Defining Cheesy

[2000AD]

Originally Posted by HappyJim

A waac player wouldnt limit himself by a list, that is restricting your chances of winning, a waac player is the type who going to show up with karl franz on dragon with a few stanks. You are getting the two confused, i personally wouldnt use certain armylists for the pure reason i dont enjoy using them, yes i am limiting myself tactically, but i do this so i can enjoy a game of warhammer.

I was reffering to the example given, the guy that would tailor lists but also cry beard. IMO that makes him one of two things:
- A hypocrit
- The type of player I was trying to illustrate.

I know a WAAC player wouldn't limit themsleves, I make that point throughout my posts.

Problem is you cant compare warhammer to a game of football, difference is football in say the champions league pays decent money, you paid to win, sorry but when was the last time you got paid to play warhammer.

You're forgetting one other important part of winning: Pride
You think football players want to play in the Champion's League just for money? Hell no, they want to play because they recognise it as the foremost competition in club football and if they play in it they're testing themselves against some of the best in the world, it's a challenge of their skill.
I've never been payed to play Warhammer, but I have paid for the priviledge to test myself against players in a recognised format.

Frankly i cant agree here, clearly it isnt good social behaviour to turn up to someones house minus beer and slap down the most powerful army unless this is the style of play agreed upon.

Bolded for emphasis. As I made clear in my previous post social behaviour is determined by the place. Your presenting one specific example as if it applies to all occasions of playing to win.
If you know in advance that the place your playing is more about fun, but you still play like a GT final, then yes, that would be bad social behaviour, but that is just one situation. It is far far away from declaring totally that playing to win, no matter what the circumstances, is bad social behaviour, as the previous post I was replying to implied.

Your getting optimzied lists confused with power gaming which is the huge problem, their is nothing wrong with say bringing a bret army full of knights to a game, its the more extreme builds that create issue.

Army building is one of the main skills in winning at Warhammer. The best victory is one where you didn't have to fight at all, if your list is so good that the opponent stands no chance before the first dice is even rolled then that is still a victory.
Again the challenge of beating a 'unbeatable' list appears, no matter how you choose to go about it, whether it's to change your list, to change your play style or just change your tactics.
I'm not confusing optimised lists with power gaming, I'm recognising optimised lists as one part of power gaming.

At the end of the day, what is the point in winning if you had no fun?

As mentioned earlier, pride is one reason. The Champions League final could be a boring as hell 0-0 lockout, going down to penalties, but the team that wins will be overjoyed no matter how boring the game was.
Also an example from a doubles tournament a few years ago. Me and my partner squared off against a father son team that brought new meaning to the words 'rules lawyering'. they questioned every decision, took ages to do even the simplest moves and basically made the game hell. Did me and my partner have fun playing that game? No, but when the victory points were totaled and we had a major victory we had such a feeling of satisfaction that it made it worth it.

the thing is, this whole posts seems to come from a waac player who just dosnt know he is one, clearly the idea here is that playing to win gives you the moral high ground?

I recognise that I play to win and as I pointed out 'moral high ground' does not enter into it. I'm playing with the same rules everyone else does, if they want to assert their own decisions on top of those rules about 'how to play' and 'beard/cheese/etc.' onto their own army then that is their choice, not mine.

please again we compare to sport, warhammer isnt a sport, nor is RISK.

It's a game, and the main difference between a sport and a game is that sports tend to require more athletic ability. In the end they're all games, all with a winner and a loser (or a draw).

I do find the anaogly to drug using to WAAC, its pretty amusing, not far from the truth, indeed, the idea that people need something else win rather than natrual abilty suggest that weak players will play in this mannor.

And obviously it's an analogy that's gone right over your head.
The people using the drugs are still playing by the rules, just using everything they have available as an advantage.
The people not using the drugs are hampering their own chances of winning by trying to take some percieved moral high ground that the game doesn't recognise. If they refuse to take the drugs and then lose to someone who does, they then have no right to turn around and start declaring their opponent 'beardy' because they used drugs.

And the notion that it's the weaker players that do this is laughable for 2 reasons:
- It's often people just as strong as the competition that do stuff like take drugs. Ben Johnson was a world class sprinter already before he took drugs. In the analogy of the Olympics allowing drugs do you think they're just going to pick someone randomly and give them drugs? Of course not, they're going to pick the best and then try to make them better.
- As your so keen to point out Warhammer is a game not a sport, it has no athletic component, so where does natural ability come into it? For example, one player beats another player solely because the loser didn't study the tactic used because he thought it was 'beardy'. Is the winner a weaker player with less 'natural ability'? Hell no, he brought a tactic to the table that the other player had no knowledge of how to beat it and used it to win. If your opponent decides to blinker themselves by not wanting to use certain tactics due to their own moral code then there's no reason the other player should limit themselves if the rules clearly allow it.

Your scale is flawed, clearly its not the players in the middle, its players at the top making unfounded and rather arrogant comments on how people play warhammer,

I tend to find the people at the top, the ones playing to win, make less comments about their opponents play style. They're not going to call something 'beardy/cheap/etc' because those same words could most likely be leveled at them.

my only reason for posting here is defend the way i play warhammer, whats yours exactly? moral hogh ground. Maybe im lucky because i have only meet one person who makes such cheap shots, its not a term generally used .

My reason for posting is to defend agains the notion that playing to win is a bad thing.
As I've made clear the only play style that you'll have to defend against me is the one where the player tries to force their own way of playing on another. People playing to win and people playing for fun just get on with it. It's the people that say they're playing to win (or sometimes say playing for fun) but then try to impose their own rules on the game by insinuating that certain styles are 'cheap/beardy/etc' to make it look like another persons style of play is somehow worse than theirs that I am attacking.

Wishful thinking more like, compeletly unfounded more like, its these kind of comments that get me, the problem is people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player, they clearly are not.

I never said basic maths skills made a good player. My whole point is that the people playing to win will explore the game to it's full extent and create new tactics and ways of playing.
The people who cry beard will fence themsleves into their own version of how they think the game should be played and when they come up against someone who doesn't play to their own special way will quite likely get massacred by tactics they either dismissed or never even dreamed of.

In fact, how did you translate:
"exploring the game, experimenting, trying the unknown, finding counters to supposably 'unbeatable' tactics/armies, they looked at what was 'beard' and instead of refusing to use or play against it, they found out how to beat it."
into:
"people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player,"
because from where I'm sitting they look like 2 totally different and unrelated statements.

Again your cofused as to what a WAAC player is, the term is pretty simple, i cant understand the confusion.

At the start of my last post i confessed i didn't know what the acronym WAAC meant and guessed it meant Win at all Costs. Is that not correct?
I'm going by assumption that a WAAC player is the same as someone playing to win. Someone that will use every legal means they can to win the game. Someone that doesn't add their own 'code of honour' or 'moral high ground' to the game, someone that will use any and all legal tactics and army lists to win the game.
Is that not what it means?

I think before this part of the post i actually had a willingness to listen to your opinion and discuss it, obviously your to up your own arse.

And this from a guy who insinuated i made cheap shots and then strawmanned my argument.

Yeah good one, atleast i made a comparsion to a social game rather than a sport, the most funny thing is your pay for a GT, you get paid to play sports

As mentioned earlier, I pay to test my self against the best players. If there was a Risk World Championship I'd bet there's be people paying to play in that too, just so they could say they were World Champion at Risk.
If Warhammer had massive sponsorship and was watched worldwide like other sports then maybe it would be like big sports where your payed to play, but it isn't, it's a minor game and like all others right now the players are paying to have the chance to call themselves the best.

Maybe i must be a competitive player then because i win most of my games, but im not i just enjoy playing, its funny that if i enjoy playing warhammer i cant be as good as waac player.

You don't have to be a competative player to be a good one. Like wise playing to win and having fun playing are not mutually exclusive and I never said they were. It seems your confusing the concept of Playing for Fun with having fun while playing.

Yeah this is true to a point, still i wouldnt class your averege GT army as a test of my skill, nor is list tailoring, this is just a test of common sense, reading and maths. At the end of the day if i wanted to face that style of army i would go to the GT's. The problem is many of these type of one phase wonder lists tend to either win big or lose big

Don't forget building army lists is only one part of the game. I go to GTs not just to face tough lists, but also tough players, players that know good tactics and play styles, players that will be a challnege to beat with only an average list.

Their are challenges i just see as pointless, as i said before, when i was younger i played to win, taking the best of the best units/characters/combos, now, speaking as someone who played on both sides of line i can personally say using things like BT, dragons, etc never makes for a good game, one will come out on top and the destroy the other army (because of huge points sink), same as against a army not prepared.

Maybe to you they're pointless, but to someone Playing to Win they're fundamental. A player wanting to win will have to think of a way to beat that tactic/list/etc. so that when they play it again they don't lose.

You may think that "playing to win is different" to "WAAC" all costs,

Not really, in fact I switched between the 2 during my earlier post while describing the same people.

it really isnt, i just wish people would stop hiding behind im a competitive player, taking no brainer choices makes you a better person/player than me, i dont think so.

I'm not hiding behind anything. If a player brings a superior list and superior tactics to a game and wins consistantly (to minimise luck being a factor) then I think it's clear that that player is the better player at that game.
I've never made any insinuation about who's the better person.

In summation, to make it clear, it's the people that try to make themsleves look like a better player by calling another person (especially one they just lost to) cheap/beardy/etc that I have an argument with.

[Arklite]

AND LO! DID THE GREAT CARNOSAUR RIDING DWARF ARRIVE AND DECLARE;

chill out folks, i could lock this thread right now with the amount of sniping thats going on.

cheese tends to be a touchy subject and we should get too involved, its only a game after all.

and if ANYONE comes out with the "we're only have a civil discussion" excuse i'll lock this thread automatically

[keeps eye on thread]

[shaselai]

I played against a very good player (informed after the game) in a tourny(2k points) few weeks back and we got a draw. We were both chaos and he had something like:
14 daem. w/ herald and siren,10 bloodletters,3 BON,16 plaguebearers w/herald,5 hounds
6 flamers,scribes. 9 horrors/tzeentch herald.
I had:
5 x2 hounds,5 flamers x2, Bloodthirster, scribes,2 tzeentch heralds,10 horrors, 10 x2 bloodletters

It was my first time at a tourny in that area so I didn't know what to expect. After i put my stuff down he was commenting on how i was min/maxing and using the "best of the best" etc. He did something I was totally caught off guard - using the siren banner on my BT to force charging into the daemonettes squad - although he beat me in combat I did save on LD and he started complaining how lucky i was etc. Then throughout the game he was telling people viewing the game how I am using the "best stuff". We played along till I think the last turn (due to time ) and that turn i manuevered my flamer units so that they were on out of the charging range of his BON and I fired about 40 shots at them and wounded ~15 times or so. It came down to a draw and he didn't look to happy - I felt really bad after the game. I asked him if i could make my army less cheesy and he said for a 2000 point game i shouldn't have brought so much magic (7pd + scribes) and also a Greater daemon because that's OTT.
The next game he pissed off a person i played before and that person quit the 3rd turn. He later told me the guy seemed to be in a really foul mood and i told him it was probably because of me. I think he expected my BT to lose the combat to the daemonettes the first turn (he had 2 ranks+banner+outnumber 1st round) and my BT didn't so that pissed him off. Another regular there said that person I played is a very good player so I think he is probably up there with player who wants to win but probably want to win on his/her own terms (not using "cheesy" lists).

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by 2000AD

I was reffering to the example given, the guy that would tailor lists but also cry beard. IMO that makes him one of two things:
- A hypocrit
- The type of player I was trying to illustrate.

The problem with the player with the way you tried to illustrate is that along with other traits you ossicate it with using a weaker list, its like your saying if you like weaker like but expect to win your a poor player, this is a constant throughout your post.

I know a WAAC player wouldn't limit themsleves, I make that point throughout my posts.

Actually you dont, i seem to recall it being someone who wants to use the same weak list but win

You're forgetting one other important part of winning: Pride
You think football players want to play in the Champion's League just for money? Hell no, they want to play because they recognise it as the foremost competition in club football and if they play in it they're testing themselves against some of the best in the world, it's a challenge of their skill.
I've never been payed to play Warhammer, but I have paid for the priviledge to test myself against players in a recognised format.

Oh please, we are talking about toy soldiers, we are not talking about football, obviously however your are not testing yourself if your using the no brainer choices, take a skaven SAD list, do not even pretend it takes a competent player to win with such lists. Its all about ego, and pride, some people are affraid they might fail.

Bolded for emphasis. As I made clear in my previous post social behaviour is determined by the place. Your presenting one specific example as if it applies to all occasions of playing to win.
If you know in advance that the place your playing is more about fun, but you still play like a GT final, then yes, that would be bad social behaviour, but that is just one situation. It is far far away from declaring totally that playing to win, no matter what the circumstances, is bad social behaviour, as the previous post I was replying to implied.

Thing is i only actually care about the example i gave, i personally give a damn about how people play at the GT's, thats none of my buisness and to be honest its just a bunch of nerds trying to beat their chests in the only way they know how. I went to a GT once, i would never repeat the experience, while i meet a few cool people i meet just as many idiots, the problem is when you pay abit of cash to play warhammer people seem to think it gives them a right to cheat, thats against the social code i see in place for a game of warhammer.

Army building is one of the main skills in winning at Warhammer. The best victory is one where you didn't have to fight at all, if your list is so good that the opponent stands no chance before the first dice is even rolled then that is still a victory.
Again the challenge of beating a 'unbeatable' list appears, no matter how you choose to go about it, whether it's to change your list, to change your play style or just change your tactics.
I'm not confusing optimised lists with power gaming, I'm recognising optimised lists as one part of power gaming.

Im sorry but thats the worst kind of victory, that is spoken like a true WAAC player, i player warhammer for the enjoyment of the, this really goes back to my anaogly of perberty, some people take longer to get past the need to win. To be honest, i have played some truely appauling players in my time who i have beaten with little or no effort, how did make the game better for both of us, offer advice and weaken my list, trust me, its a better game .

As mentioned earlier, pride is one reason. The Champions League final could be a boring as hell 0-0 lockout, going down to penalties, but the team that wins will be overjoyed no matter how boring the game was.
Also an example from a doubles tournament a few years ago. Me and my partner squared off against a father son team that brought new meaning to the words 'rules lawyering'. they questioned every decision, took ages to do even the simplest moves and basically made the game hell. Did me and my partner have fun playing that game? No, but when the victory points were totaled and we had a major victory we had such a feeling of satisfaction that it made it worth it.

Oh we have all played people like that, yes its great to beat them once, would i want to repeat the experience, certainly not, then again this is in a tournament enviroment again, isnt it really to be expected? as i said people turn into dicks and think they have certain rights when they pay money to play warhammer.

I recognise that I play to win and as I pointed out 'moral high ground' does not enter into it. I'm playing with the same rules everyone else does, if they want to assert their own decisions on top of those rules about 'how to play' and 'beard/cheese/etc.' onto their own army then that is their choice, not mine.

Your whole post seems to me like you feel you have the moral high ground, the thing with the term cheese/beard/etc is that it has been around everr since i remember, if you learnt to play warhammer in GW then your going to pick up the slang. The whole problem occurs when you have a guy playing for fun/showcase models/meet people vs mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc, the problem is the first guy wants to enjoy himself and the 2nd guy dosnt care of the other guy enjoys himself, so we have the start of the social problem. Generally when you break social code you are going to have remarks made in away that offends/anouyes you. People dont change that much from school, people just like to pretend they do (i work in a play school and the teachers are worse than the kids )

It's a game, and the main difference between a sport and a game is that sports tend to require more athletic ability. In the end they're all games, all with a winner and a loser (or a draw).

Actually the main difference is really that a game is something to pass the time, a sport is something to compete in, the game becomes something to compete in if you lack the athletic ability for sport or you take life far to seriously.

And obviously it's an analogy that's gone right over your head.
The people using the drugs are still playing by the rules, just using everything they have available as an advantage.
The people not using the drugs are hampering their own chances of winning by trying to take some percieved moral high ground that the game doesn't recognise. If they refuse to take the drugs and then lose to someone who does, they then have no right to turn around and start declaring their opponent 'beardy' because they used drugs.

no i just found the analogy amusing, just the fact you compare beardy to drug taking wait, think about it

And the notion that it's the weaker players that do this is laughable for 2 reasons:
- It's often people just as strong as the competition that do stuff like take drugs. Ben Johnson was a world class sprinter already before he took drugs. In the analogy of the Olympics allowing drugs do you think they're just going to pick someone randomly and give them drugs? Of course not, they're going to pick the best and then try to make them better.

Of course you find it funny, just as i have found many parts of your post, please, not everyone need to pick the best army to win, you know why, because not everyone has the massive ego that needs stroking. I have played the unfluffy powergaming list, i simply get no joy from using them, i never found them a challenge to use. I guess the difference is here is that base my views on personal experience rather than speculation, many of you points assume your better than someone else because you have no restraint.

- As your so keen to point out Warhammer is a game not a sport, it has no athletic component, so where does natural ability come into it? For example, one player beats another player solely because the loser didn't study the tactic used because he thought it was 'beardy'. Is the winner a weaker player with less 'natural ability'? Hell no, he brought a tactic to the table that the other player had no knowledge of how to beat it and used it to win. If your opponent decides to blinker themselves by not wanting to use certain tactics due to their own moral code then there's no reason the other player should limit themselves if the rules clearly allow it.

Intellegence isnt a abilty, some people are simply more so than others, some people eat better food which improve this, for a sport you have to work hard, train hard many hours if a day and for many its becomes a fulltime job. I guess the main problem is you really dont even understand how beardy is used or perhaps your just selfish and have concerns for others around you. At the end of the day warhammer is a two player game, not a one player game. If you people are happy playing you great, have fun, it dosnt fit into the way i recieve enjoyment from the game which is the most important thing as far as im concerned.

I tend to find the people at the top, the ones playing to win, make less comments about their opponents play style. They're not going to call something 'beardy/cheap/etc' because those same words could most likely be leveled at them.

I generally dont make comments on other peoples armies unless its damn extreme, when i say extreme we are talking about Thorek gunlines (if this wasnt broken GW wouldnt have needed to release a errata just for the GT )

My reason for posting is to defend agains the notion that playing to win is a bad thing.
As I've made clear the only play style that you'll have to defend against me is the one where the player tries to force their own way of playing on another. People playing to win and people playing for fun just get on with it. It's the people that say they're playing to win (or sometimes say playing for fun) but then try to impose their own rules on the game by insinuating that certain styles are 'cheap/beardy/etc' to make it look like another persons style of play is somehow worse than theirs that I am attacking.

I wouldnt say its a bad thing persay but more it has its time and place, my main issue with you original post was the arrogance and the claims your a better player if you play to win. I personally would never make someone change a list in order to play me, if i have a problem with certain playstyles i would however rather talk about it online than create a bad vibe with people i play.

I never said basic maths skills made a good player. My whole point is that the people playing to win will explore the game to it's full extent and create new tactics and ways of playing.
The people who cry beard will fence themsleves into their own version of how they think the game should be played and when they come up against someone who doesn't play to their own special way will quite likely get massacred by tactics they either dismissed or never even dreamed of.

armylist creating is nothing more than basic maths, the thing is, is using a army based around say 3 models playing the game to the fullest? actually seems to me that its actually playing the game in a very limited fasion.

[quotw]In fact, how did you translate:
"exploring the game, experimenting, trying the unknown, finding counters to supposably 'unbeatable' tactics/armies, they looked at what was 'beard' and instead of refusing to use or play against it, they found out how to beat it."
into:
"people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player,"
because from where I'm sitting they look like 2 totally different and unrelated statements.[/quote]

People who think they can create a army list seem to believe they have some amazing skill rather than the cold hard truth is that you can do some basic maths, when you are exploring the game to the "fullest" you clearly mean armylist creation as well. I mean perhaps im wrong, perhaps the skaven 4 warlocks, 20 jezzails, 2 warp lightniing cannons, rattling cannons with every unit is playing the game to the fullest, well bar when i actually play i dont have actually take part in the movement phase but rather sit back and roll dice.

At the start of my last post i confessed i didn't know what the acronym WAAC meant and guessed it meant Win at all Costs. Is that not correct?
I'm going by assumption that a WAAC player is the same as someone playing to win. Someone that will use every legal means they can to win the game. Someone that doesn't add their own 'code of honour' or 'moral high ground' to the game, someone that will use any and all legal tactics and army lists to win the game.
Is that not what it means?

I thought it was pretty self explentery

And this from a guy who insinuated i made cheap shots and then strawmanned my argument.

You intial arugement was rather insulting to begin with, if your gona have such arrogance within it what do you expect? Its that kinda of thing that will always fire up normal players.


As mentioned earlier, I pay to test my self against the best players. If there was a Risk World Championship I'd bet there's be people paying to play in that too, just so they could say they were World Champion at Risk.
If Warhammer had massive sponsorship and was watched worldwide like other sports then maybe it would be like big sports where your payed to play, but it isn't, it's a minor game and like all others right now the players are paying to have the chance to call themselves the best.

You don't have to be a competative player to be a good one. Like wise playing to win and having fun playing are not mutually exclusive and I never said they were. It seems your confusing the concept of Playing for Fun with having fun while playing.


Don't forget building army lists is only one part of the game. I go to GTs not just to face tough lists, but also tough players, players that know good tactics and play styles, players that will be a challnege to beat with only an average list.


Maybe to you they're pointless, but to someone Playing to Win they're fundamental. A player wanting to win will have to think of a way to beat that tactic/list/etc. so that when they play it again they don't lose.

Not really, in fact I switched between the 2 during my earlier post while describing the same people.

I'm not hiding behind anything. If a player brings a superior list and superior tactics to a game and wins consistantly (to minimise luck being a factor) then I think it's clear that that player is the better player at that game.
I've never made any insinuation about who's the better person.

In summation, to make it clear, it's the people that try to make themsleves look like a better player by calling another person (especially one they just lost to) cheap/beardy/etc that I have an argument with.[/quote]

[2000AD]

Before I begin the reply I'd like to requote a part of my previous post you didn't reply to and make something clear:
" In addition I'd like to point out something not brought up in my previous posts.
The very best WAAC players are the ones that also play some games just to have fun as well. (again this is inspired by the articles by Dave Sirlin)
In a quick summation of the linked article the main reasons why WAAC players will also play just for fun are:
- Research. If you only ever play the safe option you'll never know if it's worth taking the risk at the right time. Likewise if you dedicate yourself to playing one way you might never find out there's a better way to be playing. Playing just for fun allows you to test new ideas in an environment where there's no risk.

- Limited local player pool. Sure, in your area you might be a class above everyone else, but if you constantly demolish everyone then that's going to wear down even the most adamant 'just for fun' player. If the only options available to you are:
A.) demolish everyone once and then no one wants to play you again
or
B.) play for fun and keep playing week in and week out, bring out the big guns only when needed.
then obviously B.) is the only real option. "

To make things clear:
I am not advocating playing to win at all times. I am not saying it's ok to agree to go for a friendly game yet take out your uber-army of doooooooom and domintate them.
I'm advocating that playing to win is not intrinsically a bad thing.
I'm advocating that players that dedicate themselves to playing to win, tend to be, on average, better players than players that don't.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

The problem with the player with the way you tried to illustrate is that along with other traits you ossicate it with using a weaker list, its like your saying if you like weaker like but expect to win your a poor player, this is a constant throughout your post.

Actually what I'm trying to say throughout is that if you deliberately play weaker (for eg. because you consider things beardy) and then automatically expect other people to follow the same things as you, or even insult another player because they don't follow your special guidelines, then that is making you a bad player.
The 'expecting to win' part comes from that, in my experience, the players who cry beardy tend to genuinely think they are better players because they don't 'play beardy'. If they get beat, they'll all to easily dismiss the loss as "I only lost to that guy because he was beardy, I'm still the better player." when more often or not it's not the list but the player that beat them.
Also, if you deliberately use weaker lists and avoid using stuff you call 'beardy' then you can't truly say you are playing to win. If you impose limits on yourself, you're playing to win in your own slightly different game, not playing to win the game itself.

Oh please, we are talking about toy soldiers, we are not talking about football, obviously however your are not testing yourself if your using the no brainer choices, take a skaven SAD list, do not even pretend it takes a competent player to win with such lists. Its all about ego, and pride, some people are affraid they might fail.

Even if it doesn't take a competant player to use it it will take a competant player to beat it. And if a list is so good it's broken then why shouldn't someone playing to win use it? If they can go out and dominate tournaments with it then why not? Use it until someone finds a way to beat it (and 99% of the time "unbeatable" lists turn out to be beatable after all) or the game designers admit it's broken and either fix it or ban it.
Basic human nature means there'll allways be people that thrive on competition and winning.

Thing is i only actually care about the example i gave, i personally give a damn about how people play at the GT's, thats none of my buisness and to be honest its just a bunch of nerds trying to beat their chests in the only way they know how. I went to a GT once, i would never repeat the experience, while i meet a few cool people i meet just as many idiots, the problem is when you pay abit of cash to play warhammer people seem to think it gives them a right to cheat, thats against the social code i see in place for a game of warhammer.

If you only care about the example you gave then we're already in agreement.
As for cheating at GTs I can't say I've seen any. I've seen some honest mistakes (magic armour + enchanted shield = 3rd place -> mid table), but I've never seen blatent cheating, probably because the people attending GTs are normally very well read on rules and will call anything they can.

Im sorry but thats the worst kind of victory, that is spoken like a true WAAC player,

I'll take that as a complement.

i player warhammer for the enjoyment of the, this really goes back to my anaogly of perberty, some people take longer to get past the need to win. To be honest, i have played some truely appauling players in my time who i have beaten with little or no effort, how did make the game better for both of us, offer advice and weaken my list, trust me, its a better game .

And your analogy of puberty is flawed. Playing to win is not just a phase some people go through, it's a part of human nature. While I agree younger people are more competative and the onset of puberty does tend to see a drop in competativeness, it is never comlpetely dismissed.
As for weakening lists, I tend to have better games against good list/good player than weak list/average player, I like the challenge. Then again if I'm playing for fun it becomes any list/any player that isn't an absolute cock.

Oh we have all played people like that, yes its great to beat them once, would i want to repeat the experience,

Depends on the circumstances. Would I want it as a friendly game in a store, no. Would I want it if it was the deciding game at a GT, hell yes.

certainly not, then again this is in a tournament enviroment again, isnt it really to be expected? as i said people turn into dicks and think they have certain rights when they pay money to play warhammer.

Maybe, but in my experience the majority of people are just as friendly as everyone else. They can be a bit more competative, because there's actually something on the line in those games, but that doesn't impact how they are as a person. There's always a few bad apples, like the father son team i mentioned, but only in the same proportion as you'd find anywhere else.

Your whole post seems to me like you feel you have the moral high ground, the thing with the term cheese/beard/etc is that it has been around everr since i remember, if you learnt to play warhammer in GW then your going to pick up the slang. The whole problem occurs when you have a guy playing for fun/showcase models/meet people vs mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc, the problem is the first guy wants to enjoy himself and the 2nd guy dosnt care of the other guy enjoys himself, so we have the start of the social problem. Generally when you break social code you are going to have remarks made in away that offends/anouyes you. People dont change that much from school, people just like to pretend they do (i work in a play school and the teachers are worse than the kids )

From your characterisation it seems that the problem with mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc is not with his army and play style but with his personality. Bad personality is not something that is automatically linked to playing to win, in fact I've seen a few players who play for fun that make the game just as unenjoyable as bubonic plague due to their personality.
Also, as mentioned numerous times, it does come down to the circumstances of the game as well.

Actually the main difference is really that a game is something to pass the time, a sport is something to compete in, the game becomes something to compete in if you lack the athletic ability for sport or you take life far to seriously.

At their core, every sport is a game, it is a contest between people to see who is better at that activity. Sure, you can just play them to pass time, but there are allways people, no matter what the game, that will play it to see who is better at that game.

Of course you find it funny, just as i have found many parts of your post, please, not everyone need to pick the best army to win, you know why, because not everyone has the massive ego that needs stroking.

You're right, not everyone needs to take the best army to win, but if your intention is to win, then picking the best army you can is the best starting point.

I have played the unfluffy powergaming list, i simply get no joy from using them, i never found them a challenge to use.

If you don't like playing that way the don't, I'm not trying to change how you play.

[/quote]
I guess the difference is here is that base my views on personal experience rather than speculation, many of you points assume your better than someone else because you have no restraint.[/quote]
And in my experience a good player with a good list wins more often than a bad player with a good list or a good player with a weaker list.
As for assuming a player with no restraint is (on average) better than a player that limits themselves isn't really that much of a stretch.
A Manchester United team that uses all it's players and tactics is better than a Man U team that doesn't play Christiano Ronaldo because they think using him is beardy.

Intellegence isnt a abilty, some people are simply more so than others, some people eat better food which improve this, for a sport you have to work hard, train hard many hours if a day and for many its becomes a fulltime job.

And likewise if you dedicate time to Warhammer you can become better at it and you can overcome a natural ability (If Warhammer has natural ability) with enough practice.
While Warhammer is no where near the stage that you can become a pro, it is certainly at the stage where you can have very talented amateurs.

I guess the main problem is you really dont even understand how beardy is used or perhaps your just selfish and have concerns for others around you. At the end of the day warhammer is a two player game, not a one player game. If you people are happy playing you great, have fun, it dosnt fit into the way i recieve enjoyment from the game which is the most important thing as far as im concerned.

I totally agree that the person on the other side of the table can make the game a joy or a pain, but army and playing style are not automatically linked to personality. I've had many games against people who had power lists and played to win, but they were as friendly as anyone else.

I wouldnt say its a bad thing persay but more it has its time and place,

On that we agree.

my main issue with you original post was the arrogance and the claims your a better player if you play to win.

I apologise if i came off as arrogant, but I do genuinely believe that if you don't limit yourself then you will become a better player.
I'm not saying you automatically become a better player by accepting that, but I think it is the first step on becoming the best player you can.
I think that if you take two players of equal ability, yet one imposes limits on himself then the he is more likely to lose.

I personally would never make someone change a list in order to play me,

Neither would I

if i have a problem with certain playstyles i would however rather talk about it online than create a bad vibe with people i play.

Fair enough, I tend to try and resolve my problems and get them out of the way. Then again, I don't really have problems with playstyles.

armylist creating is nothing more than basic maths,

Frankly that's ridicolous. So I can calculate how many zombies I can get in 2000 points, does that mean an army of zombies is any good?
Basic maths isn't even that important given the widespread availability of tools to do it for you.
Building a good list is about knowing how to get the most out of the points limit for your army, knowing what units complement each other, minimising your weaknesses while maximising your strengths, trying to predict what your opponent(s) will be taking and a whole host of other things on top of those.
To say army building is just basic maths displays a fundamental lack of knowledge about it.

the thing is, is using a army based around say 3 models playing the game to the fullest? actually seems to me that its actually playing the game in a very limited fasion.

If it's a very good army and you're a good player, so it'll take an equally good and army and player to beat it then yes, it is playing the game to the fullest.

People who think they can create a army list seem to believe they have some amazing skill rather than the cold hard truth is that you can do some basic maths, when you are exploring the game to the "fullest" you clearly mean armylist creation as well.

Given that I repeatably mention tactics and play style, no, I don't clearly just mean army list creation. New armies are part of it, but there's other parts too.

I mean perhaps im wrong, perhaps the skaven 4 warlocks, 20 jezzails, 2 warp lightniing cannons, rattling cannons with every unit is playing the game to the fullest, well bar when i actually play i dont have actually take part in the movement phase but rather sit back and roll dice.

IMO playing the game to it's fullest is taking the best army you can and playing as good as you can. If that Skaven list is the best you think there is fair enough, I bet there's lots of other players out there who think their army is the best there is and will try their best to prove that on the gaming tables.

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by 2000AD

Before I begin the reply I'd like to requote a part of my previous post you didn't reply to and make something clear:
" In addition I'd like to point out something not brought up in my previous posts.
The very best WAAC players are the ones that also play some games just to have fun as well. (again this is inspired by the articles by Dave Sirlin)
In a quick summation of the linked article the main reasons why WAAC players will also play just for fun are:
- Research. If you only ever play the safe option you'll never know if it's worth taking the risk at the right time. Likewise if you dedicate yourself to playing one way you might never find out there's a better way to be playing. Playing just for fun allows you to test new ideas in an environment where there's no risk.

- Limited local player pool. Sure, in your area you might be a class above everyone else, but if you constantly demolish everyone then that's going to wear down even the most adamant 'just for fun' player. If the only options available to you are:
A.) demolish everyone once and then no one wants to play you again
or
B.) play for fun and keep playing week in and week out, bring out the big guns only when needed.
then obviously B.) is the only real option. "

To make things clear:
I am not advocating playing to win at all times. I am not saying it's ok to agree to go for a friendly game yet take out your uber-army of doooooooom and domintate them.
I'm advocating that playing to win is not intrinsically a bad thing.
I'm advocating that players that dedicate themselves to playing to win, tend to be, on average, better players than players that don't.

well im advocating WAAC playing when your playing friendly games, what ever people do at Tournaments is their buisness, i had my fill of the GW GT's, im just highly against people using the same armies round a friends house or what not.

Actually what I'm trying to say throughout is that if you deliberately play weaker (for eg. because you consider things beardy) and then automatically expect other people to follow the same things as you, or even insult another player because they don't follow your special guidelines, then that is making you a bad player.
The 'expecting to win' part comes from that, in my experience, the players who cry beardy tend to genuinely think they are better players because they don't 'play beardy'. If they get beat, they'll all to easily dismiss the loss as "I only lost to that guy because he was beardy, I'm still the better player." when more often or not it's not the list but the player that beat them.
Also, if you deliberately use weaker lists and avoid using stuff you call 'beardy' then you can't truly say you are playing to win. If you impose limits on yourself, you're playing to win in your own slightly different game, not playing to win the game itself.

Actually crying cheese at fall isnt always because people think they are bad players, its because they are poor sportsmen, did i mention how beardy my exalted daemon is against TK.. aparantly. The thing is its very easy to dimiss a game against someone using a gunline, you simply cannot feel outplayed if someone has sat at the back of the board rolling dice, i personally avoid these types of players because you get little out of the game, i just hate the very limited playstyle, this isnt to say you cant beat them but you find you either beat bad or lose badly.

Even if it doesn't take a competant player to use it it will take a competant player to beat it. And if a list is so good it's broken then why shouldn't someone playing to win use it? If they can go out and dominate tournaments with it then why not? Use it until someone finds a way to beat it (and 99% of the time "unbeatable" lists turn out to be beatable after all) or the game designers admit it's broken and either fix it or ban it.
Basic human nature means there'll allways be people that thrive on competition and winning.

So basically it for players with less skill and beating it proves im a far better player? dosnt this just prove my point using weaker lists and winning makes you better player I guess what this comes down to is what you want out of a game, personally i enjoy troop movement, baiting, flanking and the such, against these style of lists i robbed of many of these things so games becomes a move as fast as you can into combat. Im also greater hater of massed shooting, hence why i dont play 40k anymore. At the end of the day unbeatable isnt even in my equation, no such thing, any list can be beaten with tactics, i just know what makes for a good game in my eyes.

If you only care about the example you gave then we're already in agreement.
As for cheating at GTs I can't say I've seen any. I've seen some honest mistakes (magic armour + enchanted shield = 3rd place -> mid table), but I've never seen blatent cheating, probably because the people attending GTs are normally very well read on rules and will call anything they can.

Hmm, well i played a GW staff member with my chaos who claimed after being charged buy a spawn and failing his fear test the unit got the mark of chaos undivided, you woudl also think by game 4 he would have remembered that you take stupidty test for helm of many eyes. I also had the guy who claimed that while being6/7" away from the centre of the board he was in the centre and so could claim any table edge, i also have the player (actually the chaos player again) who declared a charge with a beast heard and moved it into contact before i could even check the arc (didnt look like a side charge to me) This just to name a few, dont get me wrong i did meet a few nice players, i also meet some cheating bastards.

I'll take that as a complement.

I wouldnt

And your analogy of puberty is flawed. Playing to win is not just a phase some people go through, it's a part of human nature. While I agree younger people are more competative and the onset of puberty does tend to see a drop in competativeness, it is never comlpetely dismissed.
As for weakening lists, I tend to have better games against good list/good player than weak list/average player, I like the challenge. Then again if I'm playing for fun it becomes any list/any player that isn't an absolute cock.

No less so than your analogy to drugs in sport again you bring in the average player = weak list, you certainly do have good players who have weaker lists. Still i dont claim it is completely dimissed obviously not if i dont why people cant use toned down list and still want to win.

Depends on the circumstances. Would I want it as a friendly game in a store, no. Would I want it if it was the deciding game at a GT, hell yes.

The latter would never apply, i will never go to a GT again, every now and then i think about it but i always decide against it because of past experiences, friendly player is the way forward for myself.

Maybe, but in my experience the majority of people are just as friendly as everyone else. They can be a bit more competative, because there's actually something on the line in those games, but that doesn't impact how they are as a person. There's always a few bad apples, like the father son team i mentioned, but only in the same proportion as you'd find anywhere else.

I think in my time apart for the GT i have encoutered one bad apple, this person however lives in london and thus dont play him im not saying their arnt good players but its the same blanket statement you have given about players wanting to use more interesting lists as being weaker.

From your characterisation it seems that the problem with mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc is not with his army and play style but with his personality. Bad personality is not something that is automatically linked to playing to win, in fact I've seen a few players who play for fun that make the game just as unenjoyable as bubonic plague due to their personality.
Also, as mentioned numerous times, it does come down to the circumstances of the game as well.

Well i have found more often that not the players trying to win tend to far more arrogant than those just having fun, while i agree that many people cant make a game unenjoyable they tend to be the ones who dont drink

At their core, every sport is a game, it is a contest between people to see who is better at that activity. Sure, you can just play them to pass time, but there are allways people, no matter what the game, that will play it to see who is better at that game.

Yes but it does become rather sad that people putting winning before the enjoyment of game in a friendly enviroment, as i said, its just toy soliders, losing is part of life, its one of the greatest teachers, still i would rather lose a game than win because i used Karl franz and two stanks, kinda like me entering the 100m sprint on a motor bike.

You're right, not everyone needs to take the best army to win, but if your intention is to win, then picking the best army you can is the best starting point.

If you don't like playing that way the don't, I'm not trying to change how you play.

The thing is while playing ina friendly enviroment i just cant understand the enjoyment of even using certain list, its like the last time i used a BT (with new book however) it completely dominated the game, the only thing i enjoyed was the guy bitching because it killed Tyrion and tyrions a daemon slayer, for a two hour game thats rather saddening to say the least.

[/quote]
I guess the difference is here is that base my views on personal experience rather than speculation, many of you points assume your better than someone else because you have no restraint.[/quote]
And in my experience a good player with a good list wins more often than a bad player with a good list or a good player with a weaker list.
As for assuming a player with no restraint is (on average) better than a player that limits themselves isn't really that much of a stretch.
A Manchester United team that uses all it's players and tactics is better than a Man U team that doesn't play Christiano Ronaldo because they think using him is beardy.[/quote]

the thing i found with many of no brainer choices was that are pretty easy to use, like a dragon for example, its fast, it hide behind terran far easier due to move rate, it can shoot, march block, terror cannon crews, etc.

An infantry block on the other hand needs several units to work in synergy in order for it to work, you need units to take out shooting, to protect against shooting or top screen if its frenzied, you need to protect against units that may march block, ou need to make sure it isnt charged by fast moving units, to make sure it gets the charge, , you protect it flanks or rear from light cav, you need to attack enemy infantry blocks with flank/rear charges at the same time. dont know about you but i always find the infantry unit far more rewarding to unit and filled with plenty of tactics, infact far more than said dragon. Seeing as i need to use more tactics to use mu infantry i wonder why i think you become a better player

And likewise if you dedicate time to Warhammer you can become better at it and you can overcome a natural ability (If Warhammer has natural ability) with enough practice.
While Warhammer is no where near the stage that you can become a pro, it is certainly at the stage where you can have very talented amateurs.

however with warhammer you are limited to what you can learn based on your intellgence, unlike a runner who easily muscle mass and stamoa with no such limitation

I totally agree that the person on the other side of the table can make the game a joy or a pain, but army and playing style are not automatically linked to personality. I've had many games against people who had power lists and played to win, but they were as friendly as anyone else.

but not matter what a great guy you are, i just cannot see the joy in say someone with a sad list going right heres 5 warp lightnings a turn, 2 warpcannons and 20 jezzails, as far as im concerned, playing those styles of lists is a waste of my time.

On that we agree.

Good

I apologise if i came off as arrogant, but I do genuinely believe that if you don't limit yourself then you will become a better player.
I'm not saying you automatically become a better player by accepting that, but I think it is the first step on becoming the best player you can.
I think that if you take two players of equal ability, yet one imposes limits on himself then the he is more likely to lose.

thats ok, just dont do it again im sorry but i cant see how using a "better list" which takes minimal part in the came can make anyone a better player.

Neither would I

Fair enough, I tend to try and resolve my problems and get them out of the way. Then again, I don't really have problems with playstyles.

No amount of talking will change some peoples views, its just the way of things, its also not my placem still the internet is a different ball game

Frankly that's ridicolous. So I can calculate how many zombies I can get in 2000 points, does that mean an army of zombies is any good?
Basic maths isn't even that important given the widespread availability of tools to do it for you.
Building a good list is about knowing how to get the most out of the points limit for your army, knowing what units complement each other, minimising your weaknesses while maximising your strengths, trying to predict what your opponent(s) will be taking and a whole host of other things on top of those.
To say army building is just basic maths displays a fundamental lack of knowledge about it.

It isnt that hard to look at unit, add the points up, compare to another unit and see what your getting for you points, it really isnt rocket science, of course my assumption is that person using basic maths skills has atleast minimal intellegence rather than a 5 year old with a fetish for pressing the same numbet on a calcultar.

If it's a very good army and you're a good player, so it'll take an equally good and army and player to beat it then yes, it is playing the game to the fullest.

But your not if you only take part in two phases of a game, infact you playing a game of warhammer to the minimal

Given that I repeatably mention tactics and play style, no, I don't clearly just mean army list creation. New armies are part of it, but there's other parts too.

I have seen this so many times how all the tactics of warhammer are in the list, hell, the two dwarf players at my local GW think this (they also player 40k and think it has more tactics...) still i dont define gunlines as a tactical army.

IMO playing the game to it's fullest is taking the best army you can and playing as good as you can. If that Skaven list is the best you think there is fair enough, I bet there's lots of other players out there who think their army is the best there is and will try their best to prove that on the gaming tables.

But that isnt playing the game to the fullest, your just taking part in the shooting phase and magic you clearly ignoring other phases because your either to lazy or unable. Please using a gunline because its powerful is not playing warhammer to its fullest

[Moglun]

Those are some crazy long posts! I'll try one too.

I don't think anyone can declare something like "Everyone who plays WAAC is a jerk!" or "People who don't play the best list they possibly can are morons!". Merit comes from the person, not the playstyle.

Having said that, my experience is that cries of cheese/beardiness are usually unwarranted. The individuals making these accusations are angry because an opponent's model/unit/item/spell/tactic/army composition/combination thereof helps them lose the game, and they don't believe it is fair. But why do they care? If they are truly 'playing for fun', what does it matter whether the Skaven list is hard to beat? I understand that playing a game where your forces are wiped out by turn 3 is frustrating, but I find it impossible to believe that experiences like this can be blamed solely on a supposedly cheesy enemy army. Luck, compatibility between armies, and other such factors will also strongly influence how the game plays out.

Some people like to make lists which characterful but may be weak. There is nothing wrong with this! However, just as it is not the place of the so-called WAAC player to deride someone for making a list like this, it is also not their place to attack the WAAC for playing to win. There is no moral high ground for either side. Personally, I have never had an objection to a legal list that I've played; the harder the list, the greater the challenge, and the more there is to learn!

Finally, I think the term 'WAAC' is insulting. I could be lumped into the group of people that this is being applied to, but I certainly don't try to win at ANY cost - for example, I would never use weighted dice, I will remind my opponent when they forgot advantages, and otherwise play as fairly as I can. But I still play to win, be it Warhammer, Risk, Starcraft, football, or whathaveyou, because that is how I enjoy the game. Whether I win or lose in the end, I want to give it my all. How does anyone have the right to tell me, or anyone like me, that we should not try our best?

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by Moglun

Those are some crazy long posts! I'll try one too.

I don't think anyone can declare something like "Everyone who plays WAAC is a jerk!" or "People who don't play the best list they possibly can are morons!". Merit comes from the person, not the playstyle.

Well the long and the short is people tend to generalize, obviously you get the good and the bad of every style of play, of course the waac player tend to be abit more than just usinga powerful armylist, they are usual a rules lawyer and sometimes even worse a cheat.

Having said that, my experience is that cries of cheese/beardiness are usually unwarranted. The individuals making these accusations are angry because an opponent's model/unit/item/spell/tactic/army composition/combination thereof helps them lose the game, and they don't believe it is fair. But why do they care? If they are truly 'playing for fun', what does it matter whether the Skaven list is hard to beat? I understand that playing a game where your forces are wiped out by turn 3 is frustrating, but I find it impossible to believe that experiences like this can be blamed solely on a supposedly cheesy enemy army. Luck, compatibility between armies, and other such factors will also strongly influence how the game plays out.

Your right many times this is the case indeed it is unwarranted, if you can look through my short post you will see that i give examples of people do this to me, i think the old story of cry wolf describes this situation the best, you hear it enough times the one time its true you wont listen because you've heard it so many times before.

The one thing that bugs me about people defending the powerbuild style play is that simply dont listen, i think i have said it has nothing to do with losing by turn 3 or even losing at all, its simply about enjoyment of the game. You may find enjoyment usinf a skaven SAD list i simply cant enjoy playing it, it dosnt matter if i win or lose, 9/10 times im bored within a few turns. i already explained this earlier, its about the effect on the game style, it changes from a tactical game of chess to charge forward as quickly as i can like a mindless idiot, yeah great! what a great way to spend two hours

Some people like to make lists which characterful but may be weak. There is nothing wrong with this! However, just as it is not the place of the so-called WAAC player to deride someone for making a list like this, it is also not their place to attack the WAAC for playing to win. There is no moral high ground for either side. Personally, I have never had an objection to a legal list that I've played; the harder the list, the greater the challenge, and the more there is to learn!

Again this is the assumption that if i make a character army it is instantly weak, perhaps compared to a he army with a star dragon and dragon mage or even Karl franz and stanks. I think my main gripe with waac is really the effect on my game, the problem is that when they start to mingle into say your local GW they start to push the power level up, before long everyone is playing at this level because of one guy, great fun! As i said i just cant understand the joy of playing in such a mannor, did it when i was younger, had a break from the hobby, came back in, did the more fluffy approach and suddenly i started to enjoy my games 10 fold. I collect chaos and i couldnt bare using the all mounted Khorne army with max wizards (tried it a few times, actually out did a slaan armies magic phase). Its ok for the odd game, just not every time i take my models of the shelve.

You might think their is more to learn but i have learnt a thing when playing gunlines, i personally find i learn more using a weaker list and beating more powerful lists than using a OTT list.

Finally, I think the term 'WAAC' is insulting. I could be lumped into the group of people that this is being applied to, but I certainly don't try to win at ANY cost - for example, I would never use weighted dice, I will remind my opponent when they forgot advantages, and otherwise play as fairly as I can. But I still play to win, be it Warhammer, Risk, Starcraft, football, or whathaveyou, because that is how I enjoy the game. Whether I win or lose in the end, I want to give it my all. How does anyone have the right to tell me, or anyone like me, that we should not try our best?

if you dont try and win at any cost then obviously you dont fit into that group and have no reason to be insulted I think you miss understand, no one has said not to try playing your best, its up to you how you play warhammer, i personally find i try my best to win with a infantry heavy chaos army, funny since the WD list has come out i've only lost one game

I personally think its a misconception that because i dont use 100 hand gunners, 4 great cannons 4 wizards, two stanks i dont want to win or perhaps Karl Franz + dragon, 2 stanks, 30 handgunner 2 wizards and some great cannons. While i like winning i like to feel i earned it, i just wouldnt feel that way with either of those lists, i also like to see the board filled with troops (and i love the chaos warriors models, the best so far )

[CaptainSarathai]

Wow, rep for the long post, I agree with practically everything. But I have something to add as well- going back to the first post and the cries of "Cheese" on all the good armies.

If feel:

There is a line between what is and is not cheese. ALL tournament armies are cheese. It's that simple, they are WAAC armies, and they should be, because if you aren't there to compete you just wasted all the entrance money and sombebody else's time.

However, when playing for fun, I agree that you should always play to win. But you should never play to dominate. Against some of my closest friends and best gaming buddies, I have never lost a game. They make decent lists, but they aren't strong players. I know what it will take to beat them, so whenever I make an army I ONLY try to beat them. Sure, my friend is crushed by any kinds of monstrous mount- but that doesn't mean that I play my HE as Dragon-Heavy just to make sure I win. Instead, I play with maybe 1 dragon, so that I'm 80% positive that I'll win but also make the game close and enjoyable FOR BOTH PLAYERS.

So, if you are taking 20PD when you could win with just 5, yeah- that's probably cheese. When you take nothing but handgunners, cannons, helstorm rockets, and mount all your heroes on Pegasi to marchblock- that's gonna be cheese.
But when you take nothing but gunners and slaves in your skaven army BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO, then it's okay.

See, looking at a list is not enough to call it cheese. You have to look at what the list is up against, and how well prepared (or overly prepared) it is to fight the opponent.

[daelrog]

Guy- "Hey, have ever been to Jaimaca?"
Girl- "What?"
Guy- "Cause Ja-Make-Me-Hot"

Now THAT"S cheesy.

I guess I would draw the line on whether the player can accept a loss now and then. If they can only have fun by winning, and will go so far as to make the rules always seem to go in their favor ON TOP of a list seemed geared towards their specific opponent, then I would say it was cheesy. Other than that, I would not.

Hey, I say if someone spends the time and money to paint a vicious army (and let's face it, power armies tend to be more expensive than balanced ones), then they have earned the right to kick my undead arse from here to Lustria.