Topic: Cheese

[*Box*]

In your opinion which cheesy army is the best if two generals of same skill were fighting.

And what is the best non cheesey army list ie it is fluffy good mix of units no min/max.

[Halfpast_Yellow]

-Iron Warriors with maxed oblits and heavy support, 2 min maxed troop choices.
-Mech Eldar with 3 Holofielded grav tanks.
-Traited SMs with Assault cannons, librarians, 2 min-maxed troops.

Non-cheesy is any army that has a theme, puts a fair amount of points into troops, takes units because they look cool, are interesting, or fit the fluff of the army, not just because they kick ass. And no, assault cannons are not a 'theme'.

[Ianos Stormbringer]

There is no cheese, and even if it exists it cannot be determined.

[Lazarus]

There is no cheese, and even if it exists it cannot be determined.

What's interesting is that although many cannot agree on exactly what it is they certainly know it when they see it.....comp scoring is proof enough of that no6t to mention GW themselves acknowledge it.

Lazarus.

[Saldiven]

Hahah, funny, Laz.

It reminds me of the Senator a few decades back, during a debate about pornography, when asked to define pornography said he couldn't, but he'd know it if he saw it.

Sal.

[ultimabond]

lol of course there is cheese unless u think that 40k is a perfectly balanced game. i think the best way to see if an army is overpowered is to look at the top 10 places at major tournaments and see what armies keep popping up once u see the results of 4-5 major tournaments u start to see a patten with marines, chaos(they were 1st place in 3 out of 5 tourns i saw), nids, elder going very well and armies like gaurd and orks ranked further down.
i collect both nids and gaurd and nids are just plain better in about 70% of situations eg gaurd are good in missions were u can get away with just shooting and not moving then its reasonably even vs nids or elder such as seek and destroy or cleanse but are at a disadvantage in missions like take and hold or secure and control were nids and elder do just fine and have a major advantage with their speed and CC potential.

[The Reborn]

Beware though that you are not using ranking to find good players and not just cheesy lists....if a tourney has a few damn fine Ork players who finish highly, does not necessarily mean their lists were cheesy.
As Lazarus said, you know it when you see it.  Usually, a cheesed-up list will be one that min/maxes and abuses special rules and powerful choices for units and/or weaponry so that other lists are virtually beaten before the rolling starts.  Win at all costs power-mongered lists are tough to play and ultimately detract from the main idea of the game....to have fun.

There are a few lists floating about on the net that are cheesed-up, not hard to find, they attract the non-thinking gamer for whom the buck starts and ends with winning.  Such lists do away with tactics and substitute a one or two-dimensional plan which hardly ever fails due to the in-built strengths and unbalanced nature of the list.....friend of the immature gamer, these sort of lists ruin games, hamper fun.

Be afraid, be very afraid....

-Reborn.

[spiderbite]

There is no cheese, and even if it exists it cannot be determined.

Close. I would say that 'cheese' only exists if you want it to exist. It's all a state of mind.

[Deathklok]

I think cheese isn't defined by the list you paly against, its the army you play as well. If yo uhave an army that easily counters an "cheesy" army, you won't percieve it as cheesy. I love it when I see las/plas and devastators with lascannons all over the place, and hugely expensive assault squads. I play Eldar with few cheap vehicles and lots of troops, so every las out there is wasted usually. And My avatar loves expensive CC squads, they tasted like chicken!

[Naikee]

i feel cheese is completely going against the fluff. so lists like genestealers lists (i have one !) are not cheesy.

i can aslo justify 3 falcon lists as not being cheesy but being hard to face and pretty overpowering but defiantly not cheesy.

the iron warriors list i admit is cheesy but a cheesy lists are not always played by powergamers and some people have fluff reasons as to why their lists are overpowering.

[Farceseer Syranaul]

Cheesy is as cheesy does.

I'd say that it is the use and application of units and/or gear to an abusive extent.  Using all three heavy slots with falcons/whirlwinds/hammerheads/what-have-you are only examples.  In my eyes it is just pretty lame and unimaginative.

[The Reborn]

Agreed Siranaul.  It is patently clear that GW do make certain units better, more useful and more points/cost effective than others.  Every army has these units and you all know what they are, as i do.  It is taking an abundance of one thing or just a few things and minimising lesser-able things that streamlines an army toward powermongery.
Reducing unit choices and limiting individuality is a sure-fire way of spotting the onset of cheesitis.....bewar e for tis catching....

Many sufferers of Cheesitis mask its symptoms by attempting to categorise it as "fluff", but experts can usually see it for what it is.  As someone else noted, 18 assault cannons in one list is not, repeat NOT a theme......

"Look at my themed Ass-cannon army"..........hmmmm, look at my themed FIST.

-Reborn.

[rightfire]

In the game of Warhammer 40k, all the rules are listed in the big black book, the codexes, and some games workshop faqs.

There's no rules beyond that.

If someone spent time and effort, and figured out a powerful combination of units and upgrades, then by all means they should be able to use it.

It's a game after all. In chess, I rarely see people coment, "you can't use the Queen, it's TOO CHEESY"

Therefore, there's no extra rules beyond the codex, main rule book, and faqs.

Cheesy is subjective to people's opinions. I've long since realized that everyone's perception on the subject is different, and it's pointless to base YOUR army on other people's perceptions.

Every army in 40k can also be beaten, whether due to bad rolls, a counter unit, terrain, or deployment.

Every army is also themed to a certain extent.

I can see an 18 assault cannon army fit into a theme.

example,
Space marine sergeant:" You know what, I really like assault cannons, how about everyone take assault cannons today"
Space marines: " sure, why not"
--------------------------------------------------------------

So, Cheese is just a term made up by sore losers who can't stand losing.

If you lose to a powerful army,

You could do several things.

1. Make your own army better, look online for army lists for ideas, make your army much more powerful than before.

2. Make a counter army, find out your opponent's weakness. Ex. assault cannon Terminators are vulnerable to mounted daemonettes.

3. Whine about how cheesy your opponent's army is. In hope that you'll annoy him so much that he'll stop using it.

Therefore, cheesy is just a term made up by gamers that hate losing, but can't put in the time and effort to make a powerful army themselves.

[The OverLord]

I am forced, reluctantly, to take up the pen in defence of the term 'cheesiness' in order to defend it against those who would counter it's effects with protestations of their being 'no cheesiness', only a perception thereof.

To this, I would counter with the definition of 'cheesiness' to be an army list that is not 'enjoyable' to1 play against. Arguably, there are lists out there that do not contain, what we, as Warhammer 40K gamers, know to be an excessive number of overpowered units (we all know what they are, don't we?) and overall, we accept losing against them due to terrain/ superior tactics/luck and, well, that's life, eh? But those army lists that contain an excessive number of those overpowered units are not fun to play against because they rely less upon skill and more upon .... well, those overpowered units.

I myself am a Sisters Of Battle player, and would argue that three Exorcists would most certainly 'piss off' my opponent. Why? Because it is self-evident that it is an Exorcist is an over-powered unit (Here, many of my fellow Sister's players would argue that three is a necessity, not an option, but I would argue that two is quite enough) The same with any list. It is the amount of overpowered units in a list that defines it as 'cheesy' or not, and to those who would argue that such a list is perfectly 'legal', I would say that you are completely missing the point.

If you are in a gaming group that is perfectly happy with such a situation, I say, 'Good luck to you!' but for everyone else, 'cheesiness' is a term no-one likes to see but everyone knows ...

Don't abuse your army list, and remember: Three Exorcists are just for Tournaments, not for every day ...

- Rogue Trader (Hereticus Diabolus)

[spiderbite]

3. Whine about how cheesy your opponent's army is. In hope that you'll annoy him so much that he'll stop using it.

This is beautiful.

As it's been said already, 'cheese' is all a matter of opinion.

[Lazarus]

I've got no problem with "cheese" as long as everyone is doing it.....problem arises when everyone else is doing it while you are not. They have comp scoring in tourneys for a reason. If there was no cheese it would not be needed...

Lazarus.

[spiderbite]

I've got no problem with "cheese" as long as everyone is doing it.....problem arises when everyone else is doing it while you are not. They have comp scoring in tourneys for a reason. If there was no cheese it would not be needed...

Lazarus.

All this means (to me anyway) is that people are solely interested in winning and have no imagination. To me the fun is experimenting and utilizing as many facets of the army as possible. But hey, the so called 'cheese' is the only way for some players to have any fun (or win).  I think the comp scoring is there so that not every army is exactly the same.   

[Spyke]

First off, I'm gonna have to jump on the "cheese is basically a lack of creativity" band wagon. Sure "cheesy" armies are legal and you are more than welcome to play with them. But, if no one likes playing with you, is it worth it to win a few games? I would say no, but that's me. I would also go and say that these uncreative armies are not that fun to play. One of the coolest things (to me) about 40k is the wide variety of units, armies, and options. By finding the one or two things that are best and just taking a bunch, all you really want to do is roll dice and tell someone you're better than them, not really play a game. Sure, bring your cheesed out army to the tournament with you, show everyone you've found the little secret they haven't and win with it if that's what really gets you off. But, when you start slamming newbie kids into the ground with your 3 Monoliths you really have to stop and think "Am I a jerk?" Actually coming up with effective strategies and tactics is the most fun part of the game, not having an unbeatable list. Sadly, any cheesed out army is usually wielded by a player who's going to rub in your face how much of a greater player he is than you every time he wins. In fact, such a list usually indicates a player who is not the best and cannot win a game via strategy or creativity, but must rely on a list (that he probably didn't even write, I mean they are online lol). Anyway, I may be understandably bitter having seen some "cheesy" armies used to an upsetting extent. That 3 Monoliths on a newbie story wasn't made up. The kid just left and quit playing forever. It's great if you can make such a list, but remember than enjoying yourself and making a few friends along the way is also a good thing. I dare say, more important than winning.  

[Andro Ist Keine Schwedischen]

Cheese isn't powergaming, though the two can often go hand in hand.  Cheese is going against the background of your army to gain advantages and minimise inbuilt weaknesses.

Examples of cheese:

Tyranids with 2 Hive Tyrants in a small (1500 or less) game.  In the background it is stated that more then one Tyrant is rarely seen, compared to the far more numerous Warriors.  Of which I rarely see.

Eldar with more then one unit of Harlequins.  These are supposed to be a rare and illusive faction of Eldar, only appearing to aid Craftworlders when it suits their agenda.  So why do I see three units in alot of armies, riding along in Falcons?

Space Marines with no Tactical Squads.  It just doesn't happen in the background.

More then one Basilisk in an Imperial Guard army.  I'm sorry, but I just can't justify that much long range artillary in an infantry company.

Demolishers in Armoured Companies.  Considering they are supposed to be attached perminantly to infantry formations, why would they be in an armoured spearhead without their infantry?

Any Imperial Army taking an Inquisitor just to get an Assassin.  And then not even bothering to equip him.

The list goes on.  Not all of them are power armies, but they all break the background.

~Andromidius

[*Box*]

Ok I know this isn't probably possible but I was thinking.

In the card game Magic the Gathering (I know they're not really alike) I used to play a deck that was considered cheap (Affinity if anyone knows what that is, probably do) so Wizards or whoever banned the cards that made the deck good from tournaments.

Do you think GW could disqualify an army if it got low enough comp score