One aspect of cheese is using characters/feats that are "overused" from a meta-game perspective. Just like too many food items are thought to be made "better" by adding cheese, too many forces are thought to be made better by adding what could be termed "the usual suspects." When certain characters/feats/etc become essentially ubiquitous in a game of over 1000 game pieces, there is something "cheesy" going on in the meta-game. These are usually what are called "net-decked" forces. That is boring, in the opinion of some. Just like adding cheese to every food item is boring.

Another aspect of "cheese" is the prevalent thought among some competitive focused players that gaming the system and playing the game are the same thing. The history of HeroClix has shown that once "legitimate" tactics are often made illegal by later rules revision or errata, showing that those tactics/strategies are not within the spirit of the game system and are essentially "loopholes" exploited to the detriment of the participants.

As for threads being pulled "denouncing cheese," it may be that certain bald statements of opinion (on any topic) that leave no room for disagreement among reasonable people and seek to ascribe motives to those who disagree are the functional equivalent of trolling on a message board. Forum moderation staff are justified in removing such problematic threads.

There is no cheese. If I play you and use a team that's legal and within the rules, it's fair game. If you build a team that just outright loses to mine, why should you get to sit back and label what I just won with as a lesser team? It's not. I know there are players here that won't play certain pieces because they label them too good. That's fine. However, until they are banned or errated, don't say I'm a bad player or a lesser player for using them. We're both playing the same game and it's no one's fault but your own if you won't use efficient pieces.

What does all of this have to do with the "Forum Rules, FAQs & Feedback?"

Running off to some totally unrelated forum just to continue a tired, repetitive rant is cheese, apparently.

-J

Nothing I guess. We did not remove your 'cheese' threads; there is no conspiracy. Now let's get back to the topic at hand!

Thread moved.

Not saying your a bad or lesser player. Saying your a cheesey character. :> Haha just messin. I have no idea if you are or not. Really though, hiding behind the fact that something is legal is not just cause to free you from the cheese label. Cheese is legal. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be cheese, it'd be illegal. Like I said earlier, cheese is fine, but man up to it.

Just cause one person says cheese doesn't mean it is. I truelly don't think any one figure or tactic or whatnot is cheesey. Its when you combine surten things together that it gets silly, and silly usually means cheese. When multiple people you play with start calling you a cheesey player though, you might want to take notice. Not directed at anyone! Just a comment.

I can tolerate cheese, as long as you're using your own brand of cheddar. At a convention tournament I saw someone copy, figure for figure and feat for feat, a championship team from WWLA a few years ago. It made me make this face.

Other than that the only game elements I have any contempt for are Starro, old Galactus and Nova Blast, both for being absurdly overpowered and all but impossible to compensate for (if you're not expecting them).

Thank you for your carefully written insights. Most appreciated.

I put this thread here because it occurred to me that my rants vs. the cheese term may have broken a forum rule (somewhere) and I was looking for an answer.

I am not defending (nor do I build) cheese-teams, it just seemed odd to me that folks on the boards are still worried about the accusation showing up.

Thankfully, they neutered that 'strategy' with the new wording on the SIF. I'd say SIF was the 'ultimate' cheese.

I agree. I've played 'cheese' before, and I am not afraid to admit it. I've also played a plethora of theme teams that have gotten stomped. :shrug:

Cheese, is the world wide recognized name for playing the best figures you can (within the rules) to win a game.
The enjoyment/fun comes only from winning.
You may not like the word, or it's implications..but it's true. It's what you are doing, using a cheese team. There are many other words that mean the same thing, but cheese is the one that both sides understand the best. The Winner and the LOSER.
I've never played one, or played against one as I only play for fun, which for me is marvel comic accurate, highlander rules.
If I entered a tourny with an LE up for grabs, I'd enter cheese, I'd know I was doing it, anybody could call me on it and I would accept it.

Right on! If I didn't max out my daily dose of rep today I'd rep your right now and give you a virtual high-five. I have no problem with people playing the best figures they have. It can get old if that's all they play for every tournament, but they have a right to do so. I have also seen players who are mediocre at best play figures like KC Superman just so they can win the tournament and that is the only way they can win.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you play a competitive figure and you are a good player, then good for you, but try to change things up from time to time. If you are a crappy player and the only way you have a chance at winning is to play a hyper competitive team at a casual venue, then good for you!

I prefer to play fun teams. Sometimes that fun team will have E-2 Superman, sometimes it will be lead by the unbeatable Mole Man.

Great. That's fine.

You use 2x Ms. Skrullvel and assorted feats week after week, or some other iteration of same, I'll find another venue to play at where people aren't so concerned with t3h ub3r.

I will probably repeat some sentiments already mentioned...

I first discovered cheese when I first started playing. It was the LAMP teams and Icons Supes teams. Now, these are legitimate teams, however if this is the only team that you bring for multiple weeks then it is not really cheesy as it is just plain old boring to play against.

For instance, when MM came out every week at tournaments there were at least 2-4 similar teams with Danger on them. Is Danger cheesy? No, but I do believe the character is undercosted. Are people allowed to play whatever team they want? Yes. But I get tired of facing the same or similar teams week after week.

The idea of playing the same/similar teams week after week is not something that I enjoy. It is one of the reasons why I gave up MTG as they seemed to have the deck of the week after each major tournament.

I am not anti- cheese as much as I am against lack of creativity.

The same old team over and over is pretty boring. Though what many consider cheese I see as a nice challenge. I don't know why it is certain figures or strategies become some kind of boogeyman for some people. The game needs to be challenging otherwise it becomes old and boring as well. Every once in a while maybe I like going up against Lockjaw carrying around the Joker. It can't be the X-men fighting the Brotherhood every time.

This line appears to equate 'cheese' with 'illegal', which I think is where a lot of the debate stems from. Replace "guess what - no rulebreaking" and the sentence is logically sound; but it's a false argument to suggest that using legal figures automatically means you aren't fielding 'cheese', as 'cheese' is not synonymous with 'illegal' (as I understand the term).

There will always be a gaming term for tactics and choices which are lazy, min-maxed, or exploitative, without breaking the rules of the game. As JackAsserton said, the term existed waaaaay before 'clix and will doubtless persist waaaaay after 'clix is dead and buried (again ). Alas, there will also always be arguments about whether this distinction is valid or not, and where the boundaries are.

However, the distinction is clearly there (however fuzzy or subjective), or there would be no discussion at all. It's tiresome to keep seeing people arguing that 'the cheese is a lie' (so to speak), when their actual argument amounts to a defence of 'cheese' as a valid, rule-obeying strategem (which I would not argue with) and does nothing to logically refute the existence of said strategem (which, by dint of the argument itself, is quite blatantly the case).