Cheese is something players term an army they find hard to beat or cannot beat. So what if I use broken units? Its in the rules anyway, the fact that the player was able to recognize the units' power and played it well means he has a good understanding of the game its concepts and principles. Please don't go off pointing out a person who has beaten you as cheese, does he not have the right to own his own set of "uber" pieces? Does he not have the right to field an army he so deems fit? Why do we call players cheese? Because we can't call em cheaters that's why we call em cheese. Cheese is a term used by people who cannot go over their loss and instead sits down and whine all day when at least he could have done is try and think of a counter army or better yet a counter strategy, now wouldn't have that been better?

Just a thought:)

Thanks to all.

Now i'll give you my opinion of the army. I didn't like the idea of using a mongrel army, but i had some decent units collecting dust. This is a combination of some of the units that the players at my venue fear the most. I was banking on intimidation , so i could get them out of their game.

I am not a very strong player, however,
I do have a good grasp on the game mechanics. Abusing a VTOLs ability to move and shoot was key in this army build. How can an opponent kill a unit when they're never able to shoot it?.

This leads me to Katsu. Due to its SE and low piont cost, this was defintely
the choice for me. Some players have other quirks, but mine is never field an army without a mech. After all the game is called "MECH"warrior.

My opinion is this; the army isn't cheese, it is just what I needed to win.

I suggest not telling your buddies at your venue that :p, thats how we define cheese (abusing a game mechanic for a win)


And he's not a charge monkey. You have a mech, but not only that, you dont intend to use him to play bumperbots. That knocks a few bars off your fermented-dairy-product-o'meter

Well again there lies a problem, many many people will scream "CHEESE!" when you build an army just for the win. Ah well, what can you do? Cheese does exist, no matter what the power gamers, or anyone for that matter says, but this army isnt cheese in my little book. But hell, what do I know?;)

Like anyone who plays this game, I play it because its fun. I don't mind losing from time to time, but not all the time. I had become the local punching bag. This army was how I took my stand. After I played it the other player started looking at me differently. They looked at me as a real player ,not as a noob and an easy win.

Whether you call it cheese or not , this gained me the respect I deserved on the battlefield. Now they wonder what will I come up with next.

Great job reaper! Keep them guessing. Having been a gamer for the better part of 20 years and spending way too many thousands of dollars on Warhammer 40k in the past I can honestly say if you are not using the game mechanics to your advantage, you really shoud not show up to play. No I dont believe you should only care about winning. But if you dont care about winning at all you will not be a challenge to play.. therefore you will be no fun to play against! After all we are all in this for the challenge right?

BD

Well Im all for beating down on people to show em your not a wimp;) :grin:

And remember, I said this little baby wasnt cheese;)

:ermm:


...I'm not:p

Ahh, just the thread I was looking for. Where's my trusty soap box...

Choosing the best available tools in your arsenal and winning isn't cheese. It's sound military planning and strategy. You didn't see US commanders holding back those 5000 lbs bombs because the Iraqi army thought it was cheesy...

Personally, I thrive on cheese. Not in making cheesy armies, but by figuring out ways of beating them. Whenever I approach a game, the first thing I do is to try to figure out where the cheese is. Once I do, I turn around and try to figure out how to counter it. I mean what would you prefer, making cheese or eating it?

I do agree that we should never loose sight that this is a game, and that we're all here to have fun. I also agree that having a top ranked player field a cheesy army against newbie players week after week just to win the prizes would go against the spirit of the game.

However, in Reaper's situation, I applaud his use of cheese to win the respect of his fellow players. It shows that he isn't a noob, but a very capable commander that was able to figure out a way to win before he even started the battle.

Now, if I had played against him and lost, believe me I would have spent the next few days trying to figure out a way to beat his cheesy army and then challenging him to a rematch.

I feel the same way, I do not believe in cheese in this game, it is a strategy game, armies should be built to win, that is after all the whole point, wether we want to admit it or not it is to win, that is the point to every game. What makes the pieces cheesy is the player, I would call some one who ran this army every week cheesy and unsportsman like, just like some one who tramples the new guy at a venue just because he can that is just a lame person. so in short I dont think the pieces are broken on here at all, I think it has more to do with the person behind the person and how they use those pieces.

There are some problems with "cheese does not exist".

In a competitive environment then it is certainly fair and reasonable to field min/maxed forces (this one, incidentally, is not min/maxed to the hil but could easily be so at a local level).

Theoretically any tournament is competitive but there may be other limitations, for instance everyone at your venue may have limited collections and not be able to counter this type of force. Then it is not so much the force that is cheesy but the attitude in taking a force that you know nobody else has the pieces to counter (in saying this I'm not implying that is the case here).

Sometimes players impose certain rules on themselves (xyberbratt is an example with faction purity and limits on certain unit types in his forces). Exploiting that when they are not expecting it could be considered cheesy too. If they are expecting your force and due to some personal preference decide not to counter it then that is a different matter.

There may be other limitations, for instance everyone at your venue may have limited collections and not be able to counter this type of force. Then it is not so much the force that is cheesy but the attitude in taking a force that you know nobody else has the pieces to counter (not saying that is the case here).

At my venue, I have one of the smaller collections. The other players could have easily countered this army with the use of their mutpile SS Arrow IVs and SH Aesirs.

I do prefer to play faction pure, however , I will stray from that preference should the right circumstances arise. i.e. A player starts becoming a power gamer.

I would rather play a good game and lose than win with no challenge.

The definition of 'cheese' is dependent on the [often unstated] rules of the play group/venue in which you are involved. If you play with a group of like-minded individuals routinely playing a 'gentlemanly' game of single-faction MW, mongrel min/maxed armies are cheese. If it's Nationals-tourney-time every week at your venue, then there is no cheese, anything allowed by the rules is proper, and a 'scrub' is a player who limits his choices/decisions based on self-imposed [mental] rules not present in the game's written rules [i.e. single-factionism].

Our particular venue is usually more of the friendly, single faction type. In general it seems to be more fun. Rarely do regulars field mongrels. Visitors do, and if they start to come more routinely, our regulars start to field mongrels. Thankfully our trend toward single-faction battles tends to reassert itself over time.

If you brought this army routinely to our venue, you'd probably see a drop in friendliness towards you over the months, we'd remain civil, but you're not sharing our pizza. If you persisted we'd just have to start bringing beer, which we wouldn't share with you. You might win, but we'll all be too busy drinking and laughing at you to care! :grin:

Well heres why its cheese.
The helicopters still have that move shoot move your mech is a change monkey.
and your inflitratoring the rest and it all breaks well. not faction pure.

They don't hold back? One word: Nukes. Nukes are the modern warfare equivalent of cheese. Use them once, and you might win, but you'll make a lot of enemies. The U.S. may not be as concerned about winning "fellowship" as other countries, but they're certainly not pulling out ALL the stops.

@ Reaper- that's what it boils down to. If using a certain army is going to cost you friends, most people would agree that using the army isn't worth it. (The others would say "who wants to be friends with sore losers anyway?" which is also a valid argument I suppose....)

I'm assuming you meant charge monkey. Anyway, I don't agree. Katsu is a finesse mech. You need to keep him on his first click to make the best use of him. Once my VTOLs weaken opposing units the mech becomes almost unhitable, and he can walk around destroying things at will. Charging is not an option. It just weakens Katsu with no advantage to me.

[quote=the_vest187]They don't hold back? One word: Nukes. Nukes are the modern warfare equivalent of cheese. Use them once, and you might win, but you'll make a lot of enemies. The U.S. may not be as concerned about winning "fellowship" as other countries, but they're certainly not pulling out ALL the stops.

I did think about the nuke argument while I posted earlier, and was hoping that the rest of my post would clarify my point. If not, then let me do it now.

Appropriate use of appropriate weapons is not cheesy. Abuse of weapons is. In the real world, this is a very important distinction (civilian casualties, environmental impact, etc.). In the fantasy world that is Mechwarrior, you did hint at how this applies: "Fellowship". I would refer you to some of the responses to my original post as examples of appropriate use in MW

My point is that it's not the army or weapon that's cheesy, but how they're used. There are situations where it would be appropriate to use nuclear weapons. I'm just thankful that we haven't encountered a situation since WWII.

That being said, I don't think it's fair (or in the spirit of the game) to label an army that contains VTOLs, artillery, a charger, and is not faction pure cheesy. Nowhere in the rules are players restricted from using a specific combination of units or factions.

Hoever, if a player uses this army without showing "Fellowship", then I would label the PLAYER cheesy.