I believe I explained that. The BattleMaster should simply not allow them to participate until that player's attitude changes. Should that player further demonstrate his schmuck-ness by filing a complaint to WizKids, I'm sure the BattleMaster will have quite a few other players to back up his/her own side of the story. For example:

Schmuck: "BattleMaster (BattleMaster name) would not allow me to participate in (event name) because he/she is a jerk, and does not deserve to be a BattleMaster."

BattleMaster: "(Player name) has been causing severe disruptions during my tournaments such as (cause #1,) (cause #2,) (cause #n etc.) and as a result tournament attendence has suffered greatly. You should be receiving emails in your Customer Support email accounts from (supporting player's email address #1,) (supporting player's email address #2,) (supporting player's email address #n etc) that should support and confirm my statement here."

The thing is, the BattleMasters are letting these schmuck players push them around because they're afraid of getting reported. If the BattleMasters would simply defend themselves and have their statements backed up by the players that approve of them, then I believe the situation can be resolved easily and keep the schmucks away from the tournaments.

The problem is, Deep Blue, that the Battlemasters do NOT have the authority to ban anyone from playing. We can recommend it to WK, but we ourselves can not. Where I am very fortunate is that I have two venues that will back my play. In other words, if someone is being a jerk, I'll pull them to the side and give them their first warning. Should the jerkish attitude continue, I'll get a little more firm, and tell them that this is their last warning. If they insist on being a jerk, then I talk to the venue manager and the MANAGER bans them from participating in any gaming events in the store. See the difference? I'm not banning anyone, but the venue has the right, upon my reccomendation, to ban ANYONE from their venue. And just like Irish, I don't imtimidate easily... I'm a 5'10", 235 pound, former military dago who has all the right types of friends. Fortunately, I've only ever had to warn one player (for cheating) and have another banned (just an overall jerk). I've got a great bunch of guys!

Tony

My question to all of you is:

Why does playing a good army make you cheesy?

Isn't the point of the game to play the pieces you like, and to win?

(not necessiarly my opinion, but a point of view... would like your opinions.)

The point of the game is to have Fun. Winning is a personal preference. If there is a prize I want I will try and win. If I don't care about the prizes I'll run stuff people usally never play. ie 2 Locusts.

The problem is how people define cheese. I define it as 1) a: a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey b: an often cylindrical cake of this food.

Seriously, no matter what game you play, someone is going to call decks/armies cheesy/gay/lame/broken/weak/######ed or just plain stupid. I used to play SWCCG. I went into GenCon a few years ago with a totally unique deck. No one had ever thought of the combos that I brought to the table. I designed the deck to do well against most decks, but it's power was to shut down the two most popular deck types in play at that time. I was told by several friends, who were top players at the time (One of them is now a designer for Decipher, that's how good he is) that my deck was lame and wouldn't do squat. I played 10 games with it that weekend and went 10-0, beating the #1 ranked player in the world in the process, along with 3 other 1800+ ranked players.

Another quick story... We actually had a guy field 7 SH DI toweds with 7 J37s at faction wars. Sure he beat up on the first kid he faced, but the more experienced players had a field day on his behind! In 4 games, he took all of 2 VCs, both in the first game.

What's my point? Well just this... If you are playing the game, and coming up with innovative strategies utilizing under played units, it's not cheesy. If you are taking the time to actually develop your game/strategy/tactics, it's not cheese. But if you are going out and buying all the uber-pieces and fielding nothing but the most powerful of the powerful, without putting any thought into how you will actually USE those pieces and taking other peoples' armies into a tournament because you've heard that they are unbeatable, THAT my friend is a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey. And if that's how you come into one of my venues, my players will eat your liver with some fava beans and a nice chiante, because they all know how to play. They aren't ripping off other peoples ideas. They play their own game, tailored to their personal strengths and weaknesses.

Tony

Again, this thread is not about competitive players, this thread is about jerks.

So then, why do people keep bringing up "competitive players?" I ask everyone, is it because so many of them really are jerks, that those who aren't become guilty by association? What can be done about it, if anything?

OK OK atleast 90% of jerks are cheese hobags because they ether become consumed by the thought of winning and watching their opponent die, i mean in my opinion mix and matching factions just to get the biggest badest army is plaine dumn it is uber and very jerkish but thats my opinion which i am intitled to. I play in tournements because their are Les i want but i refuse to feild a mixed army just to win it, when i get an Le i take pride in my game i walk in not to win just to have fun ask CSG_Theif i play liao pure every sunday, yes alot of people say they suck they are hard to play but i love my little capcon buddys *hugs shen yi* anyways back to the point, i think people should play pure alot more it would help to kill alot of the jerks and cheese off because when playing one army it narrows your selection and opens doors for more thought and strategy.

And in my opinion, complaining about the contents of someone's army is unsportsmanlike conduct.

You have your self-respect, and they have an LE. Everyone is happy. : )

its not unsportsman being unsportsman would be refuseing to play that army,and i think being a sportsman also has to do with giveing everyone a chance to get the LE yes i know everyone could build the magic rainbow army(mixed) but then it would be just another boreing game with no theme or anything, i mean how many people play a faction PURE that they know and like the sotry behind not just because they got nice vehicles or hella mechs, if people can't play faction pure then that just helps support the theory that they can't play the game to well and no i am not trying to call the folks that play the rainbow birgades dumn i'm saying it takes almost nothing to play a mixed army half the time, its mostly arnis,ss AA arty or sw paddila or df donars,heres the strategy :drop pogs,charge,move and shoot,next turn repeat ETC i am probly one of the few that enjoys playing faction pure, and as to tiemler Les dosen't make everyone happy.

I'd amend that. Give everyone a chance to get *an* LE. Not necessarily the champ prize. That's what the sportsmanship figure is all about, and you don't get it through feelings of entitlement.

Put nifty LEs up for grabs, and regardless of the army-building restrictions you impose, things won't change one bit. There will still be competitive players running whatever works best.

It seems like very poor sportsmanship to say, "this is how I play the game, and it's the only way anyone should be allowed to play it."

It also seems like very poor sportsmanship, and a case of sour grapes, to insult players who beat you with a different design philosophy. Get over it.

Precisely what I did in Faction Wars. No rainbow armies there, but plenty of "cheese" to go around.

Agreed. But if they aren't what you go to tournaments for, then you have no reason to be upset when someone else takes them home.

I don't want to sound like I'm ganging up on you, but I agree with Tiemler here in that you're out of line to say playing non-faction-pure armies is less skilled.

It is written in the rules that you may use units of any faction in your armies. Thus it is intended by Wizkids for you to be able to do so.

It is true that if the game were made with faction purity in mind and point costs were assigned accordingly, then it would be a lot more balanced, but it is not.

It is pure logic to use the best unit for a job for the lowest cost. This is actually good and efficient army building and not being cheap or unskilled. Army building is part of the skill in this game, and a measure of that would be your unit choice.

I think a better thing to say is that some army types take less finesse to use. For example, a typical Arnis Drummond, or mass artillery army.

Sure those armies are easy to play (generally), but there are definitely armies that take a load of skill to use effectively such as a Mavis/harassment army.

But saying a non-faction pure army is unskilled, that's just plain wrong. Also there is nothing wrong with someone making a competitive army with the intention to win. It is a tournament, so you cannot expect someone to handicap himself for the sake of others, people can still play competitively and have fun. It happens all the time.

Anyways this thread is NOT about competitive players, this thread is about jerks. The two are not the same, a jerk can be a 'faction-purist' as much as a 'competitive player.'

Playing a good army doesn't make you cheesy. Even playing a cheesy army on occasion doesn't make you a cheesy player.

Playing the same army every week with the sole purpose of winning the prize, even if you already have it is cheesy.

It's when you can predict exactly what a player is going to bring before they show up that it's really bad.

And it's kind of pathetic, really. They try really hard to win every LE they can, but every week they play the same 5 or 6 units.

I try to win, but I also like to experiment with different tactics, and try to use all my pieces. What good is having them if they're just going to sit on a shelf or in a bin? When I find a strong army, I keep it in mind, then move on to a new combination.

The difference between war and a game, is you are guaranteed to walk away from one of them. With both there is no guaranteed win. The only true measure of success is whether you are better off after the game than you were before it, win or lose.

When I play, my ultimate goal is to improve my strategy. Winning is just a gage. If I win every week by playing the same army every week, where does that get me? Nowhere.

Even in war the same basic premise applies. If you're going to be worse off as a result of winning a battle, then there is little reason to fight. The American Revolutionary War was, in part, won by Washington's ability to retreat.

Why should they change, if it works?

Why is that their responsibility?

If someone is only playing 5 or 6 units in an army, there's no way you can dismiss such a battle force as cheese.

By that logic, you should be demolishing the people who run the same armies every week. So where exactly are these "jerks" who are winning all the LEs by using the same 5 or 6 units each week?

Yeah, where do people get off playing exact copies of their armies and you not detecting that and adjusting your army to beat them?

It seems they are the uncreative jerks here, right?

Actually, in my area the level of play is extremely high. I'd say there's only one player in my area who plays the approximately the same army regularly (some combination of SS Balac, SS AA Artillery, SH T Art., tank drop, BR Lego).


The only army I've ever had to face that I felt was 'cheesy' was a 6 SS balac army. But I can't say that the player was cheesy because he's very creative with his armies and is an excellent tactician. He also wins a hell of a lot.


Around here the catch phrase is 'well balanced'. Taking only what you believe to be 'the best' units because they are the best, and not because they produce a well rounded army is deluding yourself. You lose flexibility. A good player will figure out where your army is weak and adjust their attack accordingly.


Really, I think the 'jerk' players are driven by their focus on a single strategy more than the focus on any particular unit. They'll always use the units that are best for their strategy. You lose the element of surprise. Around here, if people see that someone who is known to play like this is signed up for a venue, they will prepare for it.