When is a list a fun/noncheese list?

Promises · Post by **Promises** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:13 am

Say you had to divide armies according to the banding rules (band 1 = gitty, virtually non-fun to play against, band 2 = competetive but fun, band 3 = a list consired weaker, often fluff based), what should a DE army absolutely not have to get to band 2 or 3? Double Hydras? Black Guard? Pendant? More then 6 levels of Magic? Too many harpies? Whats your 2 cents?

Lethalis · Post by **Lethalis** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:33 pm

More than 6 levels of magic combined with harpies/dark riders/shades only is the only one I can think of. For the rest, if people complain about it I genuinely think they have severe issues with objective thinking.

Milney · Post by **Milney** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:21 pm

Lethalis wrote:More than 6 levels of magic combined with harpies/dark riders/shades only is the only one I can think of. For the rest, if people complain about it I genuinely think they have severe issues with objective thinking.

I've never understood the arbitrary cut-off point of "6 levels of Magic" that arose with 6th Edition as some "line" that is crossed.

Thinking it through rationally, in the standard 2,000pts pitched battle, it is possible to get a maximum of 10 levels of Magic (4 from a Lord, 6 from Heroes). So surely 5 "levels" is exactly bang in the middle?

So why then, is having a single extra caster (thus making it "Magic Themed") suddenly crossing this line - especially considering that Magic is perhaps the most fickle phase in the game.

Only in truely magic-dependant armies (i.e. Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings) would I class that level of Magic as over-board, seeing as they can reliably use it to replenish thier losses. The point-weighting of normal magic users makes it so that, to be honest, a force would most often benefit more from just stacking a whole heap of Shooting instead.

(This is not a criticism of your post, it's just always puzzled me why people clung to this "line").

Again with the MSU of Fast Cavalry and Flyers. To me that is the distinctive flavour of the Dark Elves as a raiding force.

We don't have the massed infantry of the Empire or Skaven, nor are our expensive troops particularly tough or able to withstand an assault (Chaos or the Asur with thier ASF).

Though I do agree that having 4+ MSU of our mobile forces can often lead to a boring "Points Denial" victory.

In my eyes the only real "Gitty" set-up for Dark Elves is the Double-Hydra list (even though I use it myself) as quite frankly they are under-costed and are so fantastically good that I often find themselves pulling off wins even with the rest of my list in tatters.

Livefromnaggaroth · Post by **Livefromnaggaroth** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:42 pm

Milney wrote:In my eyes the only real "Gitty" set-up for Dark Elves is the Double-Hydra list (even though I use it myself) as quite frankly they are under-costed and are so fantastically good that I often find themselves pulling off wins even with the rest of my list in tatters.

Agreed. Also; I believe there is such a thing as 'too many assassins'.

Mr. anderson · Post by **Mr. anderson** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:33 pm

So why then, is having a single extra caster (thus making it "Magic Themed") suddenly crossing this line - especially considering that Magic is perhaps the most fickle phase in the game.

Having a single caster crossing the line is not exactly the worst thing, but a level four and two level two sorcerers in 2k does cross the line between having some magic in the army and having too much. The magic phase is one of the most unreliable ones, it is also potentially one of the most devastating ones (second only to the combat phase) if it works. A careful general can often ensure that magic brings more good than bad (though going magic-heavy can backfire at times) so I think that going over the top with anything that can harm your opponent at distance without allowing the chance to strike back takes the fun out of the game, but there is no such thing as a principle by which you can determine what is too much. Usually you only recognise the extremes (dwarf Gun Lines for example) as being over the top and set ups that are only crossing the line by a certain amount appear to be questionable, but many people (such as me) don't argue with those because it is tough to determine where cheese stops and whining begins.

HUZZAH!

Phierlihy · Post by **Phierlihy** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:31 am

In my area, running a pair of hydras is considered in bad taste. But so is a dragon more often than not as well. I think it's fine to have some powerful characters out there but make sure you provide your opponent some squishy units to knock over so that even if he loses, he still feels like he accomplished something.

Post by **Thanee** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:49 am

A Dragon in 2k or even 2250 points is generally considered unfun.

Four RBTs are as well, I guess, as is an extreme amount of magic and/or shooting.

Bye
Thanee

Hali · Post by **Hali** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:53 am

Well, you just have to ask yourself one question.

Am I playing the rules or the game?

You can still have an extremely characterful Dark Elf army with two Hydras and a Dragon in it, without it being cheesy. But you should try and think of a way in ballancing the strengths off, little things like, removing ALL screening units or march blockers can be enough, and it also creates a sort of Lumbering bruteness about the army.

It tends to be good to build to a theme, and then alter it to be competitive. I never thought of Dragons in a 2k game as a cheese gameplay thing to do. Also, get to know the people you play and what they think about it, some clubs are far more competitive and others are far more theme based.

Crawd · Post by **Crawd** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:26 am

You can't always know when your list will be fun or not, because it also depend on your opponent. Most of the time, the fun lists are balanced list, when you know that you haven't gone too far. Sure if your opponent did a very weak list, you may think that you list is cheesy.

But keep in mind that you should always step back after each game and talk with your opponent about how the game was. Knowing the opponent intention or telling your strategy will make the gaming improved for both players. and Yes telling your strategy will improve yours because you'll try to find a way to kill your own strategy and you'll have to find a way to prevent your strategy to be killed.

Of course I'm a little off topic but, it's all about the feeling or the opponent. Because some gaming club uses Anvil with Thorek + Gunline. Which isn't a cheesy list for them while other gaming clubs, like mine, keeps with friendly lists. In both situation, people have fun and competition one tends to have boring games if someone list is a lot weaker than the other and the other is boring if someone bring a cheesy list.

I think that's the first question you should ask by looking at your list instead of: How far can I go to make a fun and not cheesy list.

Lethalis · Post by **Lethalis** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:19 pm

Milney; I don't think it's a case of 5 magic levels being all fine and six or more suddenly not. It's just the fact that in my opinion, playing with a good chunk of mobile fire power from both magic and shooting while denying your opponent any combat at all makes for a less fun game for the opponent in general. Sure, it's a valid tactic and the Dark Elves excel at it. Sure, it's legal and you can choose such an army if you want to. I'm just saying that a mobile gunline isn't the most exiting proposition for most people to play against.

Highborn on black dragon · Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:26 pm

Dark elven heavy magic isn't cheesy. Our magic is way too expensive and if you go heavy magic you'll have little to spare for other troops in games under 3000 points. As a sample an Empire player can go with 2-3 caddies, still have slots and points for big and bad things. We can't. Against capable player (not expert) you're going to suck ass and will only win if you have luck with dices.

Two hydras aren't that cheesy too. Dwarven fire balistas with S7 and engineer anyone?

Post by **Rork** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:10 pm

Highborn on Black Dragon wrote:Two hydras aren't that cheesy too. Dwarven fire balistas with S7 and engineer anyone?

Cheese and 'brokeness' are entirely contextual. Are Dwarf ballistae overpowered because they pay for their upgrades? All that a hydra gets is included in its basic price.

Is that ballista so broken in the face of half a dozen chariots? Dragon princes?

Dark Elves can have a filthy magic phase. Tool up with several levels of magic and add the sacrificial dagger - you'll make Vampires cry with the number of power dice you can throw out. Not necessarily cheese in itself, but it can cripple your opponent at times.

Sometimes gaming groups are more competitive than others. One man's cheese is another man's fair game.

Post by **Dalamar** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:32 pm

Fun/Cheese list are in the eye of the opponent.

While a list might be completely fluffy for you, your opponent might decide it's cheesy and definitely won't have fun playing it.

Myself, I find all lists fun as long as they present me with a challenge.

So for example, lumbering infantry army with little shooting while some people might find fun and "balanced" for me is boring and mostly doesn't present me with a challenge (unless I go with a similar list).

After all, it's the game that's fun/not fun not the specific lists.

Promises · Post by **Promises** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:41 pm

I think my own definition would be along the lines of a list that isnt a one-trick pony, one that stays somewhat true to fluff (I dont mean you cant take a Sorc in the same army as some khainite units/assasin, but for instance a Cauldron in an army without any Khainites seems a bit odd to me), and one that actually involves you and your opponent into multiple phases, and requires some discisionmaking by both. A gunline set at the back of the table or a Tzeentch full-on Magic army dont do this; they just sit back and blast away while the opponent has to wobble their way over the table.

In the end its a very situational thing, and even a list that would be "un-fun" can be fun if the player is a nice guy and sporting, so its a bit grey all in all =)

Post by **Dalamar** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:18 pm

Empire army of Nuln with 4 cannons and lots of handgunners is very fluffy.

Some people would call it boring gunline.

Sure, it can be pretty boring gunline, but it's still a fluffy army. And IMO only one that realistically would be able to field 2 steam tanks (as empire only has 13 of them and Nuln is the center of engineering)

But on the same note Nuln army would have more engineers than other characters as well.

Kuanor · Post by **Kuanor** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:46 pm

The often made error is the coupling of "fluffy" and "not boring/beardy" as your example with Nuln shows. But a fact is also, that most beardy list are not fluffy.

Post by **Dalamar** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:27 pm

Are you going to call my monster themed army not fluffy?

Kuanor · Post by **Kuanor** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:34 am

As you already said: An army can be fluffy and beardy at the same time.

A do not know your one - but my army is on the way to become one itself. A.t.m. it's more a CO-themed army through the lack of monsters. ^^

Since the hydra is very strong in the new AB and the other monsters did not get weaker playing a monster-themed "fluffy" list does not mean not to play a beardy one. Karond Kar has a) Monsters, b) Harpies and c) Corsairs, so everything you put into your beardy army, besides maybe the CoB or the BG (the other khainites are not that attractive anyway), could count as fluffy.

Thomus darkblade · Post by **Thomus darkblade** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:28 am

cheesy armies are "themed" armies consisting of only good units. I've come to dislike "theme" because it gives validation to powergamers. While not all themes are cheesy, I would argue that all cheesy armies are themed.

Post by **Dalamar** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:01 am

"themed" armies consisting of only good units are often not "themed" at all.
The "theme" is the built of the army to represent possibly the most "realistic" army given race would field.

So no, empire gunline is not realistic unless it's from Nuln (which requires proper colour scheme) and has a couple engineers for character slots.

But at the same time full cavalry bretonnian army without a single peasant is just as realistic but some might say cheesy.

Thomus darkblade · Post by **Thomus darkblade** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:20 am

Dalamar wrote:"themed" armies consisting of only good units are often not "themed" at all.
The "theme" is the built of the army to represent possibly the most "realistic" army given race would field.

So no, empire gunline is not realistic unless it's from Nuln (which requires proper colour scheme) and has a couple engineers for character slots.

But at the same time full cavalry bretonnian army without a single peasant is just as realistic but some might say cheesy.

Oh but they often are. Skyre themed skaven, pegasus themed bretonians, Tzeench or nurgle themed demons, Karond Kar themed Dark elves, "Faith and powder" themed Empire. Tree themed Wood elves

Pretty much any cheesy army can be "themed" with minimal imagination from the player.

And regarding color scheme, I'm not going to dock anyone for not painting thier army in GW's bland and uninspired book schemes. If you're going to drop hundreds of dollars on toy soldiers you can paint them any way you want.

The point is: "cheesy" lists are always redundant which means that there is always a theme No list that contains a single entry from every unit in the book is ever cheesy. redunancy (and thus theme) makes cheese.

It is of course true that any "real" army would be reduntant. It's also true that they would be core heavy, and in all likelyhood consist of 75-90% spearmen or halberdiers.

Martialartist · Post by **Martialartist** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:53 am

Promises wrote:I think my own definition would be along the lines of a list that isnt a one-trick pony, one that stays somewhat true to fluff (I dont mean you cant take a Sorc in the same army as some khainite units/assasin, but for instance a Cauldron in an army without any Khainites seems a bit odd to me), and one that actually involves you and your opponent into multiple phases, and requires some discisionmaking by both. A gunline set at the back of the table or a Tzeentch full-on Magic army dont do this; they just sit back and blast away while the opponent has to wobble their way over the table.

In the end its a very situational thing, and even a list that would be "un-fun" can be fun if the player is a nice guy and sporting, so its a bit grey all in all =)

This is the sort of attitude I have. I ALWAYS design my DE lists (and this is one of the reasons I chose DE) so that I have a reasonable balance of move/shoot/magic/combat potential.

Having a battle plan more like "slow down the enemy in the movement phase, knock off a few ranks with magic and shooting and then close in for the kill in combat" is much more balanced than "shoot them all dead!!"

I do also believe that core troops win battles, and any good army should have (probably) at least 2 more than the required limit (well, mine do) and always a couple of solid blocks of infantry.

I pretty much always run 2 x Spears, 2 x Crossbows, 2 x DR, 1-2 Harpies and then some characters and some shades, hydra and cold ones.

So, to make your army balanced I'd go core-heavy, not too many characters, and don't tend to duplicate units from the Special/Rare (bar Bolt Throwers) sections.

I also see Dragons in 2 000 pts as cheesy.

But thats all just my opinion.

MA

Demetrius · Post by **Demetrius** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:37 am

Cheesy armies are normally cheesy because they spam certain units. Simple. I can't recall a "cheesy" army that doesn't spam a unit or two. Mainly the unit in question in special, sometimes even rare (4 Bolt Throwers, 2 Hydras) but the army can be cheesy if it spams core as well (spammed DRs or Harpies).

A balanced list is balanced because it has an even balance of units accross the board and the most elite of the units are only seen in maybe 1 or 2 units. It is able to field static combat res, active combat res, fast units, slow units, shooting units and magic units.

Dragons and the like don't seem to me cheesy. At the end of the day, every army can take one/ equivelent to one, so why argue? Besides there are many viable tactics to do with these monstrosites (either by killing it or just avoiding it).

Broken units are more the problem. High Elf Sword Masters and Brettonian Pegasi all fall under this category. The Hydra comes close. These units are not cheesy, but become cheesy if taken in more than one unit. Its not the gamers fault, its GWs fault for making their rules far too good for their points cost. But like everything, they still have a weakness. Balanced lists perform better against these broken units than cheesy lists as they will always have a unit to deal with it (shooters, chariots etc)