What is cheese?

[masterofweirdness]

In your opion, that is. What about me?

Well, IMO, cheese is akin to cheating, exploiting rules, or dumb army lists (a assault cannon army! Its just dumb!). But, armies themselves can't be cheesy, (tau may be unliked by some, but its NOT a cheesey army.)

So, what are your thoughts?

A chaos lieutenant with gift of chaos. Turning a daemon prince and a rival sorcerer into spawn is just wrong.

Tau skimmers destroying my land raider turn 1, 3x over with one vehicle! Thee pentrating hits, each a 6! Seriously now...

A genestealer horde who never rolls less than a 6" on that damned fleet of foot.

Your guard ally in a escalation match getting no armor until turn 4, and then only a command chimera.

A lone evesor assassain destroying both your HQs, and Lieutenant retinue!

Necrons getting back up. Never fun to suffer massive casaulties blowing up a unit, and then they get back up.

[Perturabo]

Though personally I hate the phrase I see it as -The deliberate exploitation of the rules to give an unbalanced force thus giving overwhelming odds against your opponent removing all aspects of gameplay simply to acheive a win.
Whilst not illegal, its unsportsmanlike.

[masterofweirdness]

Originally Posted by Perturabo

Though personally I hate the phrase I see it as -The deliberate exploitation of the rules to give an unbalanced force thus giving overwhelming odds against your opponent removing all aspects of gameplay simply to acheive a win.
Whilst not illegal, its unsportsmanlike.

Yes, but what would you consider cheese under that definition?

[Perturabo]

Sorry my misunderstanding-thought you wanted a definition not examples! Ten minutes in the pain glove for me

Min Maxing an army ( I have a regular opponent who only ever takes 2 x 5 man scout squads no matter how large the points value).

Assault cannon/Bright Lance Armies-just no fun.

The Tau!

[vinny]

I have played the game for more years than I care to remember and gamers have always said this army gets this my army only gets that. The lists have been developed over a number of years and although I don’t like the idea of a chaos army fielding 1x basilisk and 2 defilers with a vindicator I must develop tactics to get around the problem. Playing games against what appears an unbeatable army gives me the determination to kick some a@@e. No army is invincible you must develop your game play to defeat your opponent. So good luck and waist those marines.

[masterofweirdness]

Originally Posted by Perturabo

Sorry my misunderstanding-thought you wanted a definition not examples! Ten minutes in the pain glove for me

Min Maxing an army ( I have a regular opponent who only ever takes 2 x 5 man scout squads no matter how large the points value).

Assault cannon/Bright Lance Armies-just no fun.

The Tau!

Yes, I see how that whole scout thing would be annoying, though personally, I don't know who a someone can do this! I ALWAYS want to have at least 2 ten man tactical squads, usually with inflitrate, 2 assault weapons, a p. fisted vet. sarge and frag 'nades all around!

How are the tau annoying now?

[Perturabo]

Originally Posted by masterofweirdness

How are the tau annoying now?

Only in two ways
1)Everything they say
2)Everything they do

LOL, its just a personal dislike I think they are a favourite army of someone high up the GW command chain so they get everything they want need.

[experiment 626]

for me, a "cheesy"/"beardy" army is one that is very gimicky and removes the elements of 'tactial need' and most especially 'fun'! (usually for the poor unfortunate lined up against the offending army!)

examples;
- serve min/maxing like the 10 scouts & 12+ assault cannon marine army... the big evil here being that the assault cannon can do anything and do it well!
there's no challenge in playing with this army, and certainly no fun for the poor guy who gets blown away in about 20min or so!
this can also translate into the old las/plas army of doom... however that one isn't as bad because all you need to do to beat that one is throw down a good sized hoard, and you thus render those 1-shot ap2 weapon fairly impotent!

- another big contender is the 9 oblit & 4 defiler (or similar) iron warrior army... (sorry perturabo, but you know those heretics are out there!)
again, the iron warriors are an easily exploitable list and thus it's very easy to create an army that can win in one turn... not tactical thought and definately no fun for your opponent!

- 'siren' daemonbombs have to be the worst, beardiest armies out there! there's about 2-3 armies that can counter it, and only one that can do it 100% of the time! (that army being grey knights!)

- the star cannon of 'uber doom was a big problem untill recently... as phil agreed with a couple of us, "you should need more than 2 guns to kill the big scary death gribblies like greater daemons and carnifexes!" (now if only we can fix that darn assault cannon!!!)
again though, the one weakness of the star cannon army was the pure infantry hoard...

- the SIGAFH is still pretty evil on the tournament scene... that is, the "Shooty Imperial Guard Army From Hell" as defined by good 'ol jervis johnson himself! basically it's a large amount of basic las/plas infantry squads backed up by 3 leman russ tanks! not very fun for any army to go against...
the one weakness of this army being any missions involving alot of movement - rescue for example. the sheer amount of firepower here is easily sufficiant to prevent most assaulters from reaching the infantry lines...

well, anyone agree/disagree here?!
cheers!

[Perturabo]

Stepping up in my own defence-I dont take obliterators and personaly like to max my troops slots, but you are right the Iron Warriors can be one cheesy list when exploited.
A friend of mine once worked out how many Las Cannons he could get for every common points option (1000,1500,2000 etc) he very quickly found people not wanting to play him cause it was no fun.
As for all your examples-your spot on and Ill feel asahmed as a gamer if I ever started falling into that trap

[Cagarner]

Ah yes, the SIGAFH. Every tyranid players nightmare, unless.... you have lots of infiltrating stuff, then the battle cannons aint so good!

[masterofweirdness]

Okay, I'm gonna put my neck on the block and ask the dreaded question... whats wrong with the assault cannon?

I mean yes Heavy 4 Rending can be a pain, but unless the guy is spamming the weapon, I don't see the problem...

[Cagarner]

Now where did my Axe go?......

Thats the problem, when people use loads in an army. A few aint that bad I supose.

[Killermoose]

I've got no problem with a Dreadnought with Assault Cannon in a SM army, and perhaps a Termie or 2 with an AssCan, but no more. Honestly, If I ever have to play someone that uses more than 2-3 I will execute them on the spot! (I usually am able to avoid the AssCan armies of Doom if I've seen them play before). The worst I've played though is about 10 Heavy Bolters and 2 Dreadnoughts with AssCans (and the AssCan termie sqaud too!) against an Eldar army. It was quite sad to see how easily the Aspect troops with 4+ saves, and the Gaurdians, were mostly splatted by the end of turn 2, if they didn't assualt the Marines.

Also, I hate the SM Devestator squads hiding in the corner of the map. Its just not nice if they've all got HB's, or Missile Launchers, and pound everything without any fire back. As you can tell, I think SM armies have the potential to be quite cheesey!

[Dan296]

SIGFAH!!! thats just fun to yell.
jervis johnson came up with that? really? cool.

my definition of cheese is an army list that exploits the rules, and the player plays to win, not to have fun.
after all, to quote the great Ri & Enea (3rd show guys =P) ''its just a game''
winning is just a pleasant side effect.

assault cannon armies can be countered by mass infantry armies. i played a guy in 1500 pts once, and i brought my nids. i had NO big'ens. sure, he killed 4 termagaunt broods in one turn, but you gotta love without number =P
overwhelmed him on the third turn. the killer to that list is that 50% of his troops are going to be normal terminators. introduce them to some infiltrating genestealers and watch the fun begin.

edit-(killermoose, we are posting at the exact same times lol. odd.
but why are devestators in the corner cheesy? they have long range weapons, and theyre expensive, so why not want them protected? thats what i do....

[Killermoose]

Its funny how that always happens

Its just a pain when there are 2-3 squads giving your poor infantry a right pasting. And if you only have medium range guns, you can't shoot 'em, and the long range guns on your tanks can't hurt 'em either, as they're in 4+cover! (unless you have ordanance)

[experiment 626]

my beef with the assault cannon is that no ranged weapon should ever have 'rending' as it's far too good! against vehicles, the assault cannon is king - only the monolith can withstand it... just doesn't seem right now that a gun that's supposed to be anti-infantry is actually the tank-hunting weapon in the game is it?!
close combat rending vs vehicles is off-set by the fact that you usually need at best a 4+ to hit the vehicle in question. (or else hope you've immobilised already!) plus, almost all assault units with the 'rending' rule have a lower strength value of 4 or 5 at best - only MC's get higher, and they don't really need the help anyways!

now the assault cannon almost exclusively hits on a 3+, had a good strength value and then gets rending on top of that?!! it's beyond sad that av14 vehicles hide in utter fear of the damned things...
now when used in moderation, assault cannons aren't nearly as bad - just like min/maxing. a little is fine and tactically sound, but facing 8 or 9+ assault cannons is painfull as they'll do anything and do it very well!

in short, the assault cannon is a no-brainer and a predictable choice in any competitive space marine army, but it's also very difficult to counter because only the dreadnought is an easy kill...

cheers!

[Dan296]

well i think it would make sense if it had a lower strength. the reason they made those over autocannons is because they favored high rate of fire rather then firepower. erm...then why is it strength 6 while autocannons are strength 7? and assault cannons fire 2x more and have rending. its insanly cheesed. it it was s4 or 5 it would be alot better.

[rintinglen]

To me, Cheese is when the points you pay for something is less than it costs other armies for similar benefits, or where you get a benefit that doesn't cost you.
Case in point, Eldar warlock Seer Councils on bikes. You get a power weapon equivalent, a 3+4+ save, a jet bike and all for a paltry 45 points. And unlike most normal bike squads, which usually top out at 5 models, you can get 10.
(alright, a witchblade does not ignore armour saves, but it wounds on 2's regardless of toughness and is strength 9 against vehicles). Add fortune to the mix and you see why they are called Craftworlds==cause they're the cheesiest!
Another case, Witchhunters. A cannonness costs 45 points for a stat line that is better than that of a Heroic senior officer in the IG AND she comes with 2 free faith points.
The honest solution to cheese IMHO would be to require that at least half of an armies points be spent on troops, and no more than one elites, fast attack or heavy support choice for every 2 troops choices.
A pet peeve of mine is mechanical constructs with wounds. I hate wraithlords and the like. (Battlesuits, Talus, etc.)
If you are a big robot then you ought to have armour values and suffer penetrating and glancing hits. Can someone distinguish for me why a Battlesuit should have a pilot with two wounds while a Dreadnought with a pilot gets stunned, shaken, weapon destroyed, immobilized or destroyed?

[experiment 626]

Originally Posted by rintinglen

To me, Cheese is when the points you pay for something is less than it costs other armies for similar benefits, or where you get a benefit that doesn't cost you.
Case in point, Eldar warlock Seer Councils on bikes. You get a power weapon equivalent, a 3+4+ save, a jet bike and all for a paltry 45 points. And unlike most normal bike squads, which usually top out at 5 models, you can get 10.
(alright, a witchblade does not ignore armour saves, but it wounds on 2's regardless of toughness and is strength 9 against vehicles). Add fortune to the mix and you see why they are called Craftworlds==cause they're the cheesiest!
Another case, Witchhunters. A cannonness costs 45 points for a stat line that is better than that of a Heroic senior officer in the IG AND she comes with 2 free faith points.
The honest solution to cheese IMHO would be to require that at least half of an armies points be spent on troops, and no more than one elites, fast attack or heavy support choice for every 2 troops choices.
A pet peeve of mine is mechanical constructs with wounds. I hate wraithlords and the like. (Battlesuits, Talus, etc.)
If you are a big robot then you ought to have armour values and suffer penetrating and glancing hits. Can someone distinguish for me why a Battlesuit should have a pilot with two wounds while a Dreadnought with a pilot gets stunned, shaken, weapon destroyed, immobilized or destroyed?

it's compleatly pointless trying to compare pts values between different armies...
for example, a cannoness has the most expensive base pts cost in the witch hunter army! she is also that army's greatest fighty character and thus alot of her weapon & wargear options are very pricey too...
meanwhile, that guard heroic senior officer isn't meant to be fighty at all! his true value is his Ld ability...

each pts cost is made within that model's relevence and the bonus' he/she/it provide to their own army!

and in case you didn't know - tau battlesuits actually originally had an armour value when they were first play tested, and you know what? they were fething godly!!! battlesuits get wounds because you can get lots of them in a tau army...
a wraithlord gets wounds not because they're plentiful, but because they are made of living wraithbone and powered by a dead exarch's spirit!

overall, a battlesuit/wraithlord is much more predictable than an armoured dreadnought - 3 lascannon hits can pretty much kill that wraithlord and will vapourise that entire battlesuit team! now, those same 3 lascannons might destroy the dread, but they might only knock it about or even do nothing at all!
and you're also forgetting the biggest weakness of these 'wounds' vehicles; sniper rifles, or indeed any weapon with a set 'to-wound' value...

further more, restricting army selection by ratios is a horrible idea! that's why gw dropped their comp scoring systems; everything became very cookie-cutter and most armies looked the same... it made tournaments especially very boring because you could almost guess eachother's army comp!

sorry to rip your arguments up like this,
cheers!

[r4wr89]

LOL once i saw the cheesiest army ever...800 points, one guy had the standard 2 10 man tacticals and a tooled up commander, the other guy had [insert LOL here] a 5 man dev squad with lascannons, a FULLY TOOLED command squad, as in it probably took 300 some points to field it, and a 5 man assault squad...yes ladies and gentlemen, no troops choice.


hello, cheese...okay wow that isn't even like good cheese, it's like velveeta or something...

[rintinglen]

If it is pointless to compare value for points then why are there points?
It is precisely the failure of the the GW Braintrust to equalize value per points that results in the "cheesy" complaints. One army gets more (weaponry, troops, abilities) for the same points and consequently that army wins without requiring much in the way of skill, or tactics.
re the Wraithlord versus the Dreadnought. The argument that suits or Wraithlords are "more predicatable" is hokum. A lascannon will wound the Wraithlord on a 3 up. It will glance the dreadnought on a 3 and Penetrate on a 4 up. 3 lascannon shots will cause, on the average, just over 2 wounds to the Wraithlord. Three lascannon shots have about an 87% probability of destroying the dreadnought. A single lascannon hit has about a 29% chance of destroying the Dreadnought. A single lascannon hit can never destroy the Wraithlord. I would also point out that a sniper rifle has a chance, albeit a minescule one, of destroying a dreadnought. (1 shot in about 216 will get a 6 on a glancing hit).
And whatever the math, I would rather have all big robots (regardless of whatever material they are made of) treated the same. If an Ork in a Killer Kan has an armour value, a tau in a battlesuit ought to have the same thing, not more wounds and an armour save.
Now a friend of mine suggested that Battlesuits should more accurately be compared to terminators. Perhaps so, but, I still question why robot-like vehicles should have wounds.
RE the Canonness . If the Heroic Senior Officer is not the most fighty guy in his army, why does he have the best stats of any human (not abhuman) in the IG. And irrespective of his "fightiness" or lack thereof, He costs one point more for a model with lower BS, Leadership, and Armour Save. And he doesn't get two free faith points. His value is his Leadership? Why then is it lower than his human female counterpart?
And while he can get a cheaper power sword, his powerfist is just as costly as hers, and he can't ever get a 2+ save. Bottom line, which model would you rather have in your army for your 45 points? If a canonness could command my IG army, Id take her.

re cookie-cutter armies.
Chess has been played for centuries with identical armies. The winner is the one who best utilizes his army, not the one who has a special Codex rule that lets him take all rooks as knights and has pawns that move 10 squares if they start from a black square.
Now I am not saying that 40k should be chess, but I am saying that you have to draw a line somewhere and I think that if "troops choices" represent the most common members of an army, then they should be the models in greatest number on the board. And not just by a little bit, but by a substantial margin. Making such a requirement would go a long way towards elminating the cheesy lists that are so often the bone of contention in the world of the game that I play.
(I would also point out that in my view, if you took six troops choices, you could take 3 HS, or 3 FA, or 3 elite or any combination thereof. And you could take 1 or 2 hq coice regardless of what else was on the board.)

[masterofweirdness]

Originally Posted by rintinglen

If it is pointless to compare value for points then why are there points?
It is precisely the failure of the the GW Braintrust to equalize value per points that results in the "cheesy" complaints. One army gets more (weaponry, troops, abilities) for the same points and consequently that army wins without requiring much in the way of skill, or tactics.
re the Wraithlord versus the Dreadnought. The argument that suits or Wraithlords are "more predicatable" is hokum. A lascannon will wound the Wraithlord on a 3 up. It will glance the dreadnought on a 3 and Penetrate on a 4 up. 3 lascannon shots will cause, on the average, just over 2 wounds to the Wraithlord. Three lascannon shots have about an 87% probability of destroying the dreadnought. A single lascannon hit has about a 29% chance of destroying the Dreadnought. A single lascannon hit can never destroy the Wraithlord. I would also point out that a sniper rifle has a chance, albeit a minescule one, of destroying a dreadnought. (1 shot in about 216 will get a 6 on a glancing hit).
And whatever the math, I would rather have all big robots (regardless of whatever material they are made of) treated the same. If an Ork in a Killer Kan has an armour value, a tau in a battlesuit ought to have the same thing, not more wounds and an armour save.
Now a friend of mine suggested that Battlesuits should more accurately be compared to terminators. Perhaps so, but, I still question why robot-like vehicles should have wounds.
RE the Canonness . If the Heroic Senior Officer is not the most fighty guy in his army, why does he have the best stats of any human (not abhuman) in the IG. And irrespective of his &