Librarium Online - View Single Post

jax40kplyr · April 3rd, 2008, 21:03

Tried to find a good section of the forum to put this one in - its not a rules question - more fluff than anything. I catch alot of flak from folks at my hobby store for "cheesy" armies - basically accused of only power gaming. Some examples of "cheesiness" - using named characters, taking all casters in an army list, taking lots of shooty units and slaves in a Skaven list, etc. etc. Lately its been Vampire Counts - in a 3500 pts game, taking Mannfred, a Vampire Lord designed for casting, and 4 vampires all lvl 2 casters. Ends up being 20 power dice (okay may be excessive).

My response is that WHF has been changing with the advent of the new army lists - with High Elves, Vampire Counts, (probably Demons) - lists are becoming stronger and stronger, with better units. The flip side is that the units are designed to fit in with the theme of the army - basically breaking down army strengths into combat, magic and shootiness. Some armies, like VC, can excell in magic and combat, but are lacking in shootiness. These weaknesses are made up through one of the other strengths; with VC, Vanhel's Dense Macabre makes up for no shooting, but still lacks a preponderence of combat units. High Elves on the other hand, can easily dominate all 3 strengths, but have a drawback of toughness. Dwarves, in my opinion, are another army which can dominate all 3, with magic being replaced by their inherit anti-magic abilities.

The second point I make is that units are becoming so "good" in the new army lists, that it is almost foolhardy not to take them. A comment I received was "well taking those good units means that you are only playing to win and not playing to have fun". I interpret that as "a unit you are taking has an advantage over one of my units, so you shouldn't take it because I can't easily beat it". Take for instance, swordmasters in a High Elf army or Book of Hoerth for an archmage. Swordmasters are going to tear up regular infantry or make casting spells easier for my archmage. Why would I replace taking swordmasters with more blocks of spearmen when, in my opinion, they are better at dealing with enemy infantry? In my mind, thats where the difference in points is addressed - yes my elite infantry will probably kill your Empire swordsmen, but are twice the cost.

Overrall, I just think that folks need to stop calling the "cheesy" factor so much when faced with a strong army - any army can beat any other. If players are more focused on why you have some good units in your army, than tactics and ways to overcome them, then they are missing the strategy of the game. WHF isn't exactly a cheap hobby and intentionally taking more units of lesser troops to make it easier for the other guy to wipe them out must have more cash than they know what to do with.

Any feedback would be appreciated - I'm probably venting, but it just seems like its becoming unfair in the judging department on who is being cheesy or not.

April 3rd, 2008, 21:03	#1 (permalink)
jax40kplyr Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Age: 28 Posts: 103 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Rep Power: 23	Defining Cheesy Tried to find a good section of the forum to put this one in - its not a rules question - more fluff than anything. I catch alot of flak from folks at my hobby store for "cheesy" armies - basically accused of only power gaming. Some examples of "cheesiness" - using named characters, taking all casters in an army list, taking lots of shooty units and slaves in a Skaven list, etc. etc. Lately its been Vampire Counts - in a 3500 pts game, taking Mannfred, a Vampire Lord designed for casting, and 4 vampires all lvl 2 casters. Ends up being 20 power dice (okay may be excessive). My response is that WHF has been changing with the advent of the new army lists - with High Elves, Vampire Counts, (probably Demons) - lists are becoming stronger and stronger, with better units. The flip side is that the units are designed to fit in with the theme of the army - basically breaking down army strengths into combat, magic and shootiness. Some armies, like VC, can excell in magic and combat, but are lacking in shootiness. These weaknesses are made up through one of the other strengths; with VC, Vanhel's Dense Macabre makes up for no shooting, but still lacks a preponderence of combat units. High Elves on the other hand, can easily dominate all 3 strengths, but have a drawback of toughness. Dwarves, in my opinion, are another army which can dominate all 3, with magic being replaced by their inherit anti-magic abilities. The second point I make is that units are becoming so "good" in the new army lists, that it is almost foolhardy not to take them. A comment I received was "well taking those good units means that you are only playing to win and not playing to have fun". I interpret that as "a unit you are taking has an advantage over one of my units, so you shouldn't take it because I can't easily beat it". Take for instance, swordmasters in a High Elf army or Book of Hoerth for an archmage. Swordmasters are going to tear up regular infantry or make casting spells easier for my archmage. Why would I replace taking swordmasters with more blocks of spearmen when, in my opinion, they are better at dealing with enemy infantry? In my mind, thats where the difference in points is addressed - yes my elite infantry will probably kill your Empire swordsmen, but are twice the cost. Overrall, I just think that folks need to stop calling the "cheesy" factor so much when faced with a strong army - any army can beat any other. If players are more focused on why you have some good units in your army, than tactics and ways to overcome them, then they are missing the strategy of the game. WHF isn't exactly a cheap hobby and intentionally taking more units of lesser troops to make it easier for the other guy to wipe them out must have more cash than they know what to do with. Any feedback would be appreciated - I'm probably venting, but it just seems like its becoming unfair in the judging department on who is being cheesy or not.