Panzer soldier said:

Not to be insulting, but not calling it cheating is like atheletes saying blood-doping isn't a performance enhancing drug.  You are not winning with your strategy or tactics, but through a manipulation of the rules.  I enjoy tactics because of the unrestricted build lists, and quasi-legal manuvers like this are the reason so many game have to have force building rules.  It also create an unbalanced field for those who have limited funds, and those who can spend $60+ on observers (and sniper they don't even use?) just so they can out-activated their opponent.  Try out thinking your opponent.  That is what these kind of games are supposed to be won or lost on.

Panzer soldier said:

It's certainly not cheating, since nothing in the rules prevents it.

It's just a somewhat obnoxious anti-gaming strategy. Nothing very smart about it.

 There's far, far more abusive ways to take advantage of the unrestricted force selection than the above. Until there's A3 aircraft, 18 squads of Recon Grenadiers springs to mind in a 300pt game

Loophole Master said:

Ditto the aboves.

Loophole Master said:

Well now who is snarky?

A smart commander uses all of the resources he has available to him. Obviously the strategy is effective or it wouldn't have you all so bothered. 
Wars are not won by the nice, and you can't cry fowl in a fire fight if you are out gunned. 
We found the use of I.E.D.'s by the enemy in Iraq to cowardly. I would imagine that the Germans bypassing the Mashinal line, was rather inconvenient for the French. The list of history goes on and on.
You should look at this strategy as just a challenge to be overcome.
As you said,  “It's certainly not cheating, since nothing in the rules prevents it.”
So be a truly great commander and find a way to deal with it.

Uh….   this isn't war, dude.

It's a game.

As in "a fun pastime". An entertaining activity among friends.

Well, let me put it this way: I used to play 300 pts games on 4x3 square.

My buddy decided to use this kind of list:

- NCO squad

- 4x Grim Reapers

- 1x Tankbusters

- 2x Foxtrot

- 2x Blackhawk

- 2x Steel Rain

That will give him 12 activations with infantry hard hitters (Reapers) and nice anti-tank stuff (Steel Rains and Tankbusters).

Is this list a 'cheating' list? I think is not although lacks of finesy.

I wouldn't call the use of "cheerleaders" cheating, but it can be bad sportsmanship. After playing 40k for years, I learned that it is much more enjoyable to play with those who don't use rules-lawyership to insure victory. You're free to do as you want, but I find that playing with or against an opponent who uses actual skill on the board rather than cheap tricks is fun, while playing with a player uses said tricks is an exercise in frustration.

The reason games like 40k have limits on units in their army lists is because GW understands that other gamers don't like "cheesy" lists. Years of tournaments and experience have allowed GW to hone down the cheesy elements of their games, after having expanded the base audience of the game itself. DT is young, and needs to grow its base, so not placing any hard limits on units allows for a more open style of game. Tourney-busting army lists may be awesome for the one who uses it, but causes more damage to the game as a whole- as young/new gamers get frustrated and exasperated never winning against said lists and quit the game. This hurts everyone in the end. I would advise those that do use some of these lists to be… aware of this fact.

Ikka said:

The problem is, GW can't write balanced codicies. They often have poor internal balance and downright bad unit selections. Don't blame the tournament player, they will of course take the strongest options available to them. Blame the people who write the rules.

Dust Tactics is in a funny position at the moment. If FFG/Dust Studio want it to be played at tournaments, they will have to restrict unit selections. What to one person may be entirely fair, may to another person be 'broken'.Having someone a Tournament Organiser enforce what they feel to be fair, often ends up being just as bad - just look at some of the awful comp tournaments around the world.

Shouldn't be too hard to sort out - leave the main rules as restriction free, and update the Tournament FAQ to enforce unit restrictions.

Re Cheerleaders - I think that's perfectly fine tactic. Bigger problems occur when a playing fields units of just one type - a SSU player fielding just Helicopters for example, negating a large proportion of their opponents forces.
 

Panzer soldier said:

I have a way of dealing with it.  This is a game.  For fun.  Not war.  If my opponent were to field a force that had to win by manipulating the rules, I would chose not to play.

fhaugh said:

So building a legal army and playing it according to the rules is "manipulating the rules"? What if your opponent would "manipulate the rules" by fielding only the units with the longest range, units that deal the most damage or units that roll the most dice? Would you also choose not to play?

I don't agree that this is manipulating the rules or anything like that. It's all perfectly over the table to field whatever you want, within the rules' limitations.

I just don't think it's fun to play against an army whose sole purpose is to wildly out-activate me. I play Dust to have fun, not win wars.

??! said:

If the 4 or 5 observer squad had some other purpose in your force, such as spotting for you 2 or 3 artillery pieces, I wouldn't have a problem with them. But the only purpose they serve is to "out-activate" your opponent so you don't have to "out-think" them.  You are not winning by having a better force, strategy, or tactics, but through a by product of the rules.  Your "strategy" has no basis in real wolrd factors.  Before anyone says "real world? these are walking tanks and zombies…."  The tactics and strategies involved in games such as these have real world applicibility.  Why do you think wargames are encouraged at military academies.  In no real world situation would having a handful of forward observers, with no artillery or aircraft to call on for support, change the course of a battle, let alone win it.  It is only the structure of the rules that allow this "strategy" to work at all.  If the rules were changed so that I activated all my units, then you used yours, and casualities were removed at the end of the round, your "strategy" would be a waste of points.  That is why it is a manipulation of the rules.  If the rules were changed it wouldn't work.  My balanced force has as chance regardless of how the rules are laid out

My wife routinely faces off against a force with the longest ranges, the most powerful weapons, the most dice.  They are called "THE AXIS"  but in a well balanced game, no force is overwhelming.  Rather than resorting to cheap tricks she has learned how to minimize her weaknesses (short range, less powerful weapons), and capitalize on her strengths (speed, flexability, weapons that deny cover).  Every unit has it's limitations and a commander worth facing will make you work to exploit that weakness.

I would chose to to play against your kind of force, not because I couldn't win, but because the game would not be a fun challenge.  If I wanted to play against rule lawyers, I'd go play Magic:the gathering.

My army list consists of  a Stormkonig, Ludwig, Luther, Lothar, Heinrich, and five Observer Grenadiers.
 

During the last tournament I only fielded two observer squads. In every game they were slaughtered by my opponents, which lead to me exposing my Lothar to fire.

Also sense the rules force me to take both of the Stormkonig's actions to move it on the board. This in turn allows an opponent with more pieces than me to put something like a Pounder on after I deploy it and get a free shot in. So you see the observers serve two purposes and why yes they will allow me to out maneuver most opponents.
Now I know this isn't a war, but it is a “War Game”. So I should choose to field an inferior force just because you deem it unsporting? Obviously you don't game with the folks that I do. I choose to win by useing every legal means a my disposal.
 

Panzer, if you play with an extremely competitive group, I have no issue with you using whatever strategies you wish to win. My point was based on my local clubs/stores, that have a high number of non-competitive newer players who aren't looking to win so much as learn the game.