To beard or not to beard that is the question?

[peturabo]

Do you get more success with beadr or non beardy armies???

EDIT:-

SORRY MISTAKE.

YES = BEARDY
NO = NON BEARDY


For me it's being non-beardy.

Cheers

[Imperial Tiger]

Okay, I'm an old git here and not up on the terminology. What the *&^&% is "beardy"?

[CaptainMoriar]

Okay, I'm an old git here and not up on the terminology. What the *&^&% is "beardy"?

"Beardy" (a.k.a. "Cheesey") refers to power-gaming. Someone who would be considered "beardy" might min/max their army, eschew Troop choices in favor of Elites/Heavy Support/Fast Attack, create army lists specifically designed to beat your own, be accused of rules-lawyering, etc.

I voted "no", but I should say I don't have a negative view of "beardy" people. As far as I'm concerned Troops should always form the (large) core of an army. Other choices taken from Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support are there to support the Troops. If someone else doesn't see it that way and they want to load up on specialist units because they think it will guarantee victory, so be it. To each his own.

[firefly31]

my vote on non beardy

[Imperial Tiger]

"Beardy" (a.k.a. "Cheesey") refers to power-gaming. Someone who would be considered "beardy" might min/max their army, eschew Troop choices in favor of Elites/Heavy Support/Fast Attack, create army lists specifically designed to beat your own, be accused of rules-lawyering, etc.



Thanks for the clarification. I try for balance. "Beardiness" takes away from the spirit of the game. Yeah winning is nice but it's not everything.

[Sons of Russ]

i think the great thing about GW is that they balanced the list in such a way that basic troops choices are a strong and flexible option, and so alot of ppl who min-max are actually making it harder for them to win. I myself go with about 4 troop 3 elite and 2-3 hvy support for my Imperial Fist Army, and 3 troop, 1 fast attack 2 hvy for my Space Wolves Army.

[OldManLugnutz]

I agree with imperial tiger, beardy removes the fun. My feral orks army isnt beardy, its made up of 1 hq, 4 troops, 2 fast attack, 2 heavy support, felxible, my friend always doe sbeardy-rule-bending army lists, but hell never buy the moderls for them. He even looks for ways to really bend the rules as much as he can. I like charcterful armies, even if they dont win you can still have fun.

[Blaorfi]

Hmm what can I say. I do both, and win either way.

I somtimes just think its fun, making the beardyest thing you can then let them do there thing

[-_Phoenix_-]

Define beardy/lame/cheese. What one person thinks is perfectly acceptable, an other thinks is the finest cheddar known to man.

For example, I see nothing wrong with any sort of army organisation as long as you've got the minimum 1 HQ and two troops. Why is 2 HQs, 3 Elites and 2 minimum size troop choices beardy ? If my opponent wants a small hard hitting force thats his/her prerogative.

[Imperial Tiger]

Define beardy/lame/cheese. What one person thinks is perfectly acceptable, an other thinks is the finest cheddar known to man.

For example, I see nothing wrong with any sort of army organisation as long as you've got the minimum 1 HQ and two troops. Why is 2 HQs, 3 Elites and 2 minimum size troop choices beardy ? If my opponent wants a small hard hitting force thats his/her prerogative.
True. I guess it depends on the opponent. I try to get a good balance of combined arms.

Of course "beardiness" applies to real life too. Look at Desert Storm back in the 90's. Air power alone would be considered "beardy" in my opinion but it worked. In reality, commanders don't give a damn about "fair" just beat the pants off the other guy.

Of course we're gamers so "fair play" is at the heart of the matter. :lol:

[ThirdDanScoota]

I agree with Phoenix, however there are a few things in certain lists which taking alot of is.. Well, beardy. Not against the rules, just looked down apon, and cheap. I generally go 2HQ, 1 or 2 Elite, 2 to 3 Troops, 1 Fast Attack and minimum of 1 Heavy Support. I personally try to stay flexible, but slightly specialise in certain areas and use that advantage todrill away at the opponent. Thats my style of play, and like Phoenix said, if they want an expensive, hard-hitting force thats their decision.

[peturabo]

I neither am for or against being beardy!

The army lists are designed and it's upto a plyer what they do with an army.

Howeverb if people do beard they will leave theirselves weak in a certain aspect of the game and a decent opponent will counter their beardiness by defeating them in a weak area.

E.g, a friend of mine has a shooty black legion army which has 4 6man squads with las plagun, 2 havoc squads with 4 heavy bolters, havoc with autocannons, some other troops and a lord.

However last time i played him i dropped a basilisk shell on his troops head every turn. Didn't win though! too much firepower!

Recently though a guard player has been using a drop troops army with min 3 plasguns in his units and sergs with demo charges and 3 leman russ battle tanks haven't find a way to beat it. I had 50 marines 40 odd which got melted in s single turn shooting phase though i did destroy 2 of his battletanks.

Ah well, some players are just too beardy to beat, armoured company for example.

Cheers

[Sir Guppy]

depends where im playing tounys i make beardy army lists, everyone does at tournys people are playing to win. if i was down at my local GW i would take stuff i tend to like fielding. eg i would never take storm troopers to a tounry but i would consider them for fun gaming.

[peturabo]

Can you give an example of one of your beardy armies plz???

Cheers

[firefly31]

theres this guy i used to play its quite sad really, he played an army with beards to their feet it was real annoyin. if u sed hey a moment u don't get that many DC he just ses oh yeah but... ... ... blah blah blah !!!!BULLSHIT!!!!! i dunno i think he actually cheated sumwhere but ah well the worst thing is that he cant handle loosing (can't paint either!) so if u do a cleanse mission. wouldn't think there was too much to misunderstand there would you? bit o kill here. bit o kill there. keep sumwhere safe. not to him, to him its bend the rules as much as u can, if u can't get away with it argue !!!!!!!!! dhut up! beating him made him cry :'( so sad

Double Post

he lost the painting contest and cryed too, he's my sort of age... thats 15 mayb 16

[peturabo]

Serves him right if you ask me.

I hate them kind of people which makes me feel great everytime i beat them. Just me though!

Cheers

[Imperial Tiger]

No, not just you. :smash: :beer:

[Steiner]

An interesting observation on beardy armies.. a lot of them usually have the highest amount of troop more than anything else.. say maximum of the six or whatever troop choice limit is. There's also a fair number that specialize such as the Ulthwe min-maxed armies that always consist of having 30+ warlocks. Surprisingly a lot of cheesed out armies fit the themes but anyways...

I have more fun facing/fielding min-maxed armies, it usually shows which player has more skill and the inherent weaknesses of your army .. sort of. The good ones are always fun to crack at.

[Cailet]

I always take 2-3 troop choices because most basic troops are actually quite good (except guardians in 4th ed) ansd some extra numbers rarely go amiss. With SMs I once thought about maxing my troops and making an ultrashooty army but decided not to because no-one wants to realise that an SM army outnumbers them :D

[Apoc]

Yeah you need to define a beardy army.

One might say that as many Dark Reapers and Starcannons in a Eldar vs SM battle is beardy. I would simply call it commen sense.

[Cailet]

That too. On the other hand a guy called Dark Flame (not on these boards) has an Eldar army with no Starcannons or Bright lances and its still pretty sucessful Vs Sm armies.

[Ramrod]

(not in reply to anyone) so wait, an IG army, for example, with min HQ, no elite or fast attack, maxed troops and heavy support is beardy? how could that be? its perfectly fluffy.

i always thought a beardy army was max HQ, elites, fast attack and heavy support, and min troops. for example, an SM army with a librarian and chaplain each with assault squad bodyguards, three dreds, 2 tacs, 3 assault squads, and three land raiders. THAT is beardy. plus, its an awful army :p

[firefly31]

:D

Double Post

my head hurts :D

[Steiner]

Beardy is probably the most effective in all scenarios. It's more or less min-maxing at its best in which case taking troop choices to achieve that goal... take for example this Dark Angel's army or Eldar.

6 Guardian Squads with Star Cannon platforms, War Walkers with Star Cannons, Vypers with Star Cannons etc.

6 Tactical Troop squads with Plasma Cannons and plasma guns, Dreadnought with Plasma Cannon/Las Cannon, 3 Devastator squads all armed with plasma cannons, HQ with tactical squad armed with plasma cannon etc.

Beardy armies always go out of their way to achieve perfection in some sense. Usually it's ranged if not always. Warhammer 40k never really awards balanced armies in the sense of a good mix of hand to hand and ranged etc.

[DarkFlame]

The person Cailet was talking about was me. I use Starcannons and Bright Lances in very few of my Eldar armies, and usually with my Ulthwe, including tournament lists use none at all. I still manage to do very well, taking 4 troop choices (all Gaurdians without heavy weapons) in most of my lists. In fact, the last time I lost was over a year ago, against a Blood Angels list.

[Piccolo]

beardy is just an exscuse players use when they haven't learned how to build a good army and defeat good players.

[Wynter]

The most beardiest army Ive played against was an ork player.... fielded nothing but troops..... Thats an awful lot of choppers to deal with....Just when you think you have them broke.... Another mob comes up behind them and strengthens there ranks.... I got annihalted i must say... But hey its all part of the hobby

[Brother Wolf]

There's the rub. Sometimes being properly in fluff/theme creates a beardy army. Like mobs and mobs of Orks. But then, that's what Orks are all about. Same goes for IG. I've tried playing more elite IG armies with fewer numbers and more specialization, but the fact of the matter is that IG NEEDS to have the numbers to stay competitive due to poor WS, poor BS and poor Sv. And opponents HATE being withing 12" and watching the IG player roll over 200 to hit dice for shooting. (The shooting player, however, relishes in rolling that many dice. Mmmmm).

The really sad part is how power-gamers try to bend the rules so heard to fit a certain ideal that they loose sight of the fact that this is just a game and it's supposed to be fun. Winning is cool and all, but it's nothing without some fun to go with it. Otherwise, what do we play for? If the purse on national 40K champion really that high? LOL

Of course, I love to play my Dwarves in WFB and they are the definition of Beardy, obviously. :)

[peturabo]

I am doin a WHFB skaven army eventually!

I don't see anything wrong with beardiness, if it's in the book it's legal.
Yeah it takes the spirit of the game away but without beardy players the game would just be boring and dull.

I am usin a beardy army at the mo, but it still needs refurnishing and smome more purchases.
Havin said that i prefer to have a nice easy laid bck easy game against a non beardy player, the type of game u win in 2 turns, lol!

Cheers

[-_Phoenix_-]

I think the only thing that bothers me about beardy armies is they crush balanced armies but lose to their anti-thesis beardy army i.e. a army full of whirlwinds would crush that ork horde mentioned. Just kind annoying the 'good' all round army usually isn't all that good.

Piccolo, your not making any sense. A beardy army is basically a powergamer army, by defination its a good army which does beat good players. You still need to be a good player to use it though.

[Piccolo]

No I was perfectly clear. Phrases like cheesy and beardy have become overly used exscuses for players that don't take the time to learn the game. Good players going toe to toe in a game will not have that type of complaint because they will adapt their tactics to the opposing army.

I play a tau list without any crisis suits or broadsides and have on a great many occasions been called a cheesy player when I am able to remove every single peice of opposing armor on the first turn. Nevermind that my army is well thought out and works as a cohesive force, weaker players just don't want to realize they lost. Players who are weaker and don't want to make the effort to learn from their mistakes and take advice will always use this type of complaint.

[Brother Wolf]

While I agree in principle that really good players can win even against cheese, the fact is that power-gamers, cheesers, beardies or whatever you want to call them generally are only interested in creating uber-armies by bending and tweaking the rules to the breaking point. Therefore, regardless of whether I consider myself a good player or even that I relish the opportunity to take a bready player down and teach them a lesson, cheese isn't fun. It might seem fun to the owner who is only interested in winning, but it is murder on the opponent unprepared for it who brought a fun, balanced and/or themed army.

Personally, I like to take beardy players out in the parking lot and smack their heads against the pavement just to show them that while they may have built a nigh-unstoppable army of cheese, they still bleed and call for mommy like whiny little chumps.

And this is why I play in private game groups among friends and NOT on the tournament scene. :)

[Piccolo]

your point greys the lines between 2 groups; those who put togther good armies and play them well and those who attempt to bend the rules.

Bending, breaking or colorful interpretations all fall into the same group, players who just are not worth playng because they only care about finding or making a loophole.

[Brother Wolf]

Yeah, but that's what I consider cheese, power gaming, beardy. The rule-benders. "I can do that because it's in the rules that way!"

An army might be beardy BECAUSE it follows a specific flavor or theme, intended by the creators to be so. This is wholly different than someone who min/max's or finds some tweak in the rules and uses the inadvertant glitch in their favor.

[Ordo Normanus]

I find that "beardiness" is usually the mindset of certain individuals. When they play they are pretty tightlipped, the only time they open their mouths is to defend their tweaks or their "interpretaions" of certain rules. These games also tend to be very quiet... not much in the way for chatting and joking around. Oh, by the by I have not won a game yet, and I have 5 troop choices 2 heavy, 1 hq, and 1 fast attack. Guess thats what happens when you play as DE.

[Cynical Rabbit]

my first army was dark eldar, i actually managed to win sometimes, i had 2 archons tho, with troops and splinter cannons. would that be beardy? i think the definition of beardy is to stretch the rules to the point where they are no longer in the spirit of the rules. i must admit i could be accused of being a rule lawyer, but to be fair its due to my memory. even after a few years break i can usually provide direct quotes, humerous considering i only read it once. i must admit i have bearded in the past with black templars. my force was a tooled high marshal, emp champ. 3 b t squads in rhinos and a dread. that was 1000 pts. i usually won with it, however it was fun for both sides, generally when the emperors champion died to a gaunt while the marshal killed a hive tyrant in close combat solo ;P. mind you to be fair paul rudge (now on white dwarf team) told me what to do, so beardiness runs pretty deep. still i think as long as games are fun for both sides and neither take it serious beardiness games are great fun. particularly beard battles, where you try and make the beardiness army you can and then fight. what is bad is when it creates a hideusly one sided game which is un fun.

[kaiserangel]

im against beardy armies,if they are not in a spirit...an armie should be played with a theme,not in order to crush ur oponent...