# "cheesy" armys vs "fluffy" armies



## dvaston (Feb 18, 2008)

I am thinking about entering some tournaments in my local area (in Australia), but I was kind of confused by some of the entry criteria for those tournaments.

It seems to be a trend that you get a certain number of points for your army composition. So an army which is classified as "cheesy" or very competitive gets a low number of points for army composition, wheras a "fluffy" or themed army which is not very well designed gets given more points for army composition.

Is this a normal thing with tournaments in general?

This does seem a bit strange to me. I mean the processes of designing an efficient army list which minimises its weak points and maximises its damage dealing potential, is quite a difficult task since you have to make a lot of trade offs and other difficult decisions. I liken it to fine tuning the performance in a car or something like that.

So I dont quite see why you are penalised if you have a well designed army, and someone who dosent design their army well is given an advantage.

I am interested to hear what other people think of this.


----------



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

Well it is generally to reduce people from creating min/max list or powerlist. Like if an ork army only had two troop chioces and the rest were say all lootas or something else that was powerful. Since ork armies are generally troop heavy armies.


----------



## dvaston (Feb 18, 2008)

morfangdakka said:


> Well it is generally to reduce people from creating min/max list or powerlist. Like if an ork army only had two troop chioces and the rest were say all lootas or something else that was powerful. Since ork armies are generally troop heavy armies.


I kind of understand what you are getting at - so its meant to make the game more balanced etc?

But surely those kinds of powerlists (if thats what they are called) with minimum troop choices etc are still legal? I mean the rulebook / codex does allow you to choose them right?

It just seems like its very subjective. Oh well.


----------



## Triumph Of Man (Dec 27, 2007)

It is, and that's the problem. In a fair and unbiased environment it's less of an issue but unfortunately Australia isn't that.

You may well find your comp score has an inverse relationship to how badly you beat your opponent, regardless of whether it was down to how good the list was or just how badly he played. To make matters worse you may well notice a similar trend in the Sportsmanship score...

It's sad I know, but I've seen it happen and cost people podium finishes.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

dvaston said:


> ... an army which is classified as "cheesy" or very competitive gets a low number of points for army composition, wheras a "fluffy" or themed army which is not very well designed gets given more points for army composition...
> 
> ...the processes of designing an efficient army list which minimises its weak points and maximises its damage dealing potential, is quite a difficult task since you have to make a lot of trade offs and other difficult decisions...
> 
> ...


I'm interested to hear why you think it's easy to design a 'fluffy' army and why armies that adhere to the background that is supposed to be the history of the Imperium and its enemies are for that reason 'not very well designed'.

'Designing' a cheesy army is easy, there are math-hammer netlists out there that take all the difficult decisions away.

However, to my view, this reduces Warhammer to an expensive and time-consuming version of rock-paper-scissors, or as I have said on other threads, two guys shouting numbers at each other until one 'wins'.

There are things in the rulebook and codices that are legal, ie not prohibited by the rules, but are not in the 'spirit' of the game. I'll give a couple of examples.

1 - 6-man las-plas marine squads: the 'classic cheese combo' for Codex: SM armies. Totally against the "Codex Astartes", which recommends 10-man tactical squads, but totally legal in game terms. SM chapters that follow the Codex should not adopt this formation, but lots of SM players do. Why should they derive a benefit for playing against the background of their army? They aren't legally prevented from doing this, but they may be morally obliged not to. After all, if they don't want to play SMs with all their (stupid, conservative, intolerant, hidebound, superstitious) ideology, they don't have to play space marines.

2 - Space Wolf infiltrating terminators (I'm doing this one on heresay I have to admit): allegedly, due to an oversight in the writing of Codex: Space Wolves, squad leaders of SW scouts can take terminator armour as wargear, while retaining the ability to infiltrate. Now, as terminator armour is supposed to be like a mini-dreadnought, the idea of infiltrating in it is a bit daft. However, despite being against sense, it's legal. So should players get an advantage from exploiting this foolish situation? Or should they play that the idea is absurd and voluntarily ignore it?

3 - Codex: SM army with no tacticals: if you wish, you could take 2x5 man scout squads and fill the rest of your points with two full command squads and 3 veteran close combat squads. You then have 50 close-combat marines - without a single tactical squad. Is this how Roboute Guilleman envisioned the Space Marines waging war? Of course not, but it's legal in terms of mechanics. Should SM players do it? No, because it's contrary to the 'flavour', the fluff, of Space Marines. If they want to play World Eaters, it might be better to play World Eaters. 

That's not to say I don't think that anyone should be creative with list-making, because I do. But I think you have to be able to provide a strong justification for going against fluff - just saying "I'm doing it because I _can_" isn't good enough in my book. Sure you _can_ do it - but _should_ you do it?

If your style of playing is a competition-driven, math-hammer style of play, and there are no tournements for you to play in that style, I feel sorry for you, I really do, even though it's totally contrary to my own style; it must be really frustrating for you not to able to get a decent game. I'd certainly be frustrated if I only got to play games where it was absolutely imperetive that one player ground the other into the dust with maximimum efficiency. That would get very boring very quickly.

But you surely must realise that not everyone is as interested in math-hammer as you? Some people are more interested in modelling or painting. Some people are more interested in telling a story, or re-creating aspects of GW's fiction, or some other aspect of the background; and some of this can conceivably take a hell of a lot more work and dedication than going "Oh, I think we'll have some Harlequins... and Wave Serpents with Holofields... and whatever else the terribly efficient points-converters are..."

From what you say, it seems that the competitions are rewarding people who try to _limit_ their play in line with an idea of the 41st Millenium _should_ work. It doesn't seem to me that that is 'subjective', rather the reverse. It's taking into account the totality of GW's output, including the fiction, the articles, the whole invented history, instead of just the rules and lists - which, let's face it, are a very tiny part of the recorded output about the 41st Millenium.

Anyway, that's my take on the question. Others may disagree, and surely do. But that's fine - I'm aware people have different views of what constitutes "fun". And in the end, this should be about fun, and it's a shame if you're not having any. I hope you can find some 'math-hammer-heads' to play with, I really do.


----------



## Hespithe (Dec 26, 2006)

There is no cheese, lol. 

There is competitive play, and then there is narrative play. You and your opponent should be discussing which you both choose before writing up your lists. Both are cool, both can be equally fun for the players and those spectating. Either way, enjoy!

The concept of having another judge your army's composition beyond the boundaries set by the game/army guidelines is rubbish. There is no objective way to critique any list with regards to what may be overpowered or poorly balanced. Allowing the likes and dislikes of a single individual or a small group to determine the 'friendliness' of your army is akin to allowing the sincerity of a child murderer's plea for release to be determined by a panel of more child murderers. They will all have viewpoints that are not necessarily balanced themselves. Most 'judges' feel that the cries of cheese on internet forums justifies a label of 'unbalanced/unsportsmanlike', having never actually played against or with said army. Not only is this style of composition scoring incapable of sensibly determining the value of an army, it is a waste of time and a source of heated debate and worse on forums and during the tourneys themselves.

Legality of a list is a must. Comp scoring should be banned. Equal rights on both sides of the table.


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

Phew, "Breathes out"

Well said mate......Being a Math-Hammer prevents you from making good friends.

Remember, 
I dont care if you can Field 11 LAnd Speeders, and 15 Termies I simply wont play against you :threaten:

Now go and have fun, where fun is NOT grinding down your mates patience :victory:


----------



## foulacy (Nov 24, 2007)

At the end of the day like people are saying its all about having fun and making friends, imo fun is not slaughtering every one you play because you push the boundries and take the most powerfull, yet still legal, army and kill what comes up. Fun is having a close game with a story behind it. I play as fluffy as i can with all my armys. Why? because the creaters of 40k didnt come up with the amazing storylines with such depth and understanding for nothing. Agree anyone?


----------



## Bogg (Mar 2, 2008)

I agree, and I am a lill ambivalent on this subject, cause i sure like to Demolish my opponents aswell...

Who does not like......a ...Masacre! :angel:


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

i like using fluffy armies but prefer playing against cheese so when I beat them they get to say "cheese doesn't work"


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

a fluffy army can still be competative and the sense of achievement when something mundane goes against the math is priceless. Who doesn't have a story many times repeated when their(insert basic troop of your race) killed some overpowered killing machine that could easily slaughter its way through your whole army before breakfast and thats what for me the game is all about


----------



## chrisman 007 (Jan 3, 2008)

I think fluffy armies are way more fun. They have more character, and you can actually remember that particular battle as a historic conflict on a particular planet or system. You can feel for your army's commander, and you can recognize particular characters and their heroisms on memorable battles. You can write stories, make legends, build an empire.

A cheesy army is just "battle battle battle battle battle", which IMO isn't as fun


----------



## plug (Feb 22, 2008)

I much prefer fluffy armies. What I also like doing is starting off with an aspiring champ and building them up using the exp points system in the rule book. Each 1000points means they can buy a new bit of wargear untill they make lord at 3000pts. This dos take some time but gives them some history and can be quite fun as well. Idont think you'd be able to do this with a "cheesy" army


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

My Dark Angels army is very fluffy, and they still manage to be competitive most of the time. With my Tau, it's a little different, I wouldn't say it's cheesy, but I've definitely built this force with winning in mind, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't think it's possible, no matter how good your mathhammer is, to build an army that is going to be able to handle any situation against every army.

What makes a Tau army unfluffy anyway?


----------



## Frostbite (Oct 17, 2007)

Well, a fluffy Tau army would probably consists of at least 2 full Fire Warrior Squads, a commander with bodyguard and at least one team of Crisis Suits. But as for the rest, Tau are known to change their loadouts and forces on the fly depending on the threat. An unfluffy but successful Tau force would take a 6 man Fire Warrior team and a 10 man Kroot team as troops and then spam Railheads and Fireknives. Math hammer says it will do well, and it is certainly min maxed. Me personally, I like Ion heads, Piranhas, Deathrain and Bladestorms, which are certainly less optimal but have much more flavor.


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

I see where your coming from Frostbite.

I love my Fire Warriors, put 'em in a Devilfish and they can do a load of damage, maybe that's cheesy but it's fluffy as well, that is how Tau are known to fight. 

I suppose a fluffy Tau army should have an Ethereal as well, I have never seen an Ethereal on the table before, and I would never field one, they seem to be more of a liability than an asset.


----------



## dvaston (Feb 18, 2008)

By "not well designed" I meant not well designed for a competitive setting.

I was referring to a tournament setting in which I was assuming everyone would always try to take the most powerful army list they could, since it was a competition with prizes etc after all.

When I play against my friends I generally aim to "have fun" like you mentioned, and test out various weird combinations of units etc.

I must admit I have not read many of the back stories since I have just been focusing on getting all the rules right first.

Hence why it seemed a bit subjective to me, since I am not sure what actually constitutes a fluffy army anyway. Lots of troop choices only and no elites and no heavy support etc?

Perhaps if there was some kind of extra hand-book which listed all the troop choices / army list choices etc which you could use and still meet the "fluffy" criteria would be helpful.

Otherwise I might try to read those back stories and try to figure out myself how I can "fluffisise" my army.

I can understand what you guys are saying that it can be very rewarding if you defeat a cheesy army list using a fluffy army list, since it would require a lot more skill etc.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

dvaston said:


> By "not well designed" I meant not well designed for a competitive setting.
> 
> I was referring to a tournament setting in which I was assuming everyone would always try to take the most powerful army list they could, since it was a competition with prizes etc after all.
> 
> ...


Once you have been playing a little longer (I assume you are new since you mention learning the rules) you will be able to see what makes an army cheesy and what makes one, well, not cheesy. As far as comp goes, all that really matters is not taking a cheesy army. What that is, is perfectly subjective. But it starts to make sense once you see how things work. Some things just have a flat-out, unfair advantage over others.

And you're right, in a competitive tournament setting you're there to win. It's a tournament and there are prizes and you are all there to win them. You should have fun doing it, but nobody comes to lose. I'm being so repetitive mostly because of all the previous responses to this thread. Fluff is great, but when you start to give people who win free crap, you're going to see cheesy lists. 

It's why I don't really like 40k in a competitive setting. It's, honestly, just not a very well balanced game. The best way to look at a tournament is that you're there to win and you have two choices: you can try to take the most characterful (but not over powered) army you can and get a good comp score but increase your chances of losing, or you can take a cheesy army and have a better chance of winning with a worse comp score. You're looking at winning the tournament, but not necessarily every game. It's not about rewarding people for making worse army lists, it's about putting a damper on people abusing the fact that the balance in a game of 40k relies not on the rules of the game, but on the choices the players themselves make.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

My opinion is that it's a game, not a collaborative story time session. Play how you want to play and wrap the fluff around it as you see fit. Just bear in mind that if you play it hard, you're either going to attract other hard players, or repel everyone else. It may be fun to play rough, but when you've got nobody willing to play, where's the fun?

If I want to field nine Landspeeder Tornadoes and I have the books and the models, that's my right. It's not automatically un-fluffy, maybe I'm playing a successor chapter named "The Wings of Death" who believe in swift and lethal tactics.

If i want to put berzerkers into my Word Bearers army, what's wrong with calling them "Frenzied Devotees" and claiming they're undivided fanatics so wrapped up in religious fervor that they become raving maniacs? I've paid the points, I;ve modeled them uniquely, I explained what they count as. I even put effort into making the fluff blend with the rest of the army


----------



## apd9122 (Jan 27, 2008)

uS tournys almost demand a bit of cheese nowadays. There are prizes, some tournys really good prizes, without Math-hammer armies you may as well not play. My Necron Destroyer horde army is math hammer and I know i will lose points because no one likes getting stomped, but battle points are always the end all for overall winner. I would love to see some comp scores by judges Hard percentages for troops etc. But until that happens what can you do?


----------



## Elemental_elf (Mar 12, 2008)

I think a concept from Magic the Gathering would be useful or sorting this problem out.

A Developer of Magic the Gathering, Mark Rosewater, came up with a theory about 3 general personality archetypes to describe the players of Magic the Gathering and help hone the developing process to target these archetypes. The cool thing though, is that they archetypes are not merely endemic to Magic but are in fact endemic to most 'nerdy' hobbies.

I'll quote Mr. Rosewater right from the page where he describes the archetypes: 

(note just replace 'Deck' with Army and 'Magic' with 'Warhammer').



> *Timmy*
> 
> The first question I always ask of a profile is: what does this profile want when they play Magic? Timmy wants to experience something. Timmy plays Magic because he enjoys the feeling he gets when he plays. What that feeling is will vary from Timmy to Timmy, but what all Timmies have in common is that they enjoy the visceral experience of playing. As you will see, Johnny and Spike have a destination in mind when they play. Timmy is in it for the journey.
> 
> One of the great myths about Timmy is that he is young and inexperienced. I think this comes from the fact that a non-Timmy (particularly a Spike) looking at a Timmy play reads his choices as those of inexperience. Why else would he play overcosted fatties or coin flipping cards or cards that, simply put, aren't that good? Because Spike misses the point. Timmy plays with cards that make him happy; cards that create cool moments; cards that make him laugh; cards that allow him to hang with his friends; cards that cause him to have fun. Winning and losing isn't even really the point (although winning is fun – Timmy gets that). For Timmy, the entire reason to play is having a good time.





> *Johnny*
> 
> So why does Johnny play Magic? Because Johnny wants to express something. To Johnny, Magic is an opportunity to show the world something about himself, be it how creative he is or how clever he is or how offbeat he is. As such, Johnny is very focused on the customizability of the game. Deck building isn't an aspect of the game to Johnny; it's the aspect.
> 
> One of the strengths of Magic is the ability for players to imbue much of themselves in their decks. When you play Monopoly you don't get emotionally attached to the board. But with Magic, your deck becomes an extension of yourself. When your deck wins, you win. When your deck gets complimented, you get complimented. It is this principle that drives Johnnies.





> *Spike*
> 
> So why does Spike play? Spikes plays to prove something, primarily to prove how good he is. You see, Spike sees the game as a mental challenge by which he can define and demonstrate his abilities. Spike gets his greatest joy from winning because his motivation is using the game to show what he is capable of. Anything less than success is a failure because that is the yardstick he is judging himself against.



From what I've read here many players are Timmy/Johnnys, in that they love to feel for their army and its flavor and work with in the restrictions of the army's core flavor to create interesting and fun, well, army. 

Spike's urge to win and win at all costs flies in the face of Johnny's, and especially Timmy's, view of the game. Thus Timmys and Johnnys often try to regulate the 'cheese' that Spike so adores, in an attempt to balance the game. The problem with this is no matter how much cheese you restrict there will always be new cheese that arises. Spikes will always find a way of playing an uber min/maxed army that can trounce most armies fielded by Timmy. For the same reason, the restrictions are very subjective as what is flavorful today is tomorrow's cheese. 

So in the end, Spikes win at the competitive level because they will always find a way to field an uber army, while Timmys dominate the more casual and friendly level because the level is easier to regulate 'flavor.'


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

I don't really buy in to that archetype division. It's natural for humans to want to class things into archetypes but once you get into it people are more on a varying continuum of factors than falling into discrete areas (I've studied psychology for years now, we know this to be true).

Personally, I fall in all 3 of the above categories for 40k and when I played Magic. I enjoy solving the tactical problems that crop up during play and really enjoy creating lists/decks that try to anticipate those problems and have solutions. Creating unit synergies in lists/decks that work together in an overall plan is also really fun. So, I try to create the strongest army possible that maintains flexibility and is fun to play for me and decently fun for my opponent.

So I am playing to win with an army/deck that is built to win. If I lose, I'll change it. If I win consistently with it, I'll experiment with variants of it to keep things lively. If all variants are proven successful, I'll build something new. I also build that army to include units that I find to be fun to play with even if they're not necessarily always the best (bikers, stealth suits, anything with a 12" move). The main reason I play is that I enjoy seeing how my carefully crafted lists perform and enjoy the tactical duel on the battlefield (though preparing a good list before the battlefield is almost as important).


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

Red Orc said:


> 3 - Codex: SM army with no tacticals: if you wish, you could take 2x5 man scout squads and fill the rest of your points with two full command squads and 3 veteran close combat squads. You then have 50 close-combat marines - without a single tactical squad. Is this how Roboute Guilleman envisioned the Space Marines waging war? Of course not, but it's legal in terms of mechanics. Should SM players do it? No, because it's contrary to the 'flavour', the fluff, of Space Marines. If they want to play World Eaters, it might be better to play World Eaters.


You have to when deciding what in your opinion is fluffy or not. I played a marine army with two scout squads whose role was to infiltrate find the enemy and call for back up. Exactly as I believe scouts should be played. For my army the back up was terminators deep striking in. Didn't win much because of the deep strike rule random factor but I won't be convinced it wasn't fluffy.

You could even argue that fluff wise, armies with repeat choices are fluffier. A mixed 'fair' marine army with a scout squad, some tac and a couple of tanks could be a jack of all trades master of none. Such a formation with mixed logistic requirements and troops with no transport would be ludicrously innefective.

All my opinion


----------



## Nosotros (Jan 8, 2008)

the cabbage said:


> You could even argue that fluff wise, armies with repeat choices are fluffier. A mixed 'fair' marine army with a scout squad, some tac and a couple of tanks could be a jack of all trades master of none. Such a formation with mixed logistic requirements and troops with no transport would be ludicrously innefective.


I was actually thinking this while reading through the thread. When looking at the 40k universe, many armies are specialized in one facet of combat.
Thereby one could argue that taking a well rounded army of this type is less fluffy then taking a, lets say crazy close combat army.


----------



## pyroanarchist (Feb 29, 2008)

Fluff does have some aspects that makes it subject to opinion. When I play a game against SM's and see 12 bikes and many landspeeders I would normally consider it pretty cheesed out. A Dark Angel Ravenwing army however, is meant to be fielded like that and would be less fluffy if it didn't have so many of its fast squads. An Orc army with no troop slogging it out across the board on foot, but all mounted on transports would be considered cheesed. Unless its an Orc Speed Kult, then it makes perfect sense. It all really depends on how its viewed. You could consider a well rounded army less fluffy and I typically do so. Seeing a World Eater army with lots of heavy support doesn't make sense to me and I think its cheesed. IMO Warhammer is too subjective to be given a score on how fluffy your army is because one persons opinion of fluff could be completely different from the next.


----------



## Elemental_elf (Mar 12, 2008)

Culler said:


> I don't really buy in to that archetype division. It's natural for humans to want to class things into archetypes but once you get into it people are more on a varying continuum of factors than falling into discrete areas (I've studied psychology for years now, we know this to be true).
> 
> Personally, I fall in all 3 of the above categories for 40k and when I played Magic. I enjoy solving the tactical problems that crop up during play and really enjoy creating lists/decks that try to anticipate those problems and have solutions. Creating unit synergies in lists/decks that work together in an overall plan is also really fun. So, I try to create the strongest army possible that maintains flexibility and is fun to play for me and decently fun for my opponent.
> 
> So I am playing to win with an army/deck that is built to win. If I lose, I'll change it. If I win consistently with it, I'll experiment with variants of it to keep things lively. If all variants are proven successful, I'll build something new. I also build that army to include units that I find to be fun to play with even if they're not necessarily always the best (bikers, stealth suits, anything with a 12" move). The main reason I play is that I enjoy seeing how my carefully crafted lists perform and enjoy the tactical duel on the battlefield (though preparing a good list before the battlefield is almost as important).


They aren't strict archetypes, just generalities. I didn't post them but there are combinations for each archetype (i.e. Johnny/Timmy, Johnny/Spike, Spike/Timmy, Johnny/Timmy/Spike). Also, the link I provided explains the archetypes in greater detail. 

Personally, I am a Timmy/Johnny. I enjoy making interesting combinations and I enjoy playing what makes me happy. This doesn't mean I won't try to correct flaws in my army/deck if I loose consistently or try to get the most out of my army points wise (though working with in the restrictions imposed by my Timmy and Johnny-ness). Everyone has a touch of each archetype but at the same time typically one or two of the archetypes will be dominate but only in a general sense. 

At any rate, I'm just using this as an example to show that different people have different motivations for gaming. Those differences often lead to problems, like the OP encountered.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

You can come up with fluff for anything. Taking Pyro's examples a step further...

Got a lot of Khorneites with heavy support? Perhaps the 'zerks were hired as mercenaries to support the gun-toting warband. Or maybe the heavy support are khorneites too, but just not lobotomized berzerkers. A team of mounted havocs with meltaguns and a fist champ is a HS choice, but it's hardly out of place in a WE army. After all, they've all got pistols and chainswords too. Perhaps your tanks are crewed by maniacs who like driving into troop formations or mowing down people with their guns. Or you've got three defilers painted red and armed with a ton of DCCWs. Khorne's not the god of chainswords, he;s the god of slaughter...there's lots of ways to slaughter people.

Maybe my all speeders and bikes marine army is a DIY chapter with their own fluff justification for running that way. Ravenwing aren't the only ones allowed to be fast.

The flipside is you can make a shitty list and build fluff around it too...that doesn't mean you should be allowed to win just because you wrote thirty pages of backstory for an IG regiment who doesn't believe in heavy weapons or tanks and instead puts their faith in the almighty lasgun. Makes for a compelling story, but a shit poor game. If you value fluff over gameplay that much, then perhaps rather than blaming other players for being 'cheezy' you should examine your motives in the hobby and put down the dice and pick up a pen instead.

Any player can come up with their own fluff, or build a good list. A good player can construct a sturdy list and build fluff around it. Any retard can make a stereotyped "Well, I'm playing X so I have to take all these same units as everyone else." list, or pull some netlist out of his ass.


----------



## whocares (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the whole fluff argument is a bit of a red herring. When you come across the three falcon eldar army, or the space marine army with six five man tac squads all with a las cannon, three whirlwinds, and six land speeder tornadoes and you get stomped into the ground the first thing people usually say is, "well that army just isn't going with the fluff." 

But that's not really what they mean. What they mean is, "that army gives you an unfair advantage and I don't want to play against it." They don't say what they mean for two reasons. First, they don't want to sound like they're just whining. And second, they don't want to admit that the game just isn't very well balanced. Because the fact is, it isn't very well balanced. You can't take 40k too seriously. I don't really like it very competitive. I don't think that's the way it was meant to be played. I mean, sometimes it's fun to make the most broken list imaginable just to see if you can. Maybe take it to a tournament or two. I just wouldn't do it all the time. Fluff was never a part of that equation for me. Don't get me wrong, I like fluff, but I think it has nothing to do with tournament scoring and army composition.


----------



## Coffeemug (Jan 4, 2008)

Something I appreciate about the composition scoring and sportsmanship is that even if you have an awesome army build, and for some reason the dice are not agreeing with you today and, you loose every game, you still have a chance to be competitive with other aspects. I mean we are playing a dice game, and even with the best math hammer you still cant beat dumb luck. Im not paying $25-$50 to play in a tourney that is completely random. The comp score is something you can control a little more than dice. it helps keep people accountable to being a good sportsmen and from being cheaters. It wont pay to be an ass hole in every game!. believe me in a setting like a tourney you can get a little crabby.

I say build your list, paint it awesome, know your stuff, and play your best.

(aside) lets face it, double lash army's are not fun to play against, and IMO are complete 
cheese!! even against army's people think are broke.


----------



## moc065 (Oct 31, 2007)

I play a few different races and I also palyin tournaments (doing well). And personnally I don't fear what others call "Cheese", in fact I like to run into it. If you field a well balanced list you can certainly take down a lot of those "Cheese" lists becasue they are "One trikc Ponies" and all you have to do is avoid their one trick. Assuming I am using a balanced Saim-Hann style (Jetbike, Fast Attack orientated Eldar army) I will now tell you how I deal with some of the armies referred to as "Cheese" (please not that I do have 2 skimmers at 1500-1700pts, but few if any Harlies, no Eldrad, no Avatar, and no more than 1 Min/Maz squad in my army lists - ever).

Examples.
Assault Cannon SM armies, normally rely on mass shooting; but its normally in a 24" bubble, so you have to cut off his table or movement options and stay out of his "Bubble". I do this through co-ordinated movement and ranged shooting.

Nidzilla armies rely on multiple TMC's and few guant/stealer untis to round them out. They normally work in a wave pattern with fire support throughout. What you need to do is take out his fastest stuff first and then work your way through each of his waves in order of their speed; while avoiding his fire support. Here is where clever use of terrain (or the building of a Close Combat wall - by using a holding unit) can be huge. 

Chaos Bomb, or Twin Lash armies. They rely on Pie Plate shooting, or mas assaults in most cases. But the lash has range implications and its a Psychic power. I use Runes of Warding for a little Psycher control (other armies may have other options). I also try to avoid the Lash(es) range until I can steamroll whatever he is trying to set up, or have dealt with his best shooters/assaulters. These can be tough if you have little resilience; but all balanced lsit should have some of this built into them.

Mech Eldar (or Skimmer Spam). These armies rely on their speed and mass shooting/assault capability. So what you do is "Shake" as amny skimmers as you can each turn, and block his rear exits with anything you have that is fast. For this you will need some Mass shoting at str=6 or better, and a bit of speed; shihc all balanced lists hsould have.

All of the lists mentioned can be gross, but they can also be dealt with. The first thing is for you to understand how they work best, and take that option(s) away from their user. I don't fear Powerful Lists, I do however fear Powerful Generals. If you run into a good general with a decent and well balanced list you may be truely in trouble. And although he may not Massacre every opponent he meats, he will probably Win or Draw at worst. Where as a lot of "Cheesy" lists may get plenty of Massacres; but they also get hammered from time to time.

I hope that helps you out in some way, let us know wht type of army you like, and we can probably get you molded to having a very balanced and effective army, with good tactica and solid concepts.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

I think whocares really hit it on the head as far as fluff goes. As for cheese, you can either beat it by being a better player, or you can fight cheese with cheese. Just about every army has an abusive build, some worse than others, just be prepared and bring some of your own.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

My problem with comp scoring is as follows...

There are people who just aren't that good players and not all of them are nice people. There's a stereotype that "cheesy" tournament players are bad people and "fluffy" non-tournament players are good. That isn't true; I've had some of my best games against hardcore tournament players and some of my worst against people with amazing looking armies. I've often found that proper tournament players have quite a self deprecating attitude, but I've sometimes found a holier than thou vibe radiating from people who think they are God's gift to painting. Basically the kind of army someone plays doesn't really match up with the kind of person they are to spend a couple of hours with playing a game. You get all sorts.

I don't like any kind of subjective scoring because it messes up the results of tournaments based on the kind of guy you played against, not what you did. For example, I've known for tournament players to agree before a game to give each other maximum points for all the subjective stuff so that both will finish as high as possible. Some people simply give higher or lower marks for whatever reason, such as a new guy who thinks that everyone is great at painting, or whatever. There's no standard to mark to.

When actual rules are applied to painting, comp etc, tournament players meet them. They just skew the tournament environment from one army to another. The guys who win tournaments in comp environments are the ones who can get the most efficient force within the scoring set up. They don't win because they are fluffy players but because they have built a force to meet the requirements of winning, which happen to be different to normal.

In GW tournaments in the past you had to write a bit of blurb to accompany your army list and give it in. I pity whoever had to read the rubbish we wrote, but it gave us 5 points so we wrote it.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Someguy said:


> ...
> There are people who just aren't that good players and not all of them are nice people. There's a stereotype that "cheesy" tournament players are bad people and "fluffy" non-tournament players are good...


That's certainly true, and the stereotype is put about by 'fluffy' players. And, as a fluffy, non-tournament player I'm happy to admit it. Of course, _I'm_ one of the nice ones.

As I don't play in tournaments, I don't have to be bothered with what Galahad refers to as "abusive builds". I really can't abide the idea of fighting cheese with cheese, that's like fighting shit with more shit. Instead of stopping the shit, everything gets covered in it. No thanks.

To me - and I'm well aware that this isn't how everyone plays - there's always a balance between the rules and the fluff. When I play UMs, I have sensible blocks of tac squads, some assault marines and devs. That's my core, because that's what the Codex Astartes says _should_ be my core, and I'm playing a Codex army. This is fundemental to my way of playing. 40k is not just a game of probability, otherwise we wouldn't need any background at all. It's a set of rules for use in a particular fictional setting. To me, the setting is important, and I try to respect it.

Having said that, I don't think that anything that isn't explicitly sanctioned by some Black Library novel is out of bounds. But I do think that army lists should be justifiable - and not just in terms of "well, it's legal".

Still, as I say, I don't play in tourneys, so I don't often run into 'cheeselists', thankfully. I'm really not interested in turning what I consider an extension of role-playing games into an excercise in probability modelling.

This isn't to knock anyone who approaches things as 'mathhammer' or anything like that, as I say, I'm aware different people have different views of what the game is. Just, maybe some of us should never meet across the gaming table :wink:


----------



## darkane (Nov 14, 2007)

i am a fun warhammer player. i play in leagues at my local gaming shop and i know the moment i start a game and i am playing against a tourny player. They dont laugh, they dont joke, they dont say "damn i just rolled all 1s for 10 saving throws" they put on their poker face and go to town. its very different from when i play against another person like me where we will talk about life armies, tactics, rules whatever else, sure the games take longer since we are shooting the poop, but to me, its more fun than just down and dirty playing. 

i understand that is just the way i play and choose to approach the hobby. Put me in an MMO and i am that hardcore player who wants nothing but to achieve, so i truly understand the attitude. i just do my best to put on a poker face when the time comes to play the hardcore tourny guys. i think im rambling now.


----------

