Cheeze Discussion

[Bandobras Took]

Sauron brought up this point in another place and I thought I'd expound upon it. Too many things are getting called cheeze that aren't. Basically to the point where if something works well, it's called cheeze.

I'd like to put forth a more solid definition: if something is absolutely uncounterable, then it is cheeze. Let's run through some examples:

Blind/Ire:
Despite all my complaints about Blind and Ire on ring tests, they are not actually cheeze. This is because Fallen Gandalf can tap to test rings. Thus, there is a way to test rings that does not rely on short events. A given Blind/Ire may decide a game, but they are not uncounterable because decks do not actually *need* short events to succeed -- I've seen FW decks that don't use them at all outside of responses to opponent's hazards.

Rolled Down To The Sea: Cheeze. There is no possible way to stop a ring item from being discarded by this card. If you're running a ring-gathering deck, you have no real counter, only fix-its after the damage is done. Not only that, but it can destroy your six MPs after you've actually gone through the trouble of playing and testing a ring. Uncounterable 6MP loss is cheeze, and let us hear none of that crap about having an extra ring in your hand is a counter. You're still losing a ring you could have otherwise played. Just because you're not losing as much doesn't mean you're not losing.

River/Triple River: Not cheeze. Playing it on non-moving companies is an exploit that should never have been permitted, but the counter to River is to stuff your company full of rangers.

Wizard's Trove/White Tree: Not cheeze. Turn the Ruins into a Shadow-Hold and he can't play Sapling.

Unabated: Not cheeze. Brokenly strong, yes, but Veils of Shadow/Quiet Lands both can counter the extra strike created.

Great Shadow and Attendant Cards: Cheeze. Let me know what the counter is to a minion player getting another +6 GI when they can already play characters from the sideboard/discard pile and also get free sideboarding of a double attack canceler and a HL reducer.

Malady: Not cheeze. Completely messed up ruling resulting in stupidly broken, but that's a separate issue. Minion players cannot move to Wondrous Maps, Refuge, Deep Mines, etc. Akhorahil can't move to Coastal Sea sites at all or Hero Havens.

Any other candidates for cheeze? Let's bring them up and see if there aren't counters.

[marcos]

Carambor
Hero Radagast
Hoarmurath/ Hoarmurath unleashed
4 hobbits/ tookish blood/ lots of cancellers/ promptings of wisdom
Return of the King
pallando/ cirdan/ elves of lindon

[Bandobras Took]

What's the full set up for the Carambor combo of doom?

Hero Radagast is counterable by Morgul-Night.

Depending on the kind of attack being faced, Hoarmurath Unleashed can be nixed by Unabated, Prowess of Age, or even Forewarned. Strong, yes, but there are things that it won't cancel.

Split off hobbits using Left Behind/Turning Hope to Despair and send back non-Ranger ones using the one hazard limit. These can be played before the attack is canceled and work even if the attack is canceled.

Return of the King: Kill Aragorn.

Pallando/Cirdan/Elves of Lindon: Foolish Words+Shut Yer Mouth.

[marcos]

Return of the King: Kill Aragorn.

LOL

[marcos]

shall we consider that there is also counters for the above mentioned counters?

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Cheeze is generally considered something that yields big reward for little effort or risk. Balrog playing Stinker at Moria is a good example. The matter of balance is important, but not all cheeze wins you the game, and the final verdict on cheeze is thus, whether it takes the joy out of the game experience.

The latter is indeed a subjective criterium, and what constitutes cheeze becomes a matter of debate. So what? It's preferable to use a term with meaning, even though that meaning is contested, than to have an empty term or one without use.

Defining cheeze solely as something without counter, or as something broken, reduces it to uselessness (and does not stop the discussions, as you can see above). It is also narrow-minded, cause as we all know the game contains 1800 cards, and a deck just contains 90 odd cards. Something having a theoretical counter does not mean it has a counter likely to be encountered (Bilbo would be proud )

The analytical distinction cheeze vs. broken is good. However, both can and have jeopardized the tournament scene. In the end, the risk of all players in a competitive scene running the same cards in the same decks is high. Even if the meta-game shifts, the rate of cards actually used to cards available, within a given time-frame, is low (or too low for personal taste). It is thus wise to define cheeze on the basis of these criteria, so we can debate about where the game is, and where it might or should be going. Otherwise the term means very little to me.

[Mordan]

if you want to see different cards, you got to play different scenarios.

is there any tournament where you can only win by dunking the ring? Earning MPs earns you jack.

A tournament where you win instantly by killing 3 dragons at home.

You can think of countless scenarios where any cards could be used and so called cheeze in 2 deck regular tournaments isn't cheeze anymore.

[Bandobras Took]

shall we consider that there is also counters for the above mentioned counters?

Nope. Counter and counter-counter is pure metagame.

I think cheeze is limited to things that flat out have no counter. In the case of Stinker, reveal My Precious first. Not much the Balrog can do about that.

[Bandobras Took]

Defining cheeze solely as something without counter, or as something broken, reduces it to uselessness (and does not stop the discussions, as you can see above). It is also narrow-minded, cause as we all know the game contains 1800 cards, and a deck just contains 90 odd cards. Something having a theoretical counter does not mean it has a counter likely to be encountered (Bilbo would be proud )

The analytical distinction cheeze vs. broken is good. However, both can and have jeopardized the tournament scene. In the end, the risk of all players in a competitive scene running the same cards in the same decks is high. Even if the meta-game shifts, the rate of cards actually used to cards available, within a given time-frame, is low (or too low for personal taste). It is thus wise to define cheeze on the basis of these criteria, so we can debate about where the game is, and where it might or should be going. Otherwise the term means very little to me.

Except that we accuse players of using cheeze, in some cases as a personal attack. The definition of what takes the fun out of the game is indeed subjective, but if a player just flat-out builds a better deck, one that is more efficient at achieving its goals, he should be applauded -- not denigrated.

[marcos]

i think most of the counters you mentioned above are pure meta-game.

shall we consider that there is also counters for the above mentioned counters?

i was speaking of cards that are normally included in most decks, like marvels told/VoM and twilights. I don't think including such cards in a deck is metagaming.

[Bandobras Took]

But then we get into Twilights against Twilights and tapping out sages, etc. So if we consider counter-counter-counters, we come back where we started.

More to the point, if the counter exists, but a person finds that they want to counter something else with their hazard portion/resource portion, that's their business. It doesn't mean that something is cheeze because they've gone with a strategy you've chosen not to counter.

[marcos]

that's a good point, but i'll go with this definition of cheeze:

Cheese is a generic term for a diverse group of milk-based food products. Cheese is produced throughout the world in wide-ranging flavors, textures, and forms.

Cheese consists of proteins and fat from milk, usually the milk of cows, buffalo, goats, or sheep. It is produced by coagulation of the milk protein casein. Typically, the milk is acidified and addition of the enzyme rennet causes coagulation. The solids are separated and pressed into final form.[1] Some cheeses have molds on the rind or throughout. Most cheeses melt at cooking temperature.

Hundreds of types of cheese are produced. Their styles, textures and flavors depend on the origin of the milk (including the animal's diet), whether they have been pasteurized, the butterfat content, the bacteria and mold, the processing, and aging. Herbs, spices, or wood smoke may be used as flavoring agents. The yellow to red color of many cheeses is from adding annatto.

For a few cheeses, the milk is curdled by adding acids such as vinegar or lemon juice. Most cheeses are acidified to a lesser degree by bacteria, which turn milk sugars into lactic acid, then the addition of rennet completes the curdling. Vegetarian alternatives to rennet are available; most are produced by fermentation of the fungus Mucor miehei, but others have been extracted from various species of the Cynara thistle family.

Cheese is valued for its portability, long life, and high content of fat, protein, calcium, and phosphorus. Cheese is more compact and has a longer shelf life than milk. Cheesemakers near a dairy region may benefit from fresher, lower-priced milk, and lower shipping costs. The long storage life of some cheese, especially if it is encased in a protective rind, allows selling when markets are favorable.

[Bandobras Took]

That's like Thorsten's: cheeze is anything that curdles the game.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Except that we accuse players of using cheeze

A reasonable person would never accuse someone of playing cheeze, as the cards and rules are the same for everybody. If you play, you know what you can expect. That does not mean you can't establish what cheezy play is. One can make a moral appeal not to play cheeze, but never make accusations.

The only reason I see to accuse someone of using cheeze, is when that player bends the rules and/or interprets cards in such a fashion that the game becomes cheezier, and refuses to see that as detrimental. Example would be the interpretation of Await the Advent of Allies. Or in fact of Crown of Flowers - when it becomes all about words, and not about the card's intention, as if this game were designed for linguists and/or by linguistical purists or lawyers, instead of by a group of Tolkien afficionados who basically designed and produced it overnight. All in all, we've spent far more time discussing this game than ICE-employees ever have (or intended)

@Marcos. As I always said, the amount of cheeze is determined by how bad it smells

[Sauron]

Oh the webs I weave