57
"Therein lies the difference -- these lists are legal."

All cheese lists are legal. Thats the problem. Its the twisting of the whole list concept into something that it was not ment to be. Peter Hains and Gav Thorpe has little concept of what would happen to their army lists when some people got their hands on it.
Power gamers don't cheat. If they did cheat then they are cheaters and deserve everything they get. Cheese does not really exist as a concept in tournaments as well due to the fact that everybody seesm to be building armies like these nowadays.
Where cheese does exist is outside tournments in clubs and gaming rooms where it bring the WAAC spirit to places where it has no business being. Even having said that my problem is with the boring generic lists which seem to turn up all the time now. People who lean towards powergaming always seem to end up taking similar list to each other, Eldar Starcannon heavy, Iron warriors of min/max pieplateing etc etc.

Kahadras

Hokkaido23
05-12-2005, 09:48
All cheese lists are legal. Thats the problem. Its the twisting of the whole list concept into something that it was not ment to be. Peter Hains and Gav Thorpe has little concept of what would happen to their army lists when some people got their hands on it.
I hardly think it fair for you to suppose a 'cheesy' list is not what was intended. As an example, take Brother Edwin. 90% of the people on this forum vilify him for the lists he creates and the strategies he sets down, but I have yet to see him come up with something that was illegal as per the rules. Make no mistake, I would not want to play him because I dont think it would be fun but I cannot simply dismiss him because his list does not fit my preconcieved notion of what the eldar list 'should be'. For all we know, he thinks that about all of you. Who is to say one is right over the other?



Power gamers don't cheat. If they did cheat then they are cheaters and deserve everything they get.
Agreed, with the addendum that more than a few power gamers dont cheat not because its wrong, but because they cant without being caught.


Cheese does not really exist as a concept in tournaments as well due to the fact that everybody seesm to be building armies like these nowadays.
Agreed again. The basic concept of a (good) tournament mandates you take the strongest list possible to have a hope of winning. I will be the first to say the tourney scene is not for everyone, and theres no shame in not wanting to put up with alot of what goes on at a tournament, most of which would not be considered 'fun'.


Where cheese does exist is outside tournments in clubs and gaming rooms where it bring the WAAC spirit to places where it has no business being. Even having said that my problem is with the boring generic lists which seem to turn up all the time now. People who lean towards powergaming always seem to end up taking similar list to each other, Eldar Starcannon heavy, Iron warriors of min/max pieplateing etc etc.
It would be nice if, in a perfect world, we could get rid of the overarching drive to win in settings like the gaming rooms where the object should be a fun game. However, that cant be the case. At my store there are those who want to win win win all the time, and those who want a more relaxed atmosphere. After a game or two, its easy to separate them into their respective camps and decide who you want to associate with. The most important point to remember is, get what you want from the game, whatever that may be. Play a campaign, lay down rules restricting what you can take in your army, find the people who share your views and game with them exclusively -- just remember that theres always people out there who feel the opposite.

Eisenhorn
05-12-2005, 10:49
well if find this thread very interesting and u guys have lots of points.

i thought that i might bring this forward to u if u havent already seen it
http://us.games-workshop.com/e-zine/issues/blackgobbo-02/cheese/default.htm
it is a chees article by the us.web team done wayback in black gobbo 2

Kahadras
05-12-2005, 11:05
"Who is to say one is right over the other?"

When in doubt look at the fluff is my motto. Lets have an example. Eldar Wraithlords. The Eldar view the process of creating one as being the human equivalent of digging up dead children and then molesting them (not a pleasant image). From this I take that Eldar are not to keen to use them so why do three keep showing up to battles? I could understand if it was Iyandan as they don't have any other option but Ulthwe?
The main problem people seem to have with BE is his total disregard for anybodies elses ideas. He posts armies up then refuses to accept any criticism about them even when it is constructive. In some ways he exemplifies the qualities that many people see in powergamers as people who use the fluff mearly to provide an excuse (It was a Wraithlord convention on the day of the battle)
I accept there are people out there who get upset when they are called powergamers and their armies cheese but these kind of armies need to be left at tournaments where they belong. There will always two sides to each arguement and I am quite happy to say that I support balanced armies over 'maximised' lists and fluff over 'gameplay'

Kahadras

jigplums
05-12-2005, 13:29
fluff is totally objective though, and many people make their objections not knowing exactly what the fluff of another's army is. why are 3 wraithlords for example more unfluffy than 3 drednoughts? many think the avatar AND farseers are unfluffy in aliatoc but that Kharandras is accepetable which is absolutely obsurd to me. What i don't like is people who take max-ed out lists then sit their looking all dumbfounded when they get it handed to them by an army they don't consider as efficient as theirs.

Orbital
05-12-2005, 13:42
jigplums: If the fluff for one army says that their Dreadnought (whatever form it may take) is a rare and infrequently seen unit, while the fluff for another army says that no force is complete without their Dreadnought... you can see how fluff would have an impact on army lists. It's not that subjective, really.

jigplums
05-12-2005, 13:54
it also says marine squads come in 10's and everyone has its own rhion[including devastators] how many 10man dev squads with a rhino do you see? is every marine list therefore un-fluffy?

Personally i dont use three wraithlord however i dont see it as being unjustifiable fluff wise. There is only 1 avatar in any craftworld so it is Hugely unlikely u would see 1 in an army. A marine commander, libriarian, chaplain etc are also very rare but a 40k army represents an elite strike force doing battle in one important engagement along a whole battlefront spanning probably and entire continent. It would still be VERY infrequently seen as about 50 guys out of say a million would see the three wraithlords, and only the survivours would repor on what they say. That said there would likely be 1 drednought in each engagement along the whole marine line supporting there troops. Also marines themselves are very rare representing a tiny proportion of the imperiums forces.

the fact is ONLY what people perceive as powerful units are considered un-fluffy. Anything else people call a THEME like for example if some took 3 units of singing spears as there fast attack choices.

Yodhrin
05-12-2005, 15:36
People can deny the existance of cheese all they want, the simple fact is: it exists.

I do, however, agree with the sentiment that if you dont like it, dont play it. I always finish games I begin out of courtesy, but if someone plays in a manner which I dislike, I thank them for the game and politely inform them after why I wont play them again.

Power gaming is really dependant on the setting. If a group of friends wish to challenge themselves as much as possible, then power gaming really doesnt exist, the aim of the game is to defeat your opponant in any way possible. If, however, a group enjoys playing fluffy lists in campaign settings, for example, and a player were to repeatedly bring min-maxed lists designed to steamroller opposition, or tailors his list before every game, that would be power gaming.

Cheese, however, is not a subjective term. You can quite easily define whether or not something is cheesy by looking at two things: conventions laid down by the rest of the army and the game in general, and the background for the army(with the second qualifier being overruled by the first). The definintion itself would probably be "any combination of units and/or items which, by the standard set by the rest of the army and the game in general, would not have been permitted to pass through official playtesting unaltered".

Stu
05-12-2005, 15:46
I think that fluff can't be taken as a basis for army composition being that eldar are a good exemple with only Farseers and Avatar as HQ.
I think that it as already been told in this forum yet I'll say it again the problem is not the army composition it's the attitude of the opponent, exemple one of my best friend plays with the Tau Battlesuits of Pain and Destruction and of Evil and ugly shootiness (aka 2*6 firewarriors and the rest of his army is composed of battlesuits including 2 crisis HQ+bodyguards) it is a cheesy list who has nothing to do with the fluff created for the tau yet I still play against him because of his attitude.
The opposite would be a guy I knew that assumed the following position "I only play in tournaments with prize money" who had a SW army that was balanced, yet his attitude sucked and I hated playing him even if I won.
Another thing that has been said before and needs to be repeated is if you have a cheese player in your club don't play him until he learns to play with balanced armies, however don't forget to talk to him and explain why people are avoiding playing with him for him to understand the reason.
Finally I think a good rule of thumb or two good rules of thumb to see if an army is cheesy are:
-if the army maxs out in heavy support/Elite/Fast attack while using min troops.
-if the army wins games always in the same way without a proper strategy existing only relying in the amount of dice rolled in shooting or cc.
Perhaps this idea of a definition (even if broad) would help this discussion and managers of gaming clubs to avoid this game becoming more and more a cold war like someone (in a very good comparison) put it.

Jonathan =I=
05-12-2005, 16:10
Well I for one dont believe in cheesy units only cheesy armies.

For example 1 wraithlord is not cheesy and niether are 3 of them.

But when you combine those 3 Wraithlords with a 24 man Seer councel and min sized gaurdian units with 14 starcannons in the army.
You then have a cheesy army.

Some armies such as Tau are very hard to cheese out due to effective army balencing during its design. 3 Hammerheads and a whole lot of stealth suits are not cheesy, as they have too many counters.

More examples

6 oblitertors in an Iron Warriors army are not cheesy. But having nine Obliterators 3 defilers and a Basilisk with min sized Marine squads is.

Its important to know what cheese is, and not take the extent that it covers too far.

marv335
05-12-2005, 16:25
on occasion i get called a "cheesy bearded up powergamer" due to the fact that i like to field my land speeder tornado squadron where possible. it's a crimson fist army and i only get two fast attack choices. so i usually have one of these and an assault squad.
i don't think i'm playing broken lists, but there you go. cheese tends to be in the eyes of the defeated player.
cheese is a perception.
an army list i may think is fluffy and balanced can be broken and overpowered to another player. it just depends on how badly you beat them.

my_name_is_tudor
05-12-2005, 16:32
You know what would help with any potential marine power gaming? Bringing back one little bit of old marine fluff.

the Tactical squad and the Combat squad.

The entry would be changed to have a unit size of 10, no more, no less. And the special rules would mention that each tactical squad can be split into two combat squads, for deployment, but that no combat squad may have a heavy and special weapon.

Done, no min/maxing.

CrimsonTider
05-12-2005, 16:38
I agree with Marv335 a great bit. My army list is maxed out on FA (I play Blood Angels) I do take only two scout squads, but they are 10 man squads with fully equipped vet sgts. I have seen the 6 scout squads with 5 men each and a naked vet sgt played with two chaplains to max out the Death Company. Tried it myself, did not like it as it was a one trick pony. I just like the idea of my Blood Angel army list all being equipped with jump packs, leaping and bounding across the field to get to grips with the enemy. Is it "cheesy"? Depends on your point of view. I do not think it is, nor do many of my regular opponents. However, some who have played me and lost explained that they thought it was a cheesy list. I am not a powergamer, I do not need to win to have fun. Actually, some of the best games I have played are games I have lost.

marv335
05-12-2005, 17:38
i have firm rules for squad comp.
tactical squads have one vet sgt/special weapon/heavy weapon per ten marines.
devastator squads have 4 heavy weapons/1 vet sgt per 10 marines.

so five devastators = 2 heavy weapons.
tac squads are split into assault and fire support sections. assault gets the special weapon and vet sgt. fire support gets a heavy weapon and a squad leader (non vet sgt).

Orbital
05-12-2005, 18:12
it also says marine squads come in 10's and everyone has its own rhion[including devastators] how many 10man dev squads with a rhino do you see? is every marine list therefore un-fluffy?

Personally i dont use three wraithlord however i dont see it as being unjustifiable fluff wise. There is only 1 avatar in any craftworld so it is Hugely unlikely u would see 1 in an army.

I see eye to eye with you on this.

Does the codex really say that Devastators should come with their own rhino?

Ludo
05-12-2005, 18:18
I've never understood min/max'd squads. Not because of any 'cheeseyness', rather because they're easier to kill as they have less men. I always take full squads wherever possible, it ensures my army stays alive longer.
Up to the end of 3rd edition I played 2nd Company Ultramarines. Stopped playing when 4th ed. first came in for various reasons, and am now thinking of starting up again with 9th company Ultramarines. My rationale for this was that it suits my 'game plan' more. I don't like things getting up close and personal as my most regular opponent was an Ork player who liked his large squads of Orks and always ended up getting beaten due to being swamped and slightly superior tactics. Is taking the 9th company cheesey? No more than taking multiple large squads of Ork boys. No-one thinks twice about 6 squads of 20 Orks charging at you. It's what they do. Why should any other army be treated differently?

marv335
05-12-2005, 18:19
no, it says they may use a rhino. just as any marine squad may.