# 3 hammerhead = cheesey?



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

I have been told by people if I bring 3 railhead in a list it's considered cheesey...

I mean wtf?! I don't see thats "cheesey"... I mean bringing allies from different chapters for your marines army is cheesey and drop pod assault are cheesey! 

I don't see how ppl can complain at normal games and comps about 3 hammerheads since it's the only template weapon the Tau can use!


----------



## groffus (Feb 23, 2009)

If it floats your boat do it... I have two hammer heads and a skyray in my army and when i get to play games that are big enough i bring them all to the party. I have to say that I would usually have at least one hammerhead or sky ray and a broadside in my army at all times


----------



## HighHubris (Mar 16, 2009)

NO. stop listening to idiots. it is not cheesy if it reflects the points. at 1500+ i have 3. m at 1000+ i have 2. and i don't play anything smaller. anyone bitches about that being cheesy point them at some guard player and stop talking to morons.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

So it wouldn't be an issue at any tournament?


----------



## Bolshavic (Dec 8, 2008)

Is it leagal? answer is yes!!!!!!
PPl who complain about cheese are just ......................... ( wont put in compent here cause Im drinking and prolly will go over board)
If u field it tho just remember u will have to be light some where else, that is your weakness. Your opponent will just have to find a way to exploit that fact, ie with the amount of anti tank squads out there.....
But if u like the way the hammerheads play/look ,who gives a f*** what others say, its your army, your time and your coin do as you like and have fun with. If they dont like it they can ebay thier minitures and play connect 4 or some other friendly kids game.
Tourneys are about winning do you think the Southern hemisphere rugby union gave a shit when they were at the top, and the Northern sides where like a club team?
Answer is no.. the North just had to learn to play different and improve to stay competitive. Dam the English for taking our 3rd world cup ,on our home soil to add salt to the wound Or who gave the Poms a right to have the ashes back for a cycle :no:

At the end of the day to overcome adversity is a challenge and improves the overall game, when they overcome what they call cheese it will be a challenge for you to adapt, which equals a more fun game...:wink:


----------



## HighHubris (Mar 16, 2009)

lol not at all. unless you're playing one of those broken comp systems that gives points to crappy lists more than effective ones.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

cool, I like all the replies so far!!!!


----------



## Treewizard648 (Feb 4, 2009)

Hammerheads are not cheesy, Dont listen to those assholes who say otherwise Wu-Tang-Tau, I have 2 hammerheads and I am going for a 3rd.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

That is a ridiculous amount of abuse held towards me.

Three hammerheads in 1500 points is way over the top and only acceptable if the people that play against you are fine with it, or you are playing in a tournament with no composition.

Composition is a brilliant idea and greatly increases the number of people attending tournaments, because players have a lot more fun at tournaments with composition systems.

There are terrible composition systems that reward marines or punish good list building, I don't run those composition systems. You still need to be a good list builder, you just need to aim for an average army. Weak armies will suck and fail, armies that are too strong will find it just as hard to win the tournament as an average army.

The point of composition is to change army lists. It doesn't do anything else. I guarantee you the same players would win my tournaments whether I had a composition system or not.


----------



## HighHubris (Mar 16, 2009)

the ONLY composition score i've ever seen that was halfway good was based around things like
filling all force org slots
making sure you don't have an overabundance of ap2/1 weapons
are at least 50% of your models troops choices


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

I disagree with you HighHubris.

That's a terrible composition system.

Any composition system that says something like "You need x% troops" or "No more than 4 vehicles" is garbage.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Anyone who whines because something is "too good" or wants you to play with something other than the standard force org chart is wasting your time. 

Tell them to make better lists or stop complaining.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Often they hold the power and refuse to play against you Arcane, they tell you to take less abusive lists, what are you going to do? Enforce a stalemate and never play again?


----------



## Lord of Rebirth (Jun 7, 2008)

Hammerheads used right against particular enemies are VERY effective and thus using 3 in a normal 1500 point game is basically legal power gaming. It's not like you are breaking any rules but you likely will have an unfair advantage in certain cases which can diminish the fun for your opponent and that is what being cheesy is.


----------



## Bolshavic (Dec 8, 2008)

I cant see the problem SOC is 1 hq and 2xtroop with an option of an extra 1x hq, 3xleets, 4x troops, 3x fast attack and 3x hvy sup.
What is not balanced/fair with that?
In the case of the hammer heads 105pts( ion cannon) 0r 145pts(rail) + upgrades that is approx roughly 350+ points add a hq of lets say 100pts(rough figure), thats a 3rd of your points gone before troops/leets/fast attack. So if u field 3x hammerheads you will have to be light on some other area, and as the rules stat only non vechile troops can capture/ claim objectives, so they down fall would be less options to claim or contest objectives.
Funny thing is for 2x hammer heads its just slightly more expensive than a land raider and how many lists have more than 1?
Now if I fielded a blood angels full of Jump pack would ppl complain? prolly, cause lets face it some ppl hate losing no matter anything and believe every1 should only be allowed to field armies of grotz against thier vindies ect so they can always win, being in the false belief that winning a game of 40k entiles them to being titled lord god of the cosmos.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Hammerheads just like everything else explode/miss/cost a lot of points etc. So the people that immediately yell / cry cheese dont realize all it means is you have a lot less points to put into troops (which in 5th are crucial) so you have to be tactically sound or suffer huge consequence. The only people that call things cheese are the ones who just dont know tactics and have no other alternative when suffering a defeat.

Heck I would love to play 3 Hammerheads. As a Rhino Rusher The game would come down to if you can slow my mobility down fast enough! I think it would be a great challenge on both sides!

Cheers,

Chaosftw


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

onlainari said:


> That is a ridiculous amount of abuse held towards me.
> 
> Three hammerheads in 1500 points is way over the top and only acceptable if the people that play against you are fine with it, or you are playing in a tournament with no composition.
> 
> ...


What a load of crap man, as far as I know if you want to have fun go play at your local gaming club. It seems everyone makes list to WIN at competitions. Please don't try to tell me otherwise. Oh and thats why I don't attend tournments cause of sore people over ridiculous things like this. If I go for a tau mech list I don't see anything wrong at all with bringing 3 railheads cause my list's fairness will be compensated by lack of other things.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

Lord of Rebirth said:


> Hammerheads used right against particular enemies are VERY effective and thus using 3 in a normal 1500 point game is basically legal power gaming. It's not like you are breaking any rules but you likely will have an unfair advantage in certain cases which can diminish the fun for your opponent and that is what being cheesy is.


Though we are talking about tau in 5th edition here. Most other army have many options of fielding accurate long range anti-tank weapons, but all we got are single shot railguns, so I really can't see anyone complaining!


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Chaosftw said:


> The only people that call things cheese are the ones who just dont know tactics and have no other alternative when suffering a defeat.


This is absolute nonsense, I got best general at the last tournament I went to. Calling cheese has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged inability to deal with a list. Three hammerheads is cheesy because it can produce unbalanced games. I would kick the arse of a three hammerhead list.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Wu-Tang-Tau said:


> What a load of crap man, as far as I know if you want to have fun go play at your local gaming club. It seems everyone makes list to WIN at competitions. Please don't try to tell me otherwise. Oh and thats why I don't attend tournments cause of sore people over ridiculous things like this. If I go for a tau mech list I don't see anything wrong at all with bringing 3 railheads cause my list's fairness will be compensated by lack of other things.


Considering that you never play tournaments, then I don't see the problem. I said in the post you quote is it fine to use three hammerheads if the people you are playing against are going to play you again. It is inadvisable to use three hammerheads if you're going to run out of opponents in the near future and have no one to play against.


----------



## SpaNNerZ (Jun 17, 2008)

Im with onilainari on this, 
Of course its allowed, and theres nothin against it, and is bacially legal power gaming
I dont actually hold anything against it, I would happily play one and take it as a challenge, but the thing is that it makes games and tactics to obvious and easy and takes away from the real spirit of the game.
I guess the main thing with these lists are they are "fool's" lists, anyone can use them effectively and they take very little tactics, one trick ponies if you will, and as well know all ponies die someday.:grin: I take real delight in seeing people get these kinda things wiped off the board, then crack the shits that someone elses list was cheese, thats one of the most common things I've seen at tournys.
Anyhow have fun with the list, play it if you want but dont expect learn anything using the list, I reckon it'll get boring fast, especially if your only playing to win with toy soldiers.

Peace out:victory:


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

There is no such thing as 'cheese'

Army lists are created on a basis of tactics.

3 hammerheads = Stay as far back as possible and shoot

Now, I have played a 1500 point battle that contained 3 Landraiders. Did i sit there and complain? No, actually i was quite pleased with myself when all 3 tanks were destroyed on turn 1. Good old Dark Eldar.

Anyway, I think this whole thread is nonsense. If someone thinks that fielding 3 Hammerheads is 'cheese', then let him, he is after all just a poster on a Wargames forum. Granted, he has an oppinion that doesnt Allign with the rest of you, but just ignore it. As he claims he can destroy any triple Hammerhead list, he has admitted that it CANNOT be 'cheese', as he can 'defeat' it, so has infact completely contradicted himself.

If Force Organisation allows you to take 3 Hammerheads, which we all know it does, then it is entirely legal. Thus, I believe that if you can take it legally, then it is balanced.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Orochi said:


> As he claims he can destroy any triple Hammerhead list, he has admitted that it CANNOT be 'cheese', as he can 'defeat' it, so has infact completely contradicted himself


You have confused yourself. Just because a highly experienced general can defeat the list doesn't mean it won't produce unbalanced games against other people. Three hammerheads are highly likely to produce unbalanced games. Nothing is undefeatable, there are just some lists that perform near to full effectiveness now matter how poor of a tactician you are. I encourage good generals to use lists that become far more effective than any three hammerhead list if you use it right. I also think it's okay for new players to stick with lists like three hammerheads that make it hard for you to screw up.

I'm only making sure the original poster fully understands that he may run out of opponents to play against if he's not careful.


----------



## Zondarian (Nov 17, 2007)

In fairness three hammerheads are legal, but it is, as people have said, legal power gaming. Personally I have never had trouble with hammerheads but alot of people I know refuse to play against three hammerhead lists, because they want to play to have fun, not have their asses handed to them every time they play against Tau. I would never use that list because I like to make the game difficult for myself, it's more fun that way. IN a CSM list I will stay away from Lash, because if my opponent doesn't like Lash and I am not bothered if I have it or not, why cause the tension. In a tournament list however you should be doing everything you can to will, if three hammers works then use that. But in a friendly game if your opponent doesn't enjoy fighting hammers then I would suggest cutting them some slack, then you can both enjoy the game.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

All I can say is there is no cheese lists, 3 Hammerheads is fine it's what your army gives you anyway. If people complain about chesse as stated go see the Ig players Hi I can field 9 Leman Russ Battle Tanks - it's just the way the codex has allowed you to build lists, GW don't say things are cheese so why does cheese exist - answer it doesn't, it's just players who complain as they don't want to change their list to have to beat yours when you go for 3 hammerheads.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

I'm quite capable of changing my list to defeat a nob biker list but I won't be using that same list for every battle, it just wouldn't be any fun for any opponent I face.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

I think some people are misundering what Onlainari is saying. He is not saying that a 3 Hammerhead list is unkillable and hence unfun, it is more a case of a list like that will *usually* become like rock, paper, scissors. If both players field balanced lists, then tactics become the big deciding factor. And I'm not saying that tactics don't come into play in a game against two "unbalanced lists", they do, but not to the same extent as a balanced game.


----------



## bishop5 (Jan 28, 2008)

3 Hammerheads are NOT cheesy, for fucks sake. It's the only decent tank the Tau have got. 

Double-lash Obliterator spam lists I personally would call cheesy because it's a powerful combo that takes very little real skill to be effective with, does well at tournaments so everyone who can't think of a decent list themselves uses it. 

Having three Hammerheads in a list is a bonus for the Tau opponent as it means he isn't taking 9 Broadsides.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

I agree to quite an extent that three hammerheads is not that big of an offense. It's not a nice list but the major cheese offenders are nob bikers, seer councils, 3 fire prisms, lash princes, and blood crushers.

And these are nothing compared to the falcons, iron warriors, ulthwe seer councils, daemon bombs, and godzilla armies of the past.

The game is fairly balanced right now and this means the comp systems I run are very light and hardly worth any points.


----------



## Concrete Hero (Jun 9, 2008)

onlainari said:


> I agree to quite an extent that three hammerheads is not that big of an offense. It's not a nice list but the major cheese offenders are nob bikers, seer councils, 3 fire prisms, lash princes, and blood crushers.


Blood crushers? They're a bit slow aren't they?


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Blood Crushers can hardly be counted as cheese...WAY to slow.

and Seer councils *of the powerful degree* no longer exist.


----------



## Wraithian (Jul 23, 2008)

As much as the, "cheese," cry irritates me... There are lists that your opponents, meaning the guys and gals you play with regularly, will have difficulties with. Just to clarify my position before I start: In tournaments, cry cheese all you want, I paid an entry fee, so I'm using what I *want* to use, regardless of how my opponent feels. Pick up games, story driven campaigns/leagues, different issue all together.

I, generally, will help my opponents crack my lists. Lash lists, where I play, usually get hammered into the asphault when they're dropped on the table here, because we sat and dedicated (probably obsessed, really) a lot of time into figuring out how to beat it, and beat it consistantly, with take all comers lists. A buddy of mine had serious issues coming up with how to stop my Thousand Sons/Berzerker list that I enjoy so much, so we sat down and worked out his tactics to stop it. He keeps up with it, and flat out crushes it, some days now.

If your opponents have issues with what you bring, find out why, and work with them from there. If it's boring them, well, okay, that's a reasonable arguement to the, "please change your list," complaint. The, "I can't beat it 'cuz it's cheese," arguement can be nullified if you work with your opponents on how to beat it with their general lists. Or, if you metagame (please do not think that this is derogatory--it's just descriptive  ), then help them put a list together to beat it. 

The game is about fun for all parties involved. Communicate with your friends, and go from there.

Tournaments, as I said, big difference, as when we consider there usually is an entry fee, I want a return on my investment, so... yeah, here come da cheeze! :wink:


----------



## sooch (Nov 25, 2008)

What is this "legal power gaming" you keep talking about? What is "illegal power gaming"? Oh right, it's cheating. So basically you're saying that it's "legal cheating" to take 3 hammerheads because against an unskilled player playing a bad list, the hammerheads will often win. Hmm...sounds right to me. Skilled player with tuned list > bad player with bad list. I don't see your point. At a tournament, if you're bringing vespids you're wasting your money. The point is to CHALLENGE each other, not to put on kid gloves and hope for the best.

Example: Two athletes are competing for some kind of championship. One decides to weight train in order to supplement his/her skill training, and the other decides that it's too much work to weight train and that to be honest it wouldn't be fair to the others.

The athlete that weight trained would win the match, considering equal skill. Now, it's not like the other athlete didn't have access to a weight room, he just decided that it wouldn't be fair to the others if he tried hard to win. Who comes off as the asshole here? The player who tried his hardest, or the guy who thought he would be good enough competition with just his skills/tactics?


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

onlainari said:


> This is absolute nonsense, I got best general at the last tournament I went to. Calling cheese has absolutely nothing to do with any alleged inability to deal with a list. Three hammerheads is cheesy because it can produce unbalanced games. I would kick the arse of a three hammerhead list.


Unbalanced games? really? I thought that was the point, to make the games odds tilt in your favor in order to win? Geese I might as well play chess.. Also this just hit me in the head... are you saying if you knew you were going to meet someone to fight them at 6:00 and you heard he was bringing a knife to tilt the scale in his favor, your saying you would not also bring a knife if not something more lethal because its 'Cheese'... 

A person that can beat a list with three Hammerheads should not call the list 'Cheese' because IT IS BEATABLE. I have played some retarded combos in my day (God that makes me sound old) and I have never called a single list 'cheese' I have called some lists stupidly tough because thats what they are. They follow the rules of their codex and are just maximizing on the strengths of the codex. The way I see it is if I am going to play an army why not milk it for all its worth Especially in tournaments. Why would I go to a tourny with a 'so-so' list and just sink other players scores because I cant deal with the hard hitting units. Remember everyone has nasty tactics in their codex, wether or not you choose to use them is totally up to you. SO DONT BITCH THAT OTHERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT. Don't think your the better man because you didn't take the Harder hitting list, if anything your worse then the guy who did because there is nothing worse then someone crying over someone else's list composition.

Im sorry this whole 'Cheese' thing is just stupid if you want to cry about what someone else plays then just buy two armies and a table/ make one and play in your basement against yourself. 

Cheers,

Chaosftw


----------



## Kyban (Mar 24, 2009)

Think of it realistically, no one ever accused the US for being too cheesy by fielding so many Abrams, or Israel for fielding too many Centurions, then again they never got the chance! :victory: lol


----------



## Casual_T (Jan 2, 2008)

How about this, we all play lists that are "cheesy" or as I like to call it "smart". They wouldn't allow you to take them if it was super unbalanced. So if everyone takes "cheesy" lists, they would all balance out, right? That way it's whoever didn't take full advantage of their army who loses, right?


----------



## Broken Sword (Jan 5, 2009)

I used to play Tau and I brought 3 Hammerheads to the table and it is NOT cheese. It is pretty beatable ... I know because I got beat about 50% of the time. 9 Broadsides is a little bit better, it just can't deal with hordes/infiltrators as well, but I guess that is where talent would come in. You see since I have switched to Chaos, I have seldom run a dual Lash, even at tournament, but you should see how many people call just one lash cheese and you know what's funny, they usually only get lashed twice the whole game and they usually are not a skilled player. To top it off they spend he game talking about how the last person they played was cheese like 'WWB is cheese, ATSKNF is cheese' basically anything they didn't beat is cheese.
When I get stomped by something, like when I got super-owned by mech eldar, I learn from my mistakes and learn to beat that army list with what I have in my codex instead of whining or, like some, going out and making a mech eldar list.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

bishop5 said:


> 3 Hammerheads are NOT cheesy, for fucks sake. It's the only decent tank the Tau have got.


^Exactly!!! I mean the guy who accused me of being "cheesey" was able to fire 2 barbed stranglers, 2 deathspitters and 5 shots of warp blasts at my army!!!


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

Kyban said:


> Think of it realistically, no one ever accused the US for being too cheesy by fielding so many Abrams, or Israel for fielding too many Centurions, then again they never got the chance! :victory: lol


I just call them murderous


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

I don't have a problem with you guys fielding the most efficient lists you can I'm just concerned about you running out of opponents to play.

I also haven't seen anyone argue against tournament composition yet, but you guys must all hate the idea. Anyone going to tell me why?

It does not change who wins the tournament and it does not reward marines etc better than tau (because it's not a crappy composition criteria that requires x% troops etc). Everyone just simply gives me their army list and I give it a score out of 5, basically anyone decent enough at the game to have a chance of winning in the first place knows how to build a list that will get 3/5, so since all the good players rock up with the exact same composition score it has no effect on the outcome, it's just changed army lists.

The only reasonable argument against composition is "I like tournament army lists the way they are".

The only reasonable argument for composition is "I don't like tournament army lists the way they are, I want people to change them".

Do you want a tournament filled with nob bikers, twin lash, and jetbike seer councils? Please go to your local non composition tournament, I will continue to run my tournaments where none of those ever show up.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

onlainari said:


> I don't have a problem with you guys fielding the most efficient lists you can I'm just concerned about you running out of opponents to play.
> 
> I also haven't seen anyone argue against tournament composition yet, but you guys must all hate the idea. Anyone going to tell me why?
> 
> ...


^Funny how your claiming "tournaments are for fun". But it sounds pretty friggin strict with alot of beetchin about people's LEGAL lists?! So what your saying is if you can't beat someone's list your gonna be a sore loser and refuse to play?


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Personally, no, I will use social pressure to make you change your list (assuming you're the outcast, I would be changing my list if you were the norm).

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there who will refuse to play you, and I'm trying to make you aware of that. You may have the moral high ground but it won't do you much good.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

onlainari said:


> Personally, no, I will use social pressure to make you change your list (assuming you're the outcast, on the other hand I would be changing my list if you were the norm).
> 
> On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there who will refuse to play you, and I'm trying to make you aware of that. You may have the moral high ground but it won't do you much good.


^That just sounds nerdy and pathetic buddy.

No offence


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Fair enough, just being honest.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

Sheet just got real


----------



## Col. Schafer (Apr 15, 2008)

*Cough* *Microphone feedback* *ITS A GAME!!!*

Games are played to be fun. Fun is 100% opinion. Do whatever the hell you want. If you think he will run out of opponents despite the fact that the majority of posts agree with him, don’t play him! If you think he is too restrictive, don’t play him, play someone else, and don’t complain about how he doesn’t like your list! 

And the whole outcast/norm thing, really? Normally I’m not one to judge, but thats just lame. Basically what your saying is "Your wrong, but if you get the cool kids to agree with you, i'll let you do what you want."? That kind of thing burns me up to no end. 

Anyway cheese is choice. And cheese is relative! I (until recently) loved to blather on about support squads with double melta+demo charge and DT doc, but I knew that they could get slaughtered by a 5 man scout squad at any time, That was the fun! Warhammer can be a strategy game or a game of rock paper scissors, either way I love it! It’s all the fluff to me. But that’s me, others like their games differently, as a strategy game or as a game of RPS, they make their lists accordingly. Then there are idiots who intentional use what they are told is cheese and end up playing RPS. 

And Wu-Tang-Tau, probably not my place, but its advisable not to double post. Just edit your last one. 

If I had the tau codex, I would mathammer it to death just to disprove the cheese theory.

*Pant* Rant over. 

Now about the OP, I would have no problem with three of those things. Can you really expect the Tau to go "Were fighting the imperials! Don’t bother fielding out hammerheads, we don’t need them to win." No it would be something more like "Foolish humans, field the hammerheads and prepare the submunition, their ranks will be fodder to the greater good!" That some fluff I can wrap my head around!


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

onlainari said:


> Do you want a tournament filled with nob bikers, twin lash, and jetbike seer councils? Please go to your local non composition tournament, I will continue to run my tournaments where none of those ever show up.


Yes because it is obvious that your biased opinion is all that matters to you when organizing an event. A fair organizer will put his own feelings aside and go with RAR and the public consensus. Where do you draw the line as to what is "fair"? 

What if they had said to the Bulls, "Michael Jordan is too good, to be fair to the other teams, he has to sit for 3 quarters of the game". 

I would have pity on someone who had the misfortune of living in an area where someone who made decisions like that was the primary event organizer.



Wu-Tang-Tau said:


> ^That just sounds nerdy and pathetic buddy.
> 
> No offence


Word.......


----------



## Bolshavic (Dec 8, 2008)

onlainari said:


> I also haven't seen anyone argue against tournament composition yet, but you guys must all hate the idea. Anyone going to tell me why?


I spose the truth is I grew up on 2nd ed 40k and found 3rd edition lists to be very restrictive, evan though fith has improved getting rid of the other stupid orginisational charts its the freedom to field an army u want against anything at anytime.
If someone wants to field leet/heavy ,heavy mehhh how can they win if I kill thier troop choices, no troops no scoring units 2/3 missions lost.

I would rather see a system that rewards fluff than restricts units, so if u could come up with a good reason why that cheesy unit is there fine.

At the end of the day the choice to play or not to is mine, so if I dont like some rules that bad well I live with it and adapt or dont go. I dont overly disagree with composition if its known before hand as it just makes me have to come up with a hard list with what I have at my disposal, another challenge so fun in it self.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

The number of posters in this thread that are using the argument that "40k is a sport" has been steadily growing so I'll deal with them.

40k is not a sport at all.

I get more players at my tournament if I have a composition system than I do if I don't have a composition system. Thus ends my bias.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Arcane said:


> I would have pity on someone who had the misfortune of living in an area where someone who made decisions like that was the primary event organizer.


Over here we have two kinds of tournament mate. Hardcore, no holding back ones and comp ones. More people attend the comp ones, as the people who win that are great players. I've played a couple of the top guys in my state and they are _brilliant_. 

The thing is, comp isn't to stop good lists. It is stop cookie-cutter lists. Lists that people playing for the first time can win with. Things like dual lash. An average player can win easily and a good player can win very easily. It isn't unbeatable, it just doesn't require much tactics to use well. Played with tactics they are of course better, but so is any other list. 

An example from my last tournament with comp, one guy rocked up with a Nightbringer and monolith list. It was his first tournamnet. He won two games and got smashed horribly in the last one. He came last overall. Why? Because he wasn't a professional player. So he didn't deserve to win. Why should a first time tournament goer beat a veteran player because he took *someone else's* winning list? He shouldn't. That is why comp is in place. To stop people going online, getting a powerful list off some veteran, building it and running off to his first tournament and win. Instead, one has to build an original list, one they have created themselves and know I backwards. 

I hope this conveys what comp is in place for and you must keep in mind it has a minimal impact on your final score.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> Over here we have two kinds of tournament mate. Hardcore, no holding back ones and comp ones. More people attend the comp ones, as the people who win that are great players. I've played a couple of the top guys in my state and they are _brilliant_.
> 
> The thing is, comp isn't to stop good lists. It is stop cookie-cutter lists. Lists that people playing for the first time can win with. Things like dual lash. An average player can win easily and a good player can win very easily. It isn't unbeatable, it just doesn't require much tactics to use well. Played with tactics they are of course better, but so is any other list.
> 
> ...


You make some good points, however I disagree. 

Take a newbish player who printed off a pro list and put him against a pro player with the same list, who will win? It is not just a game of dice offs, but a game of skill, tactics and knowing _how_ to use those units. 

It seems like the mathhammer has been hard at work making people scared of these "uber" lists. Not to say they are not powerful and well put together, but a bad roll can make any 300 point monster unit useless for an entire turn, same with a well played tactic. 

If comp tournies are more popular, perhaps that only reflects peoples reluctance to go for broke in an all out tourney, rather than using special rules to _protect_ them. It's no mystery that if you offered people 20 dollars for making ten baskets from shooting at the free throw line versus from shooting at the three point line, most people are going to choose the easier option. Does that make it better or the right way? Not at all.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> An example from my last tournament with comp, one guy rocked up with a Nightbringer and monolith list. It was his first tournamnet. He won two games and got smashed horribly in the last one. He came last overall. Why? Because he wasn't a professional player. So he didn't deserve to win. Why should a first time tournament goer beat a veteran player because he took *someone else's* winning list? He shouldn't. That is why comp is in place. To stop people going online, getting a powerful list off some veteran, building it and running off to his first tournament and win. Instead, one has to build an original list, one they have created themselves and know I backwards.


Rite........Sounds your saying "No one should win but me"


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Wu-Tang-Tau said:


> Rite........Sounds your saying "No one should win but me"


If you are suggesting composition changes who's going to win a tournament you're wrong.

That necron guy would never have won the tournament if there was no composition, he would have faced tougher lists and got his arse handed to him.


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

onlainari said:


> If you are suggesting composition changes who's going to win a tournament you're wrong.
> 
> That necron guy would never have won the tournament if there was no composition, he would have faced tougher lists and got his arse handed to him.


Watever mate... I've tried "uber" necron lists, they are useless. If you can't bet those sort of armies by concentrating your fire on necron warriors then you deserve to lose!


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Arcane said:


> You make some good points, however I disagree.
> 
> Take a newbish player who printed off a pro list and put him against a pro player with the same list, who will win? It is not just a game of dice offs, but a game of skill, tactics and knowing _how_ to use those units.


I know this, I said it in my post. I just didn't emphasise it enough.



Arcane said:


> It seems like the mathhammer has been hard at work making people scared of these "uber" lists. Not to say they are not powerful and well put together, but a bad roll can make any 300 point monster unit useless for an entire turn, same with a well played tactic.


Agreed. One of the reason for comp is to stop new players picking up these lists because they are 'cheesy' and 'always win'. They will win some games against people who aren't ready (either expierence or list) to deal with it. As soon as they go up against the good players, they get smashed. So it seems like a waste of time that could be avoided by people creating their own, original list.



Arcane said:


> If comp tournies are more popular, perhaps that only reflects peoples reluctance to go for broke in an all out tourney, rather than using special rules to _protect_ them. It's no mystery that if you offered people 20 dollars for making ten baskets from shooting at the free throw line versus from shooting at the three point line, most people are going to choose the easier option. Does that make it better or the right way? Not at all.


I never said that comp is the right way. I personally would rather go to a non-comp tournament most of the time. The reasoning I'm agrueing for it is that you don't seem to be understanding _why_ comp tournaments exist.



Wu-Tang-Tau said:


> Rite........Sounds your saying "No one should win but me"


Where the hell did I say that?



Wu-Tang-Tau said:


> Watever mate... I've tried "uber" necron lists, they are useless. If you can't bet those sort of armies by concentrating your fire on necron warriors then you deserve to lose!


I know. He got his arse handed to him. But do you think that people who played him enjoyed it as much as a normal game? No. You don't want to pay for a tournament and smash your opponents with ease, no. You want *some* kind of challenge.


----------



## onlainari (May 10, 2008)

Wolf Lord Skoll are you able to name a no composition tournament being run in Sydney in the next six months?


----------



## vacantghost (Feb 16, 2008)

well, if the hammerheads are necessary in the game you're playing (ex. if you're army list is specifically designed or your goal is to design one targeted at the opponents army list and if beating it requires them hammers, then go for it) 

It may look cheesy, but if it does the damage, then i dont see why not


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

Hammerheads are without a doubt the most dangerous weapon the Tau Empire has at it's disposal. I would not leave home without at least two railheads in any of my lists. I wouldn't use three in a 1,500 point game because I could put the points to better use somewhere else, but if you want to field three Hammerheads, go for it. 

Anybody who has a cry about it is just being a bitch. A three Hammerhead list is hardly unbeatable.

If you saw how many railheads I put down in an Apocalypse game some of you would probably have a fit.


----------



## WoRLoKKeD (Apr 1, 2008)

onlainari said:


> Y Three hammerheads are highly likely to produce unbalanced games. *Nothing is undefeatable, there are just some lists that perform near to full effectiveness now matter how poor of a tactician you are.* I encourage good generals to use lists that become far more effective than any three hammerhead list if you use it right. I also think it's okay for new players to stick with lists like three hammerheads that make it hard for you to screw up.


What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. - Sun Tzu. 

Simple overpowering is a classic tactic. :biggrin:


----------



## Ztrain (Oct 26, 2008)

onlainari said:


> Three hammerheads in 1500 points is way over the top and only acceptable if the people that play against you are fine with it, or you are playing in a tournament with no composition.


1500 point total. 3 hammer heads probably less then 500 points legal.

Each takes up a heavy slot and you have 3 allowed in so if you don't want any sniper teams, sky ray's, or broadsides, then no problem according to the force organization chart there either.

So it's perfectly acceptable.

Having said that. Some people play more competativly then others. Sorry that's life. I know people that play MMOs and don't care I know others that are hard core raiders that wanna be first through all the content to each their own.

Personally I always crack a smile though when someone puts down 3 monoliths against me. I think that's half the fun. Seeing what the other oponent brings. I never call cheese because tbh it's all legal and fun to play against. If I get smeared with something like 3 hammerheads or 3 monoliths that's the deal. I can either try to deal with them or not but that's the game.

I don't mind loosing and am not going to try and tell someone to gimp their army. Hell I even enjoy it when a player wips out their warhound and say's can I play with that? Sure thing!!!!
Z


----------



## Wu-Tang-Tau (Apr 2, 2009)

Siege said:


> If you saw how many railheads I put down in an Apocalypse game some of you would probably have a fit.


Ha ha, I am getting there myself! I got 6 railheads so far! Thinking about fielding at least 3 interdiction teams and possibly another 2-3 to accompany my devilfish battle groups. Probably would try to take that stratgem that lets you all fire at one target  Bye bye titans!


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

onlainari said:


> Personally, no, I will use social pressure to make you change your list (assuming you're the outcast, I would be changing my list if you were the norm).


I am still in awe of this... :shok:

MY PLASTIC ARMY MEN ARE BETTER THAN YOURS!


----------



## Munkie (Apr 3, 2009)

As far as I'm concerned it is pretty much mandatory to take 2 at 1500 and 3 at 1750. Anybody who cries cheese, needs to realize that they're to talking to a Tau player and honestly, we can't powergame in 5th edition. Not like other armies can anyway. Railheads are the only way of holding back multitudes of battlewagons (and soon Leman Russes) as well as the (also mandatory) 2 Monolith armies. The Disruption Pod is an underpriced upgrade now, yes, but it's the only way to balance now overpriced skimmers. In 5th edition, mobile Tau is good Tau, and people really shouldn't be griping about you not handicapping yourself.


----------



## Siege (Jan 18, 2008)

Munkie is dead on the money with that last comment.


----------

