Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Dec 7, 2005 9:46:21 GMT -5
Fluff is still just as subjective as sportsmanship. Also, not every army has fluff that is applicable. for example - Craftworld Eldar - how do you look at a generic Eldar (or Dark Eldar) army and say it is or isn't fluffy enough? Same would go for Tyranids - how do you determine their fluffiness?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 7, 2005 15:04:03 GMT -5
What would be taken into consideration for army types like that would be did the person try to make a specific type of army...a swarm army? A big ones? Or did he just take as many rending claws he could? Was the army made to just win or was is a variation of what type of army it is. Does it have star cannons and bright lances to the teeth? Or is there sherukin catapults and other weapons? Is it the ALL Dark reaper army or is there actually guardians in the army? We all know what makes a "cheese" army and what makes a good or fluffy army. Its not hard to tell or judge that.
|
|
Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Dec 7, 2005 15:52:07 GMT -5
But that is my point - fluff is just background info. it's not necessarily good grounds for composition scoring. A balanced army is a balanced amry regardless of the fluff.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 7, 2005 16:39:11 GMT -5
Actually Fluff has alot to do with composition for armys that are based on fluff. For example Black Legions favorite tactic is to Teleport thier terminators into battle. If the army has terminators for the black legion thats considered fluff and in good comp for the army.
Its not in good comp for say, a Space wolf player to take 9 land speeders with assualt cannons becuase space wolves dont like "wierd" technologies and are very superstitious of such things.
There is those armies that are DIY and really have no fluff behind them, in such cases one could ask:
Did they attempt to make a fluffy army?
-If so, did they take choices that would reflect that fluff?
-If not, Is thier army composition a typical Army for the race they have choosen to play.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Dec 7, 2005 17:50:22 GMT -5
Just to add a little in here. There are some armies that really can't avoid being considered unbalanced or "Cheesy" even tho they are completely fluffy. For instance a Genestealer cult army, a single aspect eldar army, Armored company guard, or even a deathwing army.
Are these armies that people really shouldn't play? If we are going to consider constructing some new guidelines of "fair play" these types of armies should be noted.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 7, 2005 18:06:40 GMT -5
Thats not entirely true, With the exception of the Genestealer cult (which is not technically a list at all, its just genestealers and a Brood lord) You can make a complelty fluffy army and be completly "fair" to play as well as being un-"cheesy" as well.
Nothing is preventing the Raven wing from arming thier land speeders and bike with Heavy bolters, Multi Meltas or other weaponry available to them. Not ALL of thier vehicles MUST be assualt cannons.
Not every Tank in the Armored Collum list HAS to be a Lemun Russ, they have options for Armored fist squads, Storm troopers in Chimeras, Salamanders and Sentinal choices.
And the Only Single Aspect army that people dont want to see is the all Dark Reaper army. Any other aspect would be considered fine to play with the least amount of complaining.
You can debunk almost any army out there of thier "cheese" if you try hard enough and look else where for weapons, choices or wargear. But Again it all has to do with the mentallity of the player and what kind of experience do they want to have and others to have playing them.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 7, 2005 18:08:16 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with one aspect armies like the Genestealer cult or Deathwing, they have been around now for a while, have ample fluff behind them, and most players can recognize them right away. I have more problems with an army that is being put forth as something it is not. Round 3 in Toronto I played an Altioc ranger army that had 5 vehicles including a Fire Prism, Scorpions, Banshees, an a few min-maxed squads of scouts so that the player could use the special scout rule to place my units in reserve. Jay saw the army and d**n near laughed in the guy's face when he was it was a ranger army.
Now let's all be honest, all of us have been playing long enough now that we know the difference between a well composed army based on fluff and an army with as much special weapon goodness crammed into with a few blurbs written in a feeble attempt to justify it. If your opponent has multiples of high powered troops and weapons in his army I don't think you are wrong in asking "Why?". The answer "Cause they are good" really shouldn't be enough justification. There is a difference between fair and cheesy just like Ron has tried to point out.
|
|
|
Post by MallSecurity on Dec 7, 2005 21:15:51 GMT -5
The Armored Company is Fluffy, as are several over-powering tournament armies. I really don't see a solid link between fluffy and a balanced tournament list. Besides a few quick words on paper and all of a sudden my six 5 man Las-plas marine squads are not only strong but fluffy? Bleh It reminds me of the time Courtney's 'One-Thirds' Dark Angels army got pounded on comp at a GT. It may not have been 'fluffy' in the hardcore sense, but it had a cool theme and was quite fair. Although I think argument here is more about cheesiness and not 'power-gaming' (The Concept of tournaments alone shows that everyone 'power-games' to a certain level). I largely agree with Dave and Ben on the larger issue at hand. 'Cheesiness' will always be present and are always judged in the eye of the beholder. Are Bloodletters Cheesy? What about Death Company? You can probably get a different answer from just about everyone at Boldo's and Millennium. The Best you can do is put in some simple 'soft-scores' at a tournament to try to curb the obvious crap (Daemon Prince, 9 Oblits and 4 Defilers). In the end you just have hope the playing atmosphere of the store and the 'Boldo's mentality' wins through in the end. Here is a link on the subject (Although I don't agree with everything in the article, I think it makes some good points): www.thewarp.net/war/tigersofveda/roars6.htm
|
|
getting back on topic
Guest
|
Post by getting back on topic on Dec 8, 2005 14:50:13 GMT -5
To address the question of whether or not da boyz are becoming power gamers... I would have to say yes.
As a new comer just this summer, I had very little concept of what made a good army. I took a lot of things mainly because websites had said that they were useful. It might not have been fluffy but it certainly had no tactical foresight, and I got crushed, fair enough I say.
But as time went on I found myself constantly losing due to two major flaws: Lack of experience and army comp. The experience problem is obviously self resolving, as I am a much smarter player then I used to be. However, I never could find an army comp that really worked for me.
Then one day I found an article written by the most recent winner of the Dutch GT and (gasp) he was an Ultramarine. I would be lying if I said I didn't immediately retool my army to match his. His was only 1600 points so my standard 2k build was at least somewhat my own, but the fact is that it is was now largely built on the design of a GT winner. Not surprisingly, the next time I played I won for the first time in over a month.
As time has gone on my army comp has changed to the point where it's no longer really based on the design I had encountered on the net. But the fact remains that in order for me, as a new player, to have a shade of a chance, I need to bring some serious guns to the table. And all it takes is one person to bend the rules and start doing some serious tweaking and suddenly everyone has to catch up.
In short, I think that no matter what, on a long enough timeline a set of players will eventually become powergamers. This especially runs true with an influx of new gamers who have to compensate for their lack of experience. We can't help but be competitive and want to win, it's part of being who we are.
All that aside though, my only other thought is that if we're all playing in our own styles and levels of competition and we're all having fun, then who cares?
|
|
|
Post by thatguyjames on Dec 8, 2005 14:52:07 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in for that post, it was me. Stupid new boards that I'm not auto logged into.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 8, 2005 15:28:06 GMT -5
There is a very thin line between power gaming and cheesiness. They can almost be one in the same and in fact I think they are. Here is why I think so. Power gaming is trying to pull some advantage out of your codex where you in fact might tip the balance of the game in your favor of you. This stratagem relies alot upon what powerhouses can I put in my army isntead of relying on Tactics or chance. This tactic seem selfish to me. Not only could it inhibit the mood of the game but you are taking away from the core concept of what the game is all about. Cheese is the same but taking to an extreme. Where in those two is the line draw where on army goes from Power gaming to Cheese? EVERYONE has diffrent opinions. Mine is there is no diffrence. The author of this article is trying to justify Cheese (or power gaming if you would rather) in any game. This goes back to the old saying..."If its in your codex its legal" I say wrong. Everyone has said things like :Thats just wrong, or thats over the top, Cheese!, Thats crazy" About units, characters ect...This means there are people out there that dont agree with the article above. Why try and justify it? Just accept what typ of player you are and move on if your going to go to the trouble to type up material like that article. Anyways. Yes, there is a definent shift to power gaming (cheese) with our group. Should it stop? I would hope so, Will it? Most likely not. But in the end like James said are we having fun either way? Yes for the most part. Then until it becomes a major hazard have fun.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 8, 2005 16:51:38 GMT -5
James and Ron, you both cut to the core of the arguement here, basically the core of the whole game...
Is it fun?
I say yes, but qualify my answer with this. Warhammer is fun for me because it gives me a creative outlet, both in playing and painting. That is who I am and I am most happy when I have this type of outlet. I enjoy meeting everyone on the weekend and playing, be it in a tournament or just a friendly pick up game. I like seeing the progress everyone has made in their army. I admit that I like winning as well as the next guy, but with winning also comes the occasional loss as well. Losing has never been a problem but it tend not to sit well when you feel your loss occurred due to your opponent pulling "an ace out of his sleeve". Nine obliterators was funny when Ron pulled it in the tourney a few months back, but I think he "gets it" by saying this is cheesy and although "codex legal" he said he would not use it again. Just because you can take two command squads attach libriarians and chaplains to both, throw in some specialized elites, and top it off with as many assault cannons as you have points left for doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Losing is not a fun experience when you had no real chance of winning at the start of the battle. Winning also should feel as hollow if you take an overtooled army to battle. If I wanted to see an uber army smash the hell out of a weak one, I would watch reruns of the Gulf War on the military channel, not play Warhammer. I guess what I saying is that we all should be fair when it comes to our army comp, especially in friendly games. But that is just my opinion....
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 8, 2005 17:05:32 GMT -5
Mind you this was never in contestation. I always knew it was cheesey and never did it otherwise until you 3 goaded me into it that 1 tournament. And as Ive said before will never use it again to be fair to everyone.
|
|
McCommander
Sergeant
The Dreamiest
For every one that falls, two shall take his place!
Posts: 209
|
Post by McCommander on Dec 8, 2005 18:07:03 GMT -5
Just as a side note a little while back I had a concern that no matter what I put in my army comp. it was going to be called power gaming by someone as we all have different lines drawn. On the previous board I've stated several times what my views are on this topic so I'm not going to re-hash them here as that's not the point of this post. If your interested, I lean more toward the "If it's in your codex and you don't morally feel that your over the top, go for it and have fun."
,but that's not the point of this post. A couple of tournaments ago I was having these thoughts, so it was suggest that I try something different and specifically nerf my army in ways that I would normally never consider. What was suggested is that I take a marine army without any heavy weapons at all as well as no AP 3 or better weapons. Seriously daunted at the task (give it some thought what that army would have to look like), but up for the challenge I gave it a try. The new army looked nothing like my norm. and I was crushed my first game by Doug no less. However, I won my second and third game against seasoned players. I had to adapt and use new strategies that I had never even considered before. In the end I learned a great deal. I didn't win the tournament (Ron had 9 Oblitorators as noted above), but had a tremendous amount of fun challenged by this nerfed list.
I know this is a little off topic, but I highly recommend for people to give this a try. It's a great way to grow as a player and to prove to yourself that "Power gaming" really isn't all that necessary to have fun and still be competitive.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Dec 8, 2005 18:17:40 GMT -5
Oh my god.. the pictures of models on that web site give me a headache.
|
|