Some people get extremely riled up attacking or defending the use of armies that are overly competitive, beardy, cheesy, call it what you will, and about where their use is acceptable. From what I understand, it is more common to tailor your army list, if you will, when going to tournaments, but to adopt a less cometitive approach at other times. I, however, don't think I'd do this. While any army I brought to a tournament would be serious and I would be trying to win with it, I'd never bring the Bretonnian Air Force or a SAD to a tournament. I'd be more likely to try out unusually aggresive lists to see how they work and hope to be forgiven afterwards.

What are your thoughts on very competitive armies?

The game is not about using your army to win but to have fun. I played against a beardy/cheesy list and i honestly did not mind it. I make my lists so that I can have fun. So anytime is my answer but the point of the game is not to win. Its to have fun. And tournaments. Well thats different you want to win at a tournament. But i think using a cheesy list that someone else made is cliche so make up your own cheese for tournaments.

I wouldn't use one, but then my idea of a cheesy army seems to be different from most people's anyway. For example, I would accept the use of 1 of any legal unit, including treemen / giants in a small game (1000-1500). I think there's very few true cheesy lists: mainly all out artillery or unreasonable magic (not because it's unbalanced, but because it lets the magic user hold all the dice and leave you to wait for them to miscast / fail).

I say: leave it to the tournies.

Anyway, competitive lists are often less fun to play with than 'regular' lists.

Tournies aswell :). I find that there is a difference in cheesy lists and competative lists. The first one usually exploits the rules in order to make the list as powerful as it can be. Competative lists are usually tailored as an allcommer list and is balanced but still powerful :).

I'd call myself a fairly competitive player. I'm still out to have fun, but for me a good deal of the fun is in winning. Winning by a landslide because I exploited a weakness in the rules to reduce my opponent's chances to zero (or close enough), no, but winning solidly because I out-played my opponent both on the field and in the selection of my army, yes.

My most competitive army is also the one I've used the most: it hinges around a 2nd Generation Slann in the centre of a unit of Temple Guard, both tooled up to the limit. But the key criterion to me is that the Slann is there for the enemy to get: the game is still a contest, and the enemy is going to have to deal with my two specialisations: the hard-to-shift uber-anvil, and the nuclear-powered magic phase. What I would draw the line at is the common tournament tactic of hiding said Slann away in a wood, and shielding him from attack with a hundred-odd skinks so that the opponent can never rack up enough points to win. That kind of game is just a dice-rolling contest: if my magic and shooting goes well, I win, if it doesn't, I draw, and it's no fun. The same goes for a Skryre army, and pretty much anything that stops the game being a contest and puts its result entirely in the hands of one player or the other.

Id play competitive at tournaments and practise tournament games only really, otherwise in friendly games it can ridiculous, for example I try not to use my 2nd gen slann then and prefer the more fun, but less competitive choice of an Oldblood on Carnosaur.