Defining Cheesy

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by 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.

thankyou

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.

Well from experience this isnt the case, when i went you had a few normal lists as well! the problem is that far to many people have the burning erge that they must win a game, anything that dosnt allows them to it just isnt cricket (so to speak).

Originally Posted by daelrog

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

Now THAT"S cheesy.

Not really, it wasnt even that

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.

I guess i will draw the line at people who only read that last post then Im sorry but i cant see how someone who only has fun winning would limit himself just makes no sense to be me, i think maybe you getting slightly confused with a rules lawyer. Personally i would say list tailoring is just lame, some people however cant win without it (just as some cant win without karl franz and 2 stanks).

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.

Oh really, i have over a 10k army, does that mean i deserve to win every game then? erm no, im sorry but you very mistaken, a balanced army will generally cost more because it includes more models anyways.....

[Moglun]

Originally Posted by daelrog

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

How dare you make that horrible joke?! Ja makin me crazy!

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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

Sure, but you could make a powerbuild army that IS fun to play as, or fun to play against. Just because that army is bad doesn't mean ALL power armies are bad. Again, it seems like you're taking one example of a bad list and applying it to everyone who tries to build the most effective army they can.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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 said nothing of the sort; only that an army built with style primarily in mind MAY not be as powerful as an army built with power primarily in mind. In the same vein, someone who plays their army in character (roleplays it) probably wouldn't perform as well as someone who is playing to win. That doesn't mean that either way is better than the other.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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!

It sounds like you're in the minority then. If people didn't enjoy playing at this level, why would they? They could just choose not to play the powergamer unless he starts to play the way they do, or only use their power lists against other power lists and also play less competitive games with other lists. You can't blame one person, or even a small group of people, for corrupting the rest of the players. If they didn't also want to play that way, they wouldn't.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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.

I actually meant more or less the same thing you're saying here, that playing AGAINST a strong list can give you great oppurtunity to learn.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

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 )

I actually feel the same way. But isn't it arrogant to fault others for feeling differently? If, for example, someone only wants to play the Franz/dragon/stank army because it gives them the best chance of winning, so what? To me, it's just another challenge to fight against, and winning becomes all the sweeter. And if you simply don't enjoy playing against those armies, no one is saying that you have to! But it's something which is within the rules, and which can be defeated. Who are we to declare this person or their army cheezy just because they enjoy playing the game differently than we do? If we choose to play the 'weaker' lists, what gives us the right to be angry with others for not choosing a similar handicap?

[HappyJim]

Originally Posted by Moglun

Sure, but you could make a powerbuild army that IS fun to play as, or fun to play against. Just because that army is bad doesn't mean ALL power armies are bad. Again, it seems like you're taking one example of a bad list and applying it to everyone who tries to build the most effective army they can.

Yes im sure you could, that dosnt change the fact you clearly didnt acknowledge what was already said, when you start with people who dont like powerbuilds because they cant beat them... obvioulsy that isnt listening and the same arrogance as you point out someone may have for faulting a different play style.

I said nothing of the sort; only that an army built with style primarily in mind MAY not be as powerful as an army built with power primarily in mind. In the same vein, someone who plays their army in character (roleplays it) probably wouldn't perform as well as someone who is playing to win. That doesn't mean that either way is better than the other.

But thats exactly what you saying, infact your refer to not playing the best possible army as roleplaying... So if trying to imply that someone isnt playing the game as a wargame because they show restraint isnt implying its a inferior play style i dont know what is.

It sounds like you're in the minority then. If people didn't enjoy playing at this level, why would they? They could just choose not to play the powergamer unless he starts to play the way they do, or only use their power lists against other power lists and also play less competitive games with other lists. You can't blame one person, or even a small group of people, for corrupting the rest of the players. If they didn't also want to play that way, they wouldn't.

Says who exactly? i will point out that many of players (again, another indication of not reading the previous posts) believe warhammer has less tactics than 40k, seeing as these people enjoy 40k more perhaps thats says something about the playstyle.

Corrupting really isnt what i said, funny you twist the facts after accusing me of doing the same, its a fact of life im affraid, many people have this urge to beat the other guy, no matter what. Some people just cant stand losing.

I actually meant more or less the same thing you're saying here, that playing AGAINST a strong list can give you great oppurtunity to learn.

Came off as you using more powerful lists teaches you more.

I actually feel the same way. But isn't it arrogant to fault others for feeling differently? If, for example, someone only wants to play the Franz/dragon/stank army because it gives them the best chance of winning, so what? To me, it's just another challenge to fight against, and winning becomes all the sweeter. And if you simply don't enjoy playing against those armies, no one is saying that you have to! But it's something which is within the rules, and which can be defeated. Who are we to declare this person or their army cheezy just because they enjoy playing the game differently than we do? If we choose to play the 'weaker' lists, what gives us the right to be angry with others for not choosing a similar handicap?

Im no faulting others, im voicing a opinion, your welcome how to play game however you like, i personally just cant understand people who play the game in certain ways (well i can to a point). Again you post indicates you havent read eariler posts, as i said before, i generally dont declare peoples armies cheesy, maybe go back and read the posts

[Arklite]

*sigh*

right i reckon this has turned into a cyclic peice of nonsence fondly known as a quote war. nothing is being achieved by this in my mind so i'm going to go ahead and lock the thread, should anyone come up with a justifyable reason to open this feel free to contact me.