The Object of Jyhad (Was R. Goudie's Prey and "Cheese" Threads)

To Alll, Doesn't it strike you as interesting that the arguments bandied about regarding whether particular deck stratefies are "cheesy" or not seems to depend on a difference in what the two arguers see as the goal of a tournament? Some players regard creativity to be of a greater inportance than absolute performance in a tournament. They're most happy with a strong blend of the two (they typically object to weenie Misdirect, either on the grounds that it is too effective, inelegant, unoriginal, or unchallenging to play.) Others want to win tournaments. They see the greatest satisfaction in a tournament to come from playing as absolutely cutthroat as possible. If their opponents aren't doing the same, then they see those opponents as deserving to lose. Any notion of a tournament being for another purpose seems absurd to them. (Know which category you belong to yet?) The Cheese Debate(tm) stems from a fundamental difference in what the two competitor types are trying to achieve. Most times this difference is rooted in the habits of the gaming group to which the member belongs. Contrast attitudes from LA players (Robert Goudie & Jedi Mike)looking for raw victory points, to those of the Southeast (Atlanta: Davila, Pieloch; New Orleans: Sorrow, etc.) looking for creative satisfaction in addition to victory points. Their gaming groups use tournaments for different ends. Their peers measure "tournament success" by different scales, and as such either support "cheesy" decks or reject them, based on whether they assist in meeting the reasons for having a tournament in the first place... Can the two be happy in the same tournament? Probably not without a dynamic environment, in which the introduction of new cards causes a continuous shift in tournament dynamic (we all hope for that). The only other way to make both happy is to shift tournament category (I'd bet Robert Goudie and Sorrow would have a great time at a sealed or draft tournament together) or change the base rules of the game (as in a variant environmental rules structure, which I would _not_ advocate). I'm sure this is only one aspect of The Cheese Debate(tm), but I think it's an important one... Your thoughts, comments, etc.??? -- Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

David Zopf wrote: <<Others want to win tournaments. They see the greatest satisfaction in a tournament to come from playing as absolutely cutthroat as possible. If their opponents aren't doing the same, then they see those opponents as deserving to lose. Any notion of a tournament being for another purpose seems absurd to them. (Know which category you belong to yet?)>> I really don't think it as cut and dry as you are making it out here. I, who am arguing for what would appear to be the "must win at any cost" camp simply does not fit into that world view. I love playing Jyhad, and while I always enjoy winning, it is not the be all and end all of the game for me. If I lose, so what? I don 't play particularly cut throat, nor do I play particularly "cheesy" decks (i.e. I very rarely, if ever, play weenie misdirect bleed decks, or weenie vote, or anything of the sort). I don't play Jyhad to win at any cost, nor do any of my cohorts, which is what you seem to be implying by the above statement (this isn't a disgruntled reply, I'm just examining your point). We do not play to crush our enemies and laugh at them because they lose under my mighty heel. That isn't the point. The concept that I am defending is that of competetition for competition's sake. Jyhad is, as I point out on a regular basis, a competetive game, with very well defined rules for winning. As such, if you aren't playing with winning as a major motivation, you are ommiting a major part of the structure of the game, and as such, it starts to collapse. Again--I am neither cutthroat, vicious, or mocking of my opponents. I just enjoy playing Jyhad in a situation where I and my opponents are all operating under the same rules set, and that rules set involves trying to win the game. If this means that people are going to use "cheesy" decks, so be it--more power to them, and I'm not going to begrudge them their victory for it. I'm just going to try and build decks that can compete, and win, against them. And if I lose? Who cares. We play again. And If I lose that game? We play again. The point is not the victory--the point is the effort and the attempt. If I'm not trying to win, I am shorting my opponents and they are not going to have fun. If they aren't trying to win, I'm not going to have fun. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "He sees the things he knows are his He sees the bright and hollow sky" -Iggy Pop

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> writes: >To Alll, > Doesn't it strike you as interesting that the arguments bandied about >regarding whether particular deck stratefies are "cheesy" or not seems to >depend on a difference in what the two arguers see as the goal of a >tournament? > Some players regard creativity to be of a greater inportance than >absolute performance in a tournament. They're most happy with a strong >blend of the two (they typically object to weenie Misdirect, either on the >grounds that it is too effective, inelegant, unoriginal, or unchallenging to >play.) > Others want to win tournaments. They see the greatest satisfaction in a >tournament to come from playing as absolutely cutthroat as possible. If >their opponents aren't doing the same, then they see those opponents as >deserving to lose. Any notion of a tournament being for another purpose >seems absurd to them. (Know which category you belong to yet?) Richard, The world is made up of two kinds of kinds of people: people who attempt to classify the world into two kinds and people who don't. I think you're pretty much missing the boat in your attempts to put this whole argument down to a simple difference of objective. For one thing, I don't agree with this whole cheese-deck thing at all, yet I have no desire whatsoever to find the best deck and limit myself to it. I don't think I fit anywhere in your world view. To me, tournaments are mainly fun because you're guranteed multiple games in the same day. And with new opponents, no less. The problem with your theory is that it assumes people are arguing for something based on what they want. The assumption you made in your first paragraph is frequently wrong: many people do *NOT* form their opinion of whether a deck is "cheesy" or not based on whether they view creativity or winning tournaments as more imporant. In fact, IMHO, the more significant difference between the view points has a lot more to do with the different peoples' ideas of what an "imaginative" deck actually is. Some people seem to think that anything they can imagine that wins games differently than the popular ("cheesy") decks is imaginative. I suppose it is on some level, but if you don't take effectiveness into account, you're basically trying to win by _hoping_ some given idea will work and then blaming the opponents if it doesn't in real life. I guess I think of an "imaginative" deck as one that actually uses an imaginative response to solving the _real_ problems of playing Jyhad - including what to do when you encounter a weeny bleed preditor with Misdirection. So no, the Cheese Debate does not stem from what people are trying to acheive, IMHO. It stems from differing ideas about what it means to use your imagination: just to think up a new combination of cards, or to think one up that works at solving the problems a deck will enounter in a game. Fred

<<a whole bunch of stuff snipped because I thought this point was interesting.>> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > >So no, the Cheese Debate does not stem from what people are trying to > > >acheive, IMHO. It stems from differing ideas about what it means to > use > >your imagination: just to think up a new combination of cards, or to > think > >one up that works at solving the problems a deck will enounter in a > game. > > In addition, wouldn't you agree that the anti-cheese advocates take a > sort of offense from someone playing a cheese tactic (whatever their > definition of that might be)? They seem more disappointed that > someone might detract from their experience by bringing such a cliche' > > deck idea to a tournament.. I find this to be a very interesting point. There was mention above that many thematic players are "superlative players" which I snipped because I thought I'd mention it. The guy that got me started is a very supurlative player, and quite thematic (probably one of the reasons I play the way I do.) I find it interesting that the term "Cliche' deck" is used above, and perhaps we should substitute Cliche for Cheese as it seems more appropriate. <<more on this below>> I first encountered Jyhad several years ago at a local card shop after being frustratingly ousted from a M:TG tournament by some 10 year olds with card collections exceeding my annual salary. (No kidding, I was 22 and dirt poor at the time) After being taught to play, and reading through the collection of cards I was immediately intriqued by the mere fact you did not need to be living of mommy and daddy, own a card store, or an independantly wealthy single lifeless loser inorder to build competitive decks in Jyhad. The mix of abilities between the clans (and later I discover by not limiting to clans but by focusing on discipline combinations) allowed anyone with access to a collection of inexpensive cards to create extremely competitive decks. Another point I alluded to earlier, the cliche-ness of M:TG games really iritated me. I was continually seeing the same decks winning over, and over, and over. Which leads me to the cliche vs. Cheese. Anyone can throw a couple dozen Night Moves into a deck, toss in a crypt of vamps with cap less than 4, all with obfs, and use the auspex or dominate you will inevitably end up with for T-midirection / deflection. That's a no brainer. A drunken monkey taught to play using sign language could make that deck (and it's a damn good one too.) But who wants to sit down to coffee and apetizers at the local restaurant with a group of freinds and throw down Nmoves after endless Nmoves and bore your prey to death one by one. (My tone here is jovial, not attacking before the flame wars start :) :) :)) It's Cliche, it's Status-Quo.. It's the Backstreet Boys of Jyhad deck design. (Good analogy, the Backstreet Boys are worth millions of dollars (a winning deck if you will) but they are dull, drab, boring, and cliche'). So I propose that in lieu of calling decks Cheesy, perhaps we should use the term Cliche as this is more appropriate and sounds less like whining. After all I can see the point some are making that it sounds like those of us who eschew cliche' decks are whinning because our hoighty-toighty theme decks don't win. Which isn't my point at all. My hoighty-toighty theme decks can, and *do* win quite frequently amongst the group of players in this area (while half of the time my Grand Pred, which I assume is your last predator, can oust me before I oust him, I am usually one of the last 2 players out of 5 -8) This also extends to my approach to many things. In my younger days I held outright disdain for anything mainstream.. Now that I'm older and a bit wiser I can more closely analyze the mainstream, and decide for myself instead of just scoffing because everyone else embraced it. As a final thought, it is always my goal to win a game. However winning is never enough for me. I want to win with style, sometimes develop a story, make references to the Vampire (tm) mythos, cover as many contingincies as possible, and avoid being repetitve, boring, and most of all.... Cliche'. --David bag...@sonic.net

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >David Zopf wrote: ><<Others want to win tournaments. They see the greatest satisfaction in a >tournament to come from playing as absolutely cutthroat as possible. If >their opponents aren't doing the same, then they see those opponents as >deserving to lose. Any notion of a tournament being for another purpose >seems absurd to them. (Know which category you belong to yet?)>> >I really don't think it as cut and dry as you are making it out here. I, who am >arguing for what would appear to be the "must win at any cost" camp simply does >not fit into that world view. Of course it isn't "cut and dry" If it was, we'd be playing checkers... Perhaps I didn't make my observation clearly enough. I've seen a tendency for those arguing against "cheese" (with weenie Misdirect as the example) to use the banal aspect of certain deck concepts to be a sufficient criteria for eliminating it as a strategy they want to use. Use of that tactic by others detracts from their enjoyment of a tournament. Most everyone falls on a gray area between these two viewpoints, but they serve to define the two extremes... >I love playing Jyhad, and while I always enjoy winning, it is not the be all >and end all of the game for me. If I lose, so what? I don 't play particularly >cut throat, nor do I play particularly "cheesy" decks (i.e. I very rarely, if >ever, play weenie misdirect bleed decks, or weenie vote, or anything of the >sort). I don't play Jyhad to win at any cost, nor do any of my cohorts, which >is what you seem to be implying by the above statement (this isn't a >disgruntled reply, I'm just examining your point). We do not play to crush our >enemies and laugh at them because they lose under my mighty heel. That isn't >the point. I'll stick to "comepetition for competition's sake", instead of "cutthroat". "Cutthroat" wasn't intended as implying maliciousness on your part ;-) >The concept that I am defending is that of competetition for competition's >sake. Jyhad is, as I point out on a regular basis, a competetive game, with >very well defined rules for winning. As such, if you aren't playing with >winning as a major motivation, you are ommiting a major part of the structure >of the game, and as such, it starts to collapse. What I think you're missing, though, is that there are people who intend for their experience at a tournament to go beyond winning or losing. They want to see and experience deck strategies that they've never run into before. They belive that environment is hampered by the presence of "cheese" decks... >Again--I am neither cutthroat, vicious, or mocking of my opponents. I just >enjoy playing Jyhad in a situation where I and my opponents are all operating >under the same rules set, and that rules set involves trying to win the game. >If this means that people are going to use "cheesy" decks, so be it--more power >to them, and I'm not going to begrudge them their victory for it. I'm just >going to try and build decks that can compete, and win, against them. Hey, I like winning, too, and again, I wasn't pushing for a malicious angle. But what I like even more is winning with style, which it seems you do, too. I personally don't mind the presence of decks like weenie Misdirect, for the same reasons. I can see, though, that they do have a negative effect on the level of creativity on a tournament level... Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) guenh...@mindspring.com writes: >>The concept that I am defending is that of competetition for competition's >>sake. Jyhad is, as I point out on a regular basis, a competetive game, with >>very well defined rules for winning. As such, if you aren't playing with >>winning as a major motivation, you are ommiting a major part of the structure >>of the game, and as such, it starts to collapse. > >What I think you're missing, though, is that there are people who >intend for their experience at a tournament to go beyond winning or >losing. What makes you think Peter isn't? I didn't see him saying anything like that. What he's _saying_ is that winning has to be the major motivation or the design of the game breaks down. This doesn't exclude other motivations. Indeed, I expect that even the most competitive players - if they're smart - will play some games with the intent not put out the absolute greatest effort to win but to make choices based on the objective of learning how different decks and tactics work. Meaning, instead of making the choices they feel are the most optimal at any given moment, they'll deliberately make different choices just to see what would happen and how they work. But they're still choices intended, at heart, to winning the game. If you *don't* play the game with intent to win, OTOH, you likely screw the game up beyond recognition. For instance, a player intent on totally random actions or on being excused from the game in the shortest possible time will benefit his preditor greatly and his prey (less so and only at first) unfairly in comparison to the other players. >Hey, I like winning, too, and again, I wasn't pushing for a malicious >angle. But what I like even more is winning with style, which it >seems you do, too. Right. The problem is that appears you (at least at first) seemed to be assuming that a person's position on cheese depends on what he wants out of the game. That's not a very good assumption. Fred

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >The problem with your theory is that it assumes people are arguing for >something based on what they want. As opposed to arguing for something based on what they don't want ;-)? C'mon. No one does that outside of The Debate Club =) Seriously, though. I'm working out two abstractions based on the seperate camps of the Cheese Debate. No one person belongs wholly to either extreme, but they serve to define the spectrum of opinion. >The assumption you made in your first >paragraph is frequently wrong: many people do *NOT* form their opinion of >whether a deck is "cheesy" or not based on whether they view creativity or >winning tournaments as more imporant. In fact, IMHO, the more significant >difference between the view points has a lot more to do with the different >peoples' ideas of what an "imaginative" deck actually is. You're using "imaginative" where I used "creativity"... I think we're closer to agreeing than you realize. >Some people seem >to think that anything they can imagine that wins games differently than >the popular ("cheesy") decks is imaginative. I suppose it is on some level, >but if you don't take effectiveness into account, you're basically trying >to win by _hoping_ some given idea will work and then blaming the opponents >if it doesn't in real life. This is as much a generalization as my original points. No one comes to a tournament without a single thought as to the effectiveness of their deck. Most of the anti-cheese advocates are superlative players. I'll take this as a broad generalization, and not meant as a definition of the whole of the camp opposing your view (PDB6 ?). Even at that, creative types are looking for a unique experience. In addition to a competitive/effective deck selection, they would prefer one free of the tired, unimaginative, same old s^*t > I guess I think of an "imaginative" deck as >one that actually uses an imaginative response to solving the _real_ >problems of playing Jyhad - including what to do when you encounter a >weeny bleed preditor with Misdirection. Good. Substitute your definition of "imaginative" with my use of "creativity" and your really close to where I'm coming from. What I see coming out of the whole "cheese" debate is people feeling they were short changed by having a good player using what they saw as a banal, uncreative, unimaginative (pick one) deck in what would have been a great chance to break out an original idea. They would rather that overbearing tactics which necessitate a limited, predisposed defense not be used, so they can have a greater level of deck variety in a competitive event. (I personally don't think that weenie Misdirect requires _that_ much extra defense, but to each his own.) This does have roots, though, in what sort of experience each player hopes to take away from a tournament... that's where I find the relevance of my previous points. >So no, the Cheese Debate does not stem from what people are trying to >acheive, IMHO. It stems from differing ideas about what it means to use >your imagination: just to think up a new combination of cards, or to think >one up that works at solving the problems a deck will enounter in a game. In addition, wouldn't you agree that the anti-cheese advocates take a sort of offense from someone playing a cheese tactic (whatever their definition of that might be)? They seem more disappointed that someone might detract from their experience by bringing such a cliche' deck idea to a tournament.. Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) >guenh...@mindspring.com writes: >>What I think you're missing, though, is that there are people who >>intend for their experience at a tournament to go beyond winning or >>losing. >What makes you think Peter isn't? I didn't see him saying anything like >that. What he's _saying_ is that winning has to be the major motivation >or the design of the game breaks down. This doesn't exclude other >motivations. You're snipping too quick, Frederick. The end of that quote was "They belive that environment [meaning an environment fostering non-victory objectives] is hampered by the presence of "cheese" decks..." I wasn't disagreeing with winning as the major motivation. I was saying that anti-cheese advocates seem to put a higher priority on the variety of experience than those who are solely (or mostly) concerned with maximizing raw victory totals and go to unimaginative deck concepts to acheive that. >>Hey, I like winning, too, and again, I wasn't pushing for a malicious >>angle. But what I like even more is winning with style, which it >>seems you do, too. >Right. The problem is that appears you (at least at first) seemed to be >assuming that a person's position on cheese depends on what he wants out >of the game. That's not a very good assumption. It isn't wholly dependent on what sort of tournament they'd like to participate in, but it has _something to do with it. Again, I'm not talking about a sole motivation, merely a factor. Remember this line? I'm sure this is only one aspect of The Cheese Debate(tm), but I think ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ it's an important one... Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

all snip- time for my two sence: for me jyhad is a game, i play this game to have fun, as do all of my cohorts. whatever deck you chosse to play, i could care less, for even chesse can be given a good ass kicking. where i play here in philly if the deck someone plays is really chessy and they chosse to play said deck often the whole table will usually gang up on the person to preserve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of us. simple way to maintain fun game for all. arsuf

David Zopf wrote: <<What I think you're missing, though, is that there are people who intend for their experience at a tournament to go beyond winning or losing. They want to see and experience deck strategies that they've never run into before. They belive that environment is hampered by the presence of "cheese" decks...>> No, no, I got that point. I just don't belive that they are correct. <<I can see, though, that they do have a negative effect on the level of creativity on a tournament level...>> That is another point where I disagree. There are plenty of (if not far, far more) viable tournament deck designs that do just fine in the face of "cheese" decks. It takes a great deal of creativity to make decks that work in this environment. You just can't get anywhere with the "all Garou Pack, all the time" deck... [ quoted text not captured ]

David wrote: <<Even at that, creative types are looking for a unique experience. In addition to a competitive/effective deck selection, they would prefer one free of the tired, unimaginative, same old s^*t >> That is a fine motivation to have, but the way to go about fixing it is to come up with a well defined set of rules, where in what is unacceptable is very cut and dry, and then play in that environment. As Fred and I have both pointed out in various places is that the biggest problem with the "cheese deck" world view is that it is completely undefined--what one player sees as horrible, booring, and unimaginitive, another sees as very clever. Using some sort of poorly defined "cheese" concept to harrass players out of playing decks that "you" think are "cheesy" gets no one no where. Why not develop are concrete defenition of what the problem is (i.e. what decks are really bad and why) and invent rules to stop them? The main argument of the 4CL people is that they think playing 4CL prevents "cheesy" decks. They are completely wrong, but that isn't the point--the point is that they are attempting to quantify "cheesiness" and erradicate it. That is also what all the rulings were for--in effect, to limit "cheesiness". Just having one player say "hmm. That deck is cheesy. Don't play it any more, knee biter..." fixes nothing. If somone wants to avoid cheese decks, impliment rules to do so. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip all] I'm not sure where to put this, but I believe it belongs in this thread: I believe that what make certain decks "cheese" to some people are the facts that the decks are usually very easy to make and that the decks are usually played by many players. Take the standard Presence weenie bleed decks, for example. The deck is quite simple to make, and many people play them. The reasons are that 1) most if not all the cards required are easy to come by (not rare), 2) the deck can win in a tournament setting and 3) people have to be prepared for it, or it will win easily. There are others, I'm sure, but these are the main reasons I can think of. The problem I have with the deck is not so much the first two reasons I listed, but rather the third. And why do people have to be prepared for this deck? I don't think it's because of the deck's effectiveness. I think it's because the deck is so widespread. If there weren't so many of these decks at every tournament, I don't think the deck would be considered cheese at all. For instance, if decks containing large vampires were the mainstay in tourneys (rather than the weenie bleeds), I believe the weenie bleed decks would have a hard time getting past their grand preys. Gaining one, and every once in a while two, victory points per table usually doesn't get you to the finals. And without the deck being the table sweeper that it can be now, I don't think it's going to be considered cheese, nor would players have to be prepared for that specific type of deck. I think this all comes down to the metagame. If most of the people in an area start using large vampires in a crypt, the weenie decks left will suffer. (And I'm thinking about good decks using large vampires. Efficient decks that gain blood while taking effective actions, etc. Having big vamps just to have big vamps won't do it.) Same as if most people start playing Fortitude prevent decks. The Potence combat decks will suffer. The problem for me is that the weenie bleed deck isn't a metagame concept, but a "mega-game" concept. It's everywhere, and you have to prepare for it. I guess I don't like that thought, but I accept it. All decks being equal, in both effectiveness and frequency, I believe there would be far more deck styles viable in a tournament setting if the weenie bleed decks weren't so prominent. It's hard to argue that belief though, as there are no facts to back it up. I haven't seen or heard of a tournament where weenie bleed was neither in force nor expected to be in force. Personally, I can't argue much against so-called cheese decks. In my play group, we like to go with more of a storytelling theme for our decks. VPs are not as important as being the last man standing. So our decks tend to be more towards surviving, but not necessarily to the point of walling up and just outlasting, as that tends to get boring. But if I'm going to a tournament, I put away those decks and bring the typical tournament decks. Sure, if everyone was playing large vampire decks I'd bring those and play. But at a table where I'm likely to see 2-3 weenie bleed decks, I wouldn't stand a chance with a large crypt, and I know it. So those decks stay at home. I don't complain though, because I know the setting when I go into a tournament. Would I like to see a little more diversity in the sizes of the crypts in tourneys? Sure. There aren't that many effective decks out there will large crypts. There are some, I know. But not many. Hmm... talk about rambling. Geez. I don't even know if I've made a point about anything, or just stated an opinion (albeit a vague and lengthy one). Anyway, there it is. p.

"Richard D. Zopf" wrote: > [...] there are people who > intend for their experience at a tournament to go beyond winning or > losing. They want to see and experience deck strategies that they've > never run into before. They belive that environment is hampered by > the presence of "cheese" decks... > [...] > Hey, I like winning, too, and again, I wasn't pushing for a malicious > angle. But what I like even more is winning with style, which it > seems you do, too. I personally don't mind the presence of decks like > weenie Misdirect, for the same reasons. I can see, though, that they > do have a negative effect on the level of creativity on a tournament > level... There seem to be (of course) several different meanings of "cheese" being floated around on this thread (and other parallel threads). Here "cheese" seems to be any strong deck that makes use of a single strong card (Misdirection) too often. (different from what some others are arguing about: decks that are too strong.) And the argument is that, by trying to win with a strong deck, the competitor has lessened the "quality" of the event by causing certain (possibly novel but apparently weaker) decks not to be able to compete. Whereas if he had played any equally strong deck that had some "style" (whatever we can agree that that is), he would win equally as much (and afford the novel-but-weaker decks the same odds as before), but now the tourney environment would not be hampered by "cheese". Yet the novel-but-weaker decks still lose. Either the argument is that some decks are *overly* strong, "cheesy" (monotonous) or not, or that cheese is simply boring, strong or not. Your argument is directed against very strong decks, not cheesy decks in general. This is a real concern *if* the very strong deck is overly strong (working with some unbalanced card or combination of cards), in which case the mechanic (card, combo, or rule) that allows the imbalance should be examined (and corrected). But to argue that strong-but-boring decks hur the tournament scene is another story. The tournament environment is founded on the notion of rewarding the strongest deck (as an extension of the foundation of the rules in general). The players are expected to each play as strong a deck as they (individually) can, and to play them as well as possible. While a player can certainly experiment with novel cards, combos, and strategies, it is understood that they are doing so to *improve* their chances of winning - to find a better combo or strategy (in general, of just for the current meta-game). They are not expected to do so just to avoid being "cheesy". Analogy: In chess, e2-e4 is typically viewed as a strong, if not the strongest, opening move. Even in a chess tournament, however, you will see players play other opening moves. The other moves are not played to simply enhance the variety of the game for the opposing players - they are played to win, either by catching the opponent ill-prepared to properly respond to such a non-standard move, or simply because the other move is viewed as a suitable strong move in and of itself. But, if you choose to play e2-e4, (and even if, for example, you follow the four-knights opening for many moves), or if your opponent responds to your non-standard move with a strong move, certainly no one will complain about the "cheese" involved. The object is to play to win. To purposefully play a weak move just to avoid the monotony of playing your strongest move (rather than making a questionable move in the hopes of bettering your position) would detract from the tournament as a whole. In both VTES and chess, the object of playing in a tournament may well be (and should be, IMHO) to have fun. But that goal is best achieved if *all* of the participants play each game to the best of their abilities - using whatever resources (time limits, misdirection, etc.) are allowed. (Chess is just a hobby - forgive any errors in the above discourse on the game - hopefully the point I was trying to make remains intact.) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | A Freudian slip is when you say http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | one thing but mean your mother. Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger |

Peter D Bakija wrote in message <19990821095950...@ng-ba1.aol.com>... >David wrote: ><<Even >at that, creative types are looking for a unique experience. In >addition to a competitive/effective deck selection, they would prefer >one free of the tired, unimaginative, same old s^*t >> > >That is a fine motivation to have, but the way to go about fixing it is to come >up with a well defined set of rules, where in what is unacceptable is very cut >and dry, and then play in that environment. > Simple to state, but most likely impossible to actually implement. >As Fred and I have both pointed out in various places is that the biggest >problem with the "cheese deck" world view is that it is completely >undefined--what one player sees as horrible, booring, and unimaginitive, >another sees as very clever. Using some sort of poorly defined "cheese" concept >to harrass players out of playing decks that "you" think are "cheesy" gets no >one no where. > >Why not develop are concrete defenition of what the problem is (i.e. what decks >are really bad and why) and invent rules to stop them? The main argument of the >4CL people is that they think playing 4CL prevents "cheesy" decks. They are >completely wrong, but that isn't the point--the point is that they are >attempting to quantify "cheesiness" and erradicate it. That is also what all >the rulings were for--in effect, to limit "cheesiness". > Using rules structure to prohibit certain deck strategies isn't such a great idea, IMHO. I agree with limitations on overpowered cards (RtI, Mind Rape, etc.), but to start messing with tournament rules in a way that prohibits a specific deck concept from working is asking for trouble. A house rule would be about the only way of making such a tactic work. In effect, thats what the peer pressure route to limiting cliche' decks is, an unofficial or informal house rule. For me, that's where it should be. But don't think I won't rag on someone for playing >Just having one player say "hmm. That deck is cheesy. Don't play it any more, >knee biter..." Knee Biter? <grins> Legbiter, I didn't know you had a younger brother... Or has your progeny, Anklebiter, gone through a sudden growth fit that no one told us about? >fixes nothing. If somone wants to avoid cheese decks, impliment >rules to do so. That was what I was getting at with the suggestion of evolution through expansion. We haven't had a new influx of cards since '95-96, and it would certainly be neat to have a few more tools that would do an efficient job of supressing weenie tap and bleed deck styles, but we can't expect that. Even so, I still resist the idea of implementing formal rules to get the same effect. It would involve no small amount of rules manipulation. I think that the limited formats (draft and sealed) are where people on opposite sides of this argument will really find their common ground, as it makes focused decks like weenie tap-n-bleed a non-issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

R. David Zopf wrote: >>Simple to state, but most likely impossible to actually implement.>> True, on a grand scale. However, attempting to shame your opponents out of playing "cheesy" decks is also impossible to actually impliment. As far as I can tell, the whole purpose of deciding that some deck designs are "cheesy" is to attempt to get your opponents to stop playing them--either by mocking them out of doing so, convincing the table to gang up on them for playing such a cheesy deck, or using constant peer pressure to prevent them from playing such decks. This is a farily common occurance, and my point is that it is a dumb thing to try and do. If a given group of players has a problem with "cheesy" decks, they should come up with quantifyable, easily definable rules to prevent such decks from being played (as house rules, for instance). This is much more effective than yelling at Steve because he is playing a deck that you don't like. >>Using rules structure to prohibit certain deck strategies isn't such a great idea, IMHO.>> But using peer pressure, out of game abuse, mocking, and complaint is a good way to prohibit certain deck strategies (as is the aim of "cheese" determination)? >>I agree with limitations on overpowered cards (RtI, Mind Rape, etc.), but to start messing with tournament rules in a way that prohibits a specific deck concept from working is asking for trouble.>> I agree 100%. But then I'm also not defending the concept that "cheese" decks "ruin" tournaments. >>A house rule would be about the only way of making such a tactic work. In effect, thats what the peer pressure route to limiting cliche' decks is, an unofficial or informal house rule. For me, that's where it should be. But don't think I won't rag on someone for playing>> But the problem with "unofficial" or "informal" house rules is that they are inconsistient, don't apply to all players equally, and generally benefit the players with the most pursuasive personalities more than anyone else. As this tends to piss people off (as well as being a completely arbitrary factor in a game with very well defined rules), and rarely ever seems to actually prevent people from playing such "cheesy" decks, why not come up with "official" or "formal" rules for a given play group that are easily defined, easily adhered to, and easily quantified? >>That was what I was getting at with the suggestion of evolution through expansion. We haven't had a new influx of cards since '95-96, and it would certainly be neat to have a few more tools that would do an efficient job of supressing weenie tap and bleed deck styles, but we can't expect that.>> Ahh. If only the world were kind :-) >>Even so, I still resist the idea of implementing formal rules to get the same effect. It would involve no small amount of rules manipulation. I think that the limited formats (draft and sealed) are where people on opposite sides of this argument will really find their common ground, as it makes focused decks like weenie tap-n-bleed a non-issue.>> I don't quite understand the logic of resisting formal house rules to prevent "cheesiness" if a given group is putting effort into shaming people out of playing "cheesy" decks. If a player is likely to get mocked for playing what other people consider "cheesy" (which a nebulous concept, at best), how does he know what to avoid doing? How does he know if a given deck has crossed the line from "acceptable" to "cheesy"? If you are going to want to avoid "cheesy" decks, why not just come up with rules to do so. so every one knows what to expect. [ quoted text not captured ]

You have made some very good Points! First: Tap and bleed, and for that matter sneak and bleed, decks use mostly common cards. Therefore a player can create a good tourney deck with a fairly small collection of cards. It is also a well known deck archetype. This explains some of its it's popular appeal. You see a player (good or bad, experienced or inexperienced) can quickly slap to together a workable very focused deck. Yes there is some skill in making and playing a good T&B, but I am speaking generally. On the other extreme you have Peter's "The Nosferatu Hate You", Mk. IV. A great deck. But this deck has something like 30 rare cards and takes a lot of play time to master. Who to go after, who to threaten etc...(By the way this deck is awesome! "behind you" just rocks!) I hope you see my point, or should I say Patrick's. Second: If it is a very popular deck you see often at tourneys. Then as you state we have the bases for a "mega game" discussion. Which by the way is a sign of the maturity of the game. It is hard to evolve a CCG because of the fact that it is collectable, and is constantly coming out with new cards. But as we all know this is not the case with Jyhad. So with out new cards we have a set number of variables. This means deck discussion takes (or has already taken) on very different connotation. With fixed variables there are only so many different card combinations. In this environment certain card combinations (i.e. decks) will float to the top. An even better bases for a mega-game discussion. To some degree we have been talking on this level for some time. Maybe I am just slow, but this dose change how I think about the game and the decks I will play. More later.... Now I have a question. What deck types are archetypes? By this I mean viable mega-game decks. T&B and S&B are two that I think we can all agree on. Any others? Thoughts????? People talk to me. Conor Prince of Raleigh [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37BE3C6D...@sonic.net>, David Bowsky <bag...@sonic.net> wrote: [snip] > I find it interesting that the term "Cliche' deck" is used above, and > perhaps we should substitute Cliche for Cheese as it seems more > appropriate. <<more on this below>> I think this does seem to be a large part of the anti- cheese mentality: that people shouldn't play 'boring' decks. Usually they seem to mean 'boring but effective' decks, but the 'boring' seems to be the main objection. To me, it seems that these 'boring but effective' decks are nothing but a basic vocabulary of good Jyhad tournament deck design. People who are new to tournaments often play Malk stealth&bleed decks in them, because the cards needed to make them are relatively common, and the deck concept is straightforward. They not infrequently play weenie bleed decks or presence vote decks for the same reason. Nowadays they may even play potence rush combat decks, because the deck concept is well-understood and well-described (at least on the net). All of these deck types can now be described by experienced players as 'cheesy' or 'boring'. But they are only 'boring' if you've already played them/played against them a hundred times. If you're new to the game, or to tournaments, they may still be fun to play. Even if you *have* played them a hundred times, you may still enjoy the strategic interaction at any given table - the general play of your deck and all the others may be clear from the outset, but the actual playing of the game can still be unique. So, for me, no deck deserves to be ostracized or ridiculed for being 'cheesy' or 'boring'. I may not think I would enjoy playing the deck, but I don't consider it necessary to discourage the person who is playing it from having a good time if it's what s/he likes. I am certainly more entertained by seeing some crazy concept deck that would never have occurred to me than by seeing 'yet another weenie dominate/misdirection deck', but in a tournament it is the strategic interaction that I've come for, not the novelty value. Josh besides, a novelty deck is only funny once (just ask anyone who's played against cryptic mission/society of leopold decks) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

In article <7ps01e$c68$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Richard Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote in message > <19990821095950...@ng-ba1.aol.com>... > >David wrote: > ><<Even > >at that, creative types are looking for a unique experience. In > >addition to a competitive/effective deck selection, they would prefer > >one free of the tired, unimaginative, same old s^*t >> > > > >That is a fine motivation to have, but the way to go about fixing it is to > come > >up with a well defined set of rules, where in what is unacceptable is very > cut > >and dry, and then play in that environment. > > > Simple to state, but most likely impossible to actually implement. > > >As Fred and I have both pointed out in various places is that the biggest > >problem with the "cheese deck" world view is that it is completely > >undefined--what one player sees as horrible, booring, and unimaginitive, > >another sees as very clever. Using some sort of poorly defined "cheese" > concept > >to harrass players out of playing decks that "you" think are "cheesy" gets > no > >one no where. > > > >Why not develop are concrete defenition of what the problem is (i.e. what > decks > >are really bad and why) and invent rules to stop them? The main argument of > the > >4CL people is that they think playing 4CL prevents "cheesy" decks. They are > >completely wrong, but that isn't the point--the point is that they are > >attempting to quantify "cheesiness" and erradicate it. That is also what > all > >the rulings were for--in effect, to limit "cheesiness". > > > Using rules structure to prohibit certain deck strategies isn't such a great > idea, IMHO. I agree with limitations on overpowered cards (RtI, Mind Rape, > etc.), but to start messing with tournament rules in a way that prohibits a > specific deck concept from working is asking for trouble. A house rule > would be about the only way of making such a tactic work. In effect, thats > what the peer pressure route to limiting cliche' decks is, an unofficial or > informal house rule. For me, that's where it should be. But don't think I > won't rag on someone for playing > > >Just having one player say "hmm. That deck is cheesy. Don't play it any > more, > >knee biter..." > Knee Biter? <grins> Legbiter, I didn't know you had a younger brother... Or > has your progeny, Anklebiter, gone through a sudden growth fit that no one > told us about? Hehehe ... actually i have TWO younger brothers, and a sister. But only the sister plays CCGs. She is good, one of the best players i have ever met, but she mainly plays magic and netrunner with her husband, who is also a good player. And it was my middle brother, Nick, who introduced me to DnD, way back when it was chainmail and 3 crappy little brown pamphlets. On current trends Anklebiter will be chestbiter come the millenium, though. Time to invest in armoured brassieres for your daughters, comrades! Semi-seriously, Peter [or possibly David] is referring to the mild stick that Anklebiter got for the Malky stealth-bleed deck that got him into the final of his first-ever tournament, and with which he won his second [see the April [i think] Portsmouth tournament report on James C's site]. Healthy stick, IMO: now he is swithering between going for a Tremere bash n bleed deck or an assamite deck. i am trying to persuade him to experiment with a weenie tha/Gangrel rush deck using Heidelberg to move the dog-pack onto a tha or better THA guy/gal. Prolly use the animalism for Scorpion stings, too. > > >fixes nothing. If somone wants to avoid cheese decks, impliment > >rules to do so. > > That was what I was getting at with the suggestion of evolution through > expansion. We haven't had a new influx of cards since '95-96, and it would > certainly be neat to have a few more tools that would do an efficient job of > supressing weenie tap and bleed deck styles, but we can't expect that. Even > so, I still resist the idea of implementing formal rules to get the same > effect. It would involve no small amount of rules manipulation. I think > that the limited formats (draft and sealed) are where people on opposite > sides of this argument will really find their common ground, as it makes > focused decks like weenie tap-n-bleed a non-issue. Absolutely right, brother. And that's where the new constructed-deck ideas will come from, too, IMO. Sealed is good for the game and good for sales .... play more sealed, and the puppy-dog lives! > > Regards, > R. David Zopf > Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC) > i am currently writing an article about a Generic Universal CCG, GUCCG for short, which is basically a plug for the idea that Jyhad is SUCH a good game that it should be possible to use the mechanics to implement pretty much ANY fantasy-conflict scenario. One of the ideas in this article is maybe relevant to the current debate, though, so i'll leak the concept that IMO it might be fun to have a game-variant in which you abolish Presence as a discipline [all cards requiring presence are banned], and give vamps with presence the ability to acquire equipment and allies cheaper, or cheaper AND more stealthily if they have PRE. [ quoted text not captured ]