Tabletop Gamesmanship 101 – The Truth About Cheese
Many players (most, I would say) will cry ‘CHEESE!’ when they encounter something they do not like on the competitive side of our hobby. This may be a particular combination of units, the use of more than one of the same unit, or even a single unit itself. It may be the formation or overall army theme that is disliked. Still, no matter the reason, it is a rare day when the cries of ‘CHEESE’ are not heard.
Arguments have been made for both sides of the coin. Some ‘cheesy’ combinations are considered unfair, or too tough, powerful, or difficult to surmount. Some are simply units that have special abilities that make the unit what it is, and define the unit’s role on the tabletop. Some defenders will tell the cheese-crier to take a better, more objective, look at the army in the hopes that the will see a broader truth. Quite simply, that comparing one unit from one list to another unit from another list is imbalanced in itself, as the units are designed to complement the units within the parent list, not with units of a similar nature in other lists. Thus far, the logic is on the side of those who would say that ‘cheese’ does not exist.
What does logic tell us then? Let us say that GW has it right, and considering that GW has been in the business longer than any of us, we must assume that GW has a better grasp of the issue than do we. Games of 40K are designed around a 1500 point average, according to the game designers, so we’ll start there.
These same designers also stipulate a particular number of units that must be present in order to field a legal force, as well as a maximum number of units from several categories that may be fielded to better define and expand the initial force. If you, dear reader, have not noticed that the army ‘comp’ is controlled by the Force Organization Chart by now, then you are most likely in the wrong hobby. Further defining the FOC or ‘army composition’ is perfectly permissible, provided all parties agree beforehand. Further defining what is or is not good army composition is purely subjective and not within the spirit of the game. By further defining, or limiting, army comp beyond the FOC, an individual, or a group, is then determining what a hobbyist can and cannot do with their own army, basically saying to the players, “I/We don’t like that setup, so you are not permitted to play it.” I have seen this in action at official events, as well as local tournaments and pick-up games. Where in the rule book does it state that one person has any control over another’s army? How does doing such a thing uphold the most important rule? Is limiting one person’s army, but not another’s really fair? Does it create a ‘fun’ game for both opponents? The logical answer is simply, No, it does not. But, there are those who would cry ‘Cheese’ and present their complaints to willing listeners and eventually such unfair practices would continue and actually become the norm. Why? Well, this is where logic leads to greater understanding.
What do you expect to come up against when designing your army? Most people have a very firm idea of what their army will look like. Many people, and this can be seen all over the internet and heard in the ‘metagame’ discussions at local shoppes, actually believe that to tool their army to better handle and defeat Space Marine equivalent armies is the way to go. Often the owners of these armies will have very little else in mind when designing their list, especially when entering a tournament. How logical is this? How many times do you expect to face that mythical MEq army you are so confident against? Are those the only armies you’ll encounter? Are you kidding?
Most armies will provide some or all of the following obstacles:
Horde Infantry
Massed Static Firepower
Mobil or Static Tank Company
Anti-tank Heavy Firepower
Anti-infantry Heavy Firepower
Counter-Assault Specialists
Massed Assault Specialists
Unrivaled Speed
Army/Unit Special Rules
Point Denial Units
Is your army designed to handle these obstacles, or a MEq army? How did you design your army? Did you take such things as Massed Tanks into your battle plan for your army? Do you expect to deal with a very Fast army, or an army that can lay down massive amounts of firepower? Basically, did you take all of these into consideration when designing your force? Each of these obstacles is not only present in tourneys, but will very likely face you down from across the table in pick-up games as well. Many armies will have more than one such obstacle for yours to overcome. Some few may even be able to present all of them in one tight little package. The truth is obvious here. You must expect to see many different obstacles during your games. None of those listed is in any way illegal or very tough on its own, and by combining and using more than one of these obstacles (or tactics) within your own army, it then becomes that much stronger and more capable of dealing with enemy forces.
Now, consider the following…
You may have an army that comprises Marines, and lots of Marines, but not many heavy weapons, and no vehicles, but as most of these Marines are Assault Marines, not only do you have a high level of resiliency due to your numbers and armor save, but you also have speed. Such an army will rely upon cover to make it through most games involving massed anti-infantry shooting, or even tank heavy armies. But, such an army would do very well against other assault armies, fast armies, or even point denial armies (as these often rely on distance to work properly). So, you now have a very cool assault heavy fast army, but you do lack a few things…. First of all, you lack range. The first and maybe even second turn of the game will be an uphill struggle for you against most other armies, while they pick apart your units with ranged firepower. Also, you lack vehicles. This means that you will likely have trouble dealing with other vehicles, as you have no long ranged firepower either. You lack variety. Your enemy may have units specifically designed to cut through your Marines in combat. Would the owner of such an army call an Eldar force with Banshees, Harlies, and Fire Prisms ‘Cheesy’? Of course they would, and very often that is exactly the case. But, why is the Eldar force ‘Cheesy’? The Eldar force is strictly within the guidelines set by the FOC, and most likely also conforms to the local restrictions as well. The Eldar force mentioned combines Speed, Assault, and Firepower, as well as Unique Unit Rules, as well as whatever may be presented by the other units in the Eldar force. The Eldar force was not ‘Cheesy’, it was simply more prepared than the Marine force. The Eldar force owner considered more obstacles to overcome when designing her force, than did the Marine owner.
This is the most common scenario for cries of ‘Cheese’ in my experience. The Marine player has simply not considered all that must be considered in designing a well balanced force. The lack of ranged or anti-tank weaponry, alternate ways of dealing with vehicles or other combat specialists, or planning for the likelihood that terrain would not be in favor of the Marine army combined to provide a very hard hitting force, but only against the ‘right’ opponents. Paper/Scissors/Rock strategy at its best. Generally, players who have ‘perfected’ their list and refuse to stray from it are guilty of crying ‘Cheese’ when confronted with lists that are not over the top or unsportsmanlike, but are rather not what they designed their army to fight. Saying that the opposing army is over the top or unfair is the same as crying ‘Cheese’. The problem lies not with the opposing army, but with the inability or refusal to provide a competitive game. Don’t expect another to change their legal army if you are not willing to change yours. Don’t down others for playing to the strengths of their army if you are not even willing to do the same with yours. Those who cry ‘Cheese’ are the epitome of what the Most Important Rule warns against.
Personally, I have armies that never change. One Eldar, one Witch Hunters, and a budding Necron force. I design them to be able to handle most any situation, and then challenge myself to overcome all of the obstacles presented with the same list. The armies do not always win, and I am often at a disadvantage. I am guilty of making lists that are immutable and often outclassed by my opponent’s army. I have never cried ‘Cheese!’ There is no cheese; there are only those who wish to play at a truly competitive level, and those who maliciously envy those who do.
Many players (most, I would say) will cry ‘CHEESE!’ when they encounter something they do not like on the competitive side of our hobby. This may be a particular combination of units, the use of more than one of the same unit, or even a single unit itself. It may be the formation or overall army theme that is disliked. Still, no matter the reason, it is a rare day when the cries of ‘CHEESE’ are not heard.
Arguments have been made for both sides of the coin. Some ‘cheesy’ combinations are considered unfair, or too tough, powerful, or difficult to surmount. Some are simply units that have special abilities that make the unit what it is, and define the unit’s role on the tabletop. Some defenders will tell the cheese-crier to take a better, more objective, look at the army in the hopes that the will see a broader truth. Quite simply, that comparing one unit from one list to another unit from another list is imbalanced in itself, as the units are designed to complement the units within the parent list, not with units of a similar nature in other lists. Thus far, the logic is on the side of those who would say that ‘cheese’ does not exist.
What does logic tell us then? Let us say that GW has it right, and considering that GW has been in the business longer than any of us, we must assume that GW has a better grasp of the issue than do we. Games of 40K are designed around a 1500 point average, according to the game designers, so we’ll start there.
These same designers also stipulate a particular number of units that must be present in order to field a legal force, as well as a maximum number of units from several categories that may be fielded to better define and expand the initial force. If you, dear reader, have not noticed that the army ‘comp’ is controlled by the Force Organization Chart by now, then you are most likely in the wrong hobby. Further defining the FOC or ‘army composition’ is perfectly permissible, provided all parties agree beforehand. Further defining what is or is not good army composition is purely subjective and not within the spirit of the game. By further defining, or limiting, army comp beyond the FOC, an individual, or a group, is then determining what a hobbyist can and cannot do with their own army, basically saying to the players, “I/We don’t like that setup, so you are not permitted to play it.” I have seen this in action at official events, as well as local tournaments and pick-up games. Where in the rule book does it state that one person has any control over another’s army? How does doing such a thing uphold the most important rule? Is limiting one person’s army, but not another’s really fair? Does it create a ‘fun’ game for both opponents? The logical answer is simply, No, it does not. But, there are those who would cry ‘Cheese’ and present their complaints to willing listeners and eventually such unfair practices would continue and actually become the norm. Why? Well, this is where logic leads to greater understanding.
What do you expect to come up against when designing your army? Most people have a very firm idea of what their army will look like. Many people, and this can be seen all over the internet and heard in the ‘metagame’ discussions at local shoppes, actually believe that to tool their army to better handle and defeat Space Marine equivalent armies is the way to go. Often the owners of these armies will have very little else in mind when designing their list, especially when entering a tournament. How logical is this? How many times do you expect to face that mythical MEq army you are so confident against? Are those the only armies you’ll encounter? Are you kidding?
Most armies will provide some or all of the following obstacles:
Horde Infantry
Massed Static Firepower
Mobil or Static Tank Company
Anti-tank Heavy Firepower
Anti-infantry Heavy Firepower
Counter-Assault Specialists
Massed Assault Specialists
Unrivaled Speed
Army/Unit Special Rules
Point Denial Units
Is your army designed to handle these obstacles, or a MEq army? How did you design your army? Did you take such things as Massed Tanks into your battle plan for your army? Do you expect to deal with a very Fast army, or an army that can lay down massive amounts of firepower? Basically, did you take all of these into consideration when designing your force? Each of these obstacles is not only present in tourneys, but will very likely face you down from across the table in pick-up games as well. Many armies will have more than one such obstacle for yours to overcome. Some few may even be able to present all of them in one tight little package. The truth is obvious here. You must expect to see many different obstacles during your games. None of those listed is in any way illegal or very tough on its own, and by combining and using more than one of these obstacles (or tactics) within your own army, it then becomes that much stronger and more capable of dealing with enemy forces.
Now, consider the following…
You may have an army that comprises Marines, and lots of Marines, but not many heavy weapons, and no vehicles, but as most of these Marines are Assault Marines, not only do you have a high level of resiliency due to your numbers and armor save, but you also have speed. Such an army will rely upon cover to make it through most games involving massed anti-infantry shooting, or even tank heavy armies. But, such an army would do very well against other assault armies, fast armies, or even point denial armies (as these often rely on distance to work properly). So, you now have a very cool assault heavy fast army, but you do lack a few things…. First of all, you lack range. The first and maybe even second turn of the game will be an uphill struggle for you against most other armies, while they pick apart your units with ranged firepower. Also, you lack vehicles. This means that you will likely have trouble dealing with other vehicles, as you have no long ranged firepower either. You lack variety. Your enemy may have units specifically designed to cut through your Marines in combat. Would the owner of such an army call an Eldar force with Banshees, Harlies, and Fire Prisms ‘Cheesy’? Of course they would, and very often that is exactly the case. But, why is the Eldar force ‘Cheesy’? The Eldar force is strictly within the guidelines set by the FOC, and most likely also conforms to the local restrictions as well. The Eldar force mentioned combines Speed, Assault, and Firepower, as well as Unique Unit Rules, as well as whatever may be presented by the other units in the Eldar force. The Eldar force was not ‘Cheesy’, it was simply more prepared than the Marine force. The Eldar force owner considered more obstacles to overcome when designing her force, than did the Marine owner.
This is the most common scenario for cries of ‘Cheese’ in my experience. The Marine player has simply not considered all that must be considered in designing a well balanced force. The lack of ranged or anti-tank weaponry, alternate ways of dealing with vehicles or other combat specialists, or planning for the likelihood that terrain would not be in favor of the Marine army combined to provide a very hard hitting force, but only against the ‘right’ opponents. Paper/Scissors/Rock strategy at its best. Generally, players who have ‘perfected’ their list and refuse to stray from it are guilty of crying ‘Cheese’ when confronted with lists that are not over the top or unsportsmanlike, but are rather not what they designed their army to fight. Saying that the opposing army is over the top or unfair is the same as crying ‘Cheese’. The problem lies not with the opposing army, but with the inability or refusal to provide a competitive game. Don’t expect another to change their legal army if you are not willing to change yours. Don’t down others for playing to the strengths of their army if you are not even willing to do the same with yours. Those who cry ‘Cheese’ are the epitome of what the Most Important Rule warns against.
Personally, I have armies that never change. One Eldar, one Witch Hunters, and a budding Necron force. I design them to be able to handle most any situation, and then challenge myself to overcome all of the obstacles presented with the same list. The armies do not always win, and I am often at a disadvantage. I am guilty of making lists that are immutable and often outclassed by my opponent’s army. I have never cried ‘Cheese!’ There is no cheese; there are only those who wish to play at a truly competitive level, and those who maliciously envy those who do.
