I've noticed lately that there are a number of people accusing their opponents of fielding a "beardy" army. These people also seem to be the ones who are losing more than their fair share of games, or have just had their wining streak broken by a new opponent. Either way, they are questioning why, and here is my answer.

Everyone knows that good army composition is supposed to take into account the story background of that army, and the context of the battle. For example, if a High Elf player took the Book of Ashur for the express purpose of being able to field Dark Magic, that tactic would be generally agreed upon as out of character for the army. Fielding Volknar, the Grand Theogenist, in a small army led by Magnus the Pious, is not only overdoing the special characters, but historically inaccurate as well. Sometimes it's not the composition of forces, but something as minor as the time I saw someone who had painted the name, "Capt. Horus" on the base of his Blood Angel Commander.

The above examples may be obvious, but there are times where it is much harder to judge the appropriateness of an army. For example, is having two Repeater Bolt Throwers in a 1500 point High Elf army beardy? If a dwarf or Empire player fielded only 200 points of war machines in the same size army, no one would even bat an eye. If someone took the Black Gem of Gnar against an opponent known for his tooled-up Chaos Lords, would you blame him? If a Space Ork player fielded an even balance of fast attack, heavy support, elite, and troop choices, instead of the stereotypical Ork army composed of mob after mob, would you object? Why? Especially when the same style of army composition would be applauded if that player played any other race?

I believe that many people are too quick to yell, "beardy!" when they see an army that poses a genuine challenge to play against. When faced by an army that upsets you (and your chances of winning), take a step back, and figure out exactly why you're feeling a little heated under the collar. Is it because he has effectively ignored the context of the battle and the background of his army? Or is it because his army may be made up in such a way that you actually have to come up with some new tactics?

According to Sun-Tzu, being unconquerable lies with yourself. So whatever the case may be, don't blame your losses on your opponent. Take it as a learning experience, and try some different strategies. It'll make you a better player in the end, and a more enjoyable person to play against. After all, your opponent won't have fun if you cheapen his victory by calling him a beardy git, and if he's not having any fun, neither will you. Be a sport about it, challenge him to another game some other time, and begin plotting your revenge...