Topic: So what do you define as "Cheesy"

[Dunedain]

So i was having a discussion with some people on another forum that sparked a heated debate. There was a guy who was putting together a mechaized eldar list that he planned to field a jetbike seer council in. When he went to his local store to purchase the models, he was told that he would not be allowed to play the council there because "It is too damned cheesy"

I naturally agreed with the guy and said he should be allowed to play whatever he wished as long as it was legal, but another guy disagreed and sided with the store owner who had banned the council from being played.


Now, my outlook on these matters is generally that Cheese is the battlecry of the unprepared. I mean, there is no unit/model that cannot be defeated. The seer council in particular isn't that bad as it tends to cost alot and isn't all that killy. Yes, the attacks wound on a 2+ and generally hit on 4s, but they allow both armor and invln saves, so i don't see them as that much of a problem. Yes, the have a rerollable 4+ invln with fortune, but there are ways of stooping them/destroying them.

Whats you opinions on matters like these? Do you believe that certain units/army builds/ characters are too competitive to be used in normal everyday Gaming?

[Raktra (So long, I guess)]

I've managed to annoy a lot of people who literally shout cheese by calling them beslubbering morons, but I stand by that statement. Calling it cheesy or the like as a complaint is just stupid in my opinion. If you're afraid oft he unit or can't deal with it, then avoid it as best you can.

Really, I don't view "cheesy units" as a huge problem.

[Dunedain]

Aye, my thoughts are similar. i mean, we all have units that are hard to face with our armies, but complaining about them and banning them from play won't help anything. Good tactics and units might, but whining won't.

[Gornon]

Honestly, it depends on the casual gaming environment you are in.  If you are playing with a bunch of newer players or in an environment that is not ultra-competitive, then yeah, I would call bringing a Seer Council cheesy.  Though, the term 'rude' is a better choice.  If you are bringing a powerful list to an area where powerful lists are rare then I would recommend not doing it.  If you are in a competitive area, bring your best.  All Codices seem to have one or two really, really good units, so I don't begrudge my opponent's bringing there best.

[Awfully Dandy]

Honestly, it depends on the casual gaming environment you are in.  If you are playing with a bunch of newer players or in an environment that is not ultra-competitive, then yeah, I would call bringing a Seer Council cheesy.  Though, the term 'rude' is a better choice.  If you are bringing a powerful list to an area where powerful lists are rare then I would recommend not doing it.  If you are in a competitive area, bring your best.  All Codices seem to have one or two really, really good units, so I don't begrudge my opponent's bringing there best.

That's entirely my view. You have to go with the existing culture. If an ork player takes flashgits and the guard player uses a penal legion army then rolling up with your lash prince and tvindicator list might seem a bit excessive. However if your opponents simply want hard lists then go for it.

[Dunedain]

Honestly, it depends on the casual gaming environment you are in.  If you are playing with a bunch of newer players or in an environment that is not ultra-competitive, then yeah, I would call bringing a Seer Council cheesy.  Though, the term 'rude' is a better choice.  If you are bringing a powerful list to an area where powerful lists are rare then I would recommend not doing it.  If you are in a competitive area, bring your best.  All Codices seem to have one or two really, really good units, so I don't begrudge my opponent's bringing there best.

Well, taking a super hard list vs a total newbie is a bit rude, especially since the total newbies tend to play at smaller point levels where it's just not right to take huge seer councils.

However, once the total newbies have started really playing and building they're lists to higher levels, then it's time to start introducing more challenging lists for them to face. This will be hard for them, but the experience will prove to be invaluable later on.  this is especially useful if they plan to play in tournaments and such.

Honestly, it depends on the casual gaming environment you are in.  If you are playing with a bunch of newer players or in an environment that is not ultra-competitive, then yeah, I would call bringing a Seer Council cheesy.  Though, the term 'rude' is a better choice.  If you are bringing a powerful list to an area where powerful lists are rare then I would recommend not doing it.  If you are in a competitive area, bring your best.  All Codices seem to have one or two really, really good units, so I don't begrudge my opponent's bringing there best.

That's entirely my view. You have to go with the existing culture. If an ork player takes flashgits and the guard player uses a penal legion army then rolling up with your lash prince and tvindicator list might seem a bit excessive. However if your opponents simply want hard lists then go for it.

I tend to find that generally it comes down to tactics more than unit choice in this case. I know people who use units generally deemed as "Useless" with amazing success. They also tend to be older gamers who have been playing for quite a while and are very experienced.

Now, as i stated above, i do believe that bringing really hard lists/units vs  new people is quite rude. i just believe that when fighting older, more senior gamers i should have the right to take a seer council if i wish.

[Awfully Dandy]

Well, taking a super hard list vs a total newbie is a bit rude, especially since the total newbies tend to play at smaller point levels where it's just not right to take huge seer councils.

However, once the total newbies have started really playing and building they're lists to higher levels, then it's time to start introducing more challenging lists for them to face. This will be hard for them, but the experience will prove to be invaluable later on.  this is especially useful if they plan to play in tournaments and such.

Depends if they want to play. If your gaming circle is a couple of mates who drink coke/beer and order pizza on their games night then perhaps tourney play isn't wanted in that particular time (I will say that their are time when I like to face a hard list and times when I like to have a game with someone were I don't really care whetever I win or lose)

So if that newbie loves cut throat lists then hell yeah. If he doesn't then that's fine.

I tend to find that generally it comes down to tactics more than unit choice in this case. I know people who use units generally deemed as "Useless" with amazing success. They also tend to be older gamers who have been playing for quite a while and are very experienced.

Do you think that all units and armies are equal? I (And I do sound really pompous saying this) have beaten dark elf lists with my beastmen (In WHFB Beastmen are near the bottom of the heap while Dark elves are within the top three armies in terms of power) I did so because I knew the game better then my opponent. If I am to fight someone my level of skill who used a more efficiently designed army then I would confidently say that I would lose.

[Dunedain]

No, not all units and armies are equal, but tactic still figure largely into the game. I mean, i have seen skilled tacticians demolish huge 10 man nob biker squads with a small collection of simple units.

Well, taking a super hard list vs a total newbie is a bit rude, especially since the total newbies tend to play at smaller point levels where it's just not right to take huge seer councils.

However, once the total newbies have started really playing and building they're lists to higher levels, then it's time to start introducing more challenging lists for them to face. This will be hard for them, but the experience will prove to be invaluable later on.  this is especially useful if they plan to play in tournaments and such.

Depends if they want to play. If your gaming circle is a couple of mates who drink coke/beer and order pizza on their games night then perhaps tourney play isn't wanted in that particular time (I will say that their are time when I like to face a hard list and times when I like to have a game with someone were I don't really care whetever I win or lose)

So if that newbie loves cut throat lists then hell yeah. If he doesn't then that's fine.

agreed. Maybe i am biased because from my days as a newbie gamer. I wanted to keep getting better and better, so i kept fighting harder and harder battles.

[Daedalus_Mk_V]

I honestly think that there is a line that really shouldn't be crossed outside of competitive play. If I brought a Nob Biker army or a Dual-lash Oblit spam army to game night at my LGS nobody would play with me after my first easy win, and they'd probably be right not to. There's nothing fun about getting demolished effortlessly by a brutal power list. Yes, there is nothing in 40k that cannot be dealt with with a lot of skill and preparation, but that doesn't mean that every game should be played between optimized power lists run by cutthrought generals. That leaves no room for the fluffy lists and fun, "sub-optimal" units. If both players want to go all-out that's just fine with me, but most of the people I talk to, both online and at my LGS, don't actually like the ultra-competitive mindset that prevails at tourneys, much less want that to be the only way they can play the game. I have to agree with them, I find tourney play really stressful and draining, which is something I like once in a while but certainly isn't why I play the game.

[Lord of Winter and War]

Cheese? I define cheese as a dairy product. Any use of it applied to wargaming I personal find retarded. Same with the word fluff. Both are utterly retarded words. I personally don't really care what people choose to use in their armies. As long as the codex allows it, I'll play against it. I know that some builds are very competitive, and generally my place of gaming is not terribly competitive. I know that when I loose, I have the ability to adapt my list, or play style in order to counter what ever it was that kiced my ass.

Nothing is unfair, claiming something unfair is beslubbering stupid. That completely limits any possible imagination in your list building and play style. You may get caught off guard by some characters and units, but you van adapt. I understand also, that some lists cannot be beaten by a friendly list, or a friendly list requires a lot of luck and skill. That I understand, but they are competitive lists, not 'cheesy'. The word gets thrown around far too much. Anything gets declared 'cheesy' now-a-days. The word has lost all meaning. It's been abused and brutally murdered, by being overused. Same with the word fluff. I used to like them, back when it was appropriate to use them. Now both are unfortunately dead, and their corpses paraded around like a macabre game.

[Gornon]

I tend to find that generally it comes down to tactics more than unit choice in this case. I know people who use units generally deemed as "Useless" with amazing success. They also tend to be older gamers who have been playing for quite a while and are very experienced

Yup.  I can agree with that.  Lately, I have been using Stormtroopers with opponents who are still figuring out their game.  I have been using said Stormies so much that I have started to get a hang for them and, lately, they have been more than pulling their weight.  However, that does not mean that the Stormtrooper is a good unit.  They are not, in my view, an optimal choice, though they are a badass one.  My experience with them is helping to cover their flaws and bring them to the level of usefulness, say, a Russ starts out with.

However, once the total newbies have started really playing and building they're lists to higher levels, then it's time to start introducing more challenging lists for them to face.

Yup, that's why I have several types of lists for different players.

So if that newbie loves cut throat lists then hell yeah. If he doesn't then that's fine.

Well, this is based off of how I learn, but I never liked it when my friends showed me a new game, convinced me to play, and then kicked my ass into the ground.  I learned slower than I should have because I didn't have a chance to learn, I was KOed before I could push two buttons.  So, even if I have a newb who wants to play for blood, I tone my lists down, so they can play a full game and see just what each unit can do.  Of course, if they have an Internet list, they get my best lists.

No, not all units and armies are equal, but tactic still figure largely into the game. I mean, i have seen skilled tacticians demolish huge 10 man nob biker squads with a small collection of simple units.

Sure, Leman Russ Demolisher + Battle Psykers + Valkyrie = 600+ points running off the board.

That leaves no room for the fluffy lists and fun, "sub-optimal" units.

I agree with the first part, sure.  I love Straken, or, in my case, Captain Vito.  He's a fun unit and it warms my heart to see a Guardsmen slap the crap out MEQ Captains, Lords, ect.  Plus, I get to make Captain Falcon references.  "Aaaquuuuillaa Punch!"  However, I don't think an army's background can come from the list.  Sure, it comes in part.  You can't claim to have a Mechanized army when you have masses of Conscripts.  I think that an army can claim to be fluffy, or, a far better term, that it has character when the player has some written background and done some conversions/paintjobs.  But that's just me.

I have to agree with them, I find tourney play really stressful and draining, which is something I like once in a while but certainly isn't why I play the game.

I can agree.  Though it's not the lists that bother me, its the attitudes.  People like that Tau player who stretched his Kroot to block a Biker army, people who fire at elbows, people who abuse sportsmanship or comp scores to get an edge, that's what pisses me off.

[Chaplain Swordwind]

Now, my outlook on these matters is generally that Cheese is the battlecry of the unprepared.

I like how your outlook mirrors my signature. 

Seriously though, I don't think there's such a thing as a cheesy unit, upgrade, or whatever. 

IF I were willing to acknowledge "cheese" as something legitimate, it would be based on decisions that people make.  The best example I can think of is that idea that was going around for awhile about intermixing units together in order to gain cover saves for both, even when standing in the open.  While that technique might be within the letter of the law, it certainly isn't within the spirit of the law, nor is it justifiable in any way, other than "there's nothing in the rules that says I CAN'T do this".

[Gorzag Gulgrim]

The only thing that is cheesy are when folks try and take advantage of loopholes in the rules that are iffy at best.  That is one thing that is truly annoying. 

[GaleRazorwind]

Honestly, there has only ever been one thing I have ever faced that deserves the title, and it was in such a specific situation that it wouldn't occur on practically any other occasion. I was in a 2v2, Chaos Demons + Chaos Marines vs Tyranids + all-infantry IGaurd. Oh, and not just any CD CSM pair, they were 100% Nurgle followers with Epidemius. So every single unit on their side could get the crazy bonuses from Epidemius, and my IG partner alone was more than enough to feed them their 20 wounds and make the whole force unstoppable.

The battle was so rediculous that I swore to never play against a combo like that ever again, but only that combo. I begrugingly played a Demons list yesterday that had Epi in it (but it only had a single small plague bearer unit, everything else was Tzeentch), but my Dakka-Nidzilla list managed to table him at the end of turn 5 (along with holding 3/5 objectives).

Honestly, it wasn't a very good list my opponent was using, and my core list has a near-perfect track record.

So, other than that one exact combination, I don't think there is anything that can't be beat.

[Guardsmen's Bane]

The only thing that is cheesy are when folks try and take advantage of loopholes in the rules that are iffy at best.  That is one thing that is truly annoying.

Agreed. Finding what GW thought would be obvious enough that you wouldn't do it and keep the spirit of the game, then using it to your advantage is just like getting up on the table and shaking your butt in your opponent's face. It requires no skill, No Tactics, No nothing.

Know I think what was talked about in the very first post was just really bad. I mean "You Can't Play here because your army is too good" is just really wussy. HOWEVER, people are allowed to choose what armies they want to play. If you can find someone who is happy to play your jetbike seer council [and most people are fine with it], then you've got yourself a game. But if people just want to have a fun game and not be wiped out turn 1 then thats perfectly fine.

[Gornon]

Honestly, there has only ever been one thing I have ever faced that deserves the title

It's quite simple to counter that army.  Point out that nowhere in the rule book does it say that two player's armies can or can not benefit from each others stuff.  In fact, in Apoc, it is specifically pointed out that the two players can not benefit from each others abilities and wargear.

[Calus Drakin]

I agree that there is no such thing as cheesy, there's casual, competitive, and then the ultra-competitive. Most of the time, the cry of cheese happens when an Ultra-competitive list is brought into a casual environment. ( Or, more rarely, when someone's casual list manages through luck and skill to wipe an ultra-competitive list off the table. )

That being said, I disagree with the store owner. While he may have the legal right to tell people what kind of army they can play with, (By right of his having paid to rent the space to allow people to play games there). I don't think it's really his place to tell the players what to play. It's also a bad business move, as it's telling customers not to buy things from him.

[GaleRazorwind]

Honestly, there has only ever been one thing I have ever faced that deserves the title

It's quite simple to counter that army.  Point out that nowhere in the rule book does it say that two player's armies can or can not benefit from each others stuff.  In fact, in Apoc, it is specifically pointed out that the two players can not benefit from each others abilities and wargear.

This is normally true, but Epidemius' special rule that generates these bonuses has a "Friend or Foe" clause. Therefore, if one person has Epidemius, then all other players in the game who have a unit with a Mark/Icon of Nurgle can receive the benefits and add to the kill tally, even if they aren't on the same side! That is why the CSM were able to benefit from the CD.

On the subject of the banned Seer Council, did the owner realize how much money he could make off of someone trying to build a Bike Council? That is a ton of Bikes, and plenty of Dire Avenger boxes or Warlock blisters. I think the owner is just plain stupid. He reminds me of the government thinking it knows how to properly regulate a market, which it can't possible hope to do any better than the millions of people who live and breath the market naturally. Anyone with a highschool economics class under their belt should understand how the principles of a free market applies not just to commercial ventures, but to everyday experiences, like trying to get a game of 40K. Everyone has some idea as to what they will or will not play against, and if the guy brings in a Seer Council and nobody wants to play him, then he has incentive to just go ahead and change his list so that people will play him. However, it is quite probable that someone there would be willing to face the SC, at least once, and then he would be able to play it. If that player gets totally destroyed by it and decides to never play against it again, then the guy with the SC must either find a new opponent or drop the SC.

So there you have it; without any intervention from the owner (government), the players themselves (the free market) were able to acheive the optimal loadout within their system of opponents. Does that garuntee the Eldar player gets to use his SC? No, because it is possible that nobody there wants to play against it, but it greatly increases the chances of being able to field it since rather than immediately being told he can't even try to use it, he was able to talk to all the people and let them decide.

Ah, how I love Austrian Free Market Economics! It is the answer to so many things. Everything from how fractional reserve banking destroys the value of currency to whether or not someone is willing to play against a Seer Council in 40K!

[dalaran1991]

Tell the store owner that he should not allow asault termies with TH/SS in LRC, as well as Nobz bikers then. What the hell is a cheesy unit? 40k is a game where it all comes down to tactics. Try throwing those councils at termies or plague marines and see who's the cheesy one. Plus, the store is breaking the law by not allowing u to field a unit u are legally allowed to. Also, tell him that by banning those he's losing lots of profits. Those bikes cost a hell lot of money.

[Dunedain]

I tend to find that generally it comes down to tactics more than unit choice in this case. I know people who use units generally deemed as "Useless" with amazing success. They also tend to be older gamers who have been playing for quite a while and are very experienced

Yup.  I can agree with that.  Lately, I have been using Stormtroopers with opponents who are still figuring out their game.  I have been using said Stormies so much that I have started to get a hang for them and, lately, they have been more than pulling their weight.  However, that does not mean that the Stormtrooper is a good unit.  They are not, in my view, an optimal choice, though they are a badass one.  My experience with them is helping to cover their flaws and bring them to the level of usefulness, say, a Russ starts out with.

Agreed.

Now, my outlook on these matters is generally that Cheese is the battlecry of the unprepared.

I like how your outlook mirrors my signature. 

Seriously though, I don't think there's such a thing as a cheesy unit, upgrade, or whatever. 

It's the truth. I simply can't stand players (especially those with fair-lots of gaming experience) crying cheese because they think a model/army is too competitive. I mean, everyone loses at the game. I certainly have done alot of losing games, but the experience i have gained is actually helped me win a few games.