You are right he hasnt, but look at PC Sidney 2007, 5 out of the top 8 teams were all checkmate team-ups.

I just feel as though Ahmed is too hard, he has got a very big downside (that you lose the game if he's put into a KO'd pile) but it is too easy to protect against with him being concealed-optional and the odd Threat Neutralised thrown in as well.

That makes my point exactly,

Thanks

Checkmate is the Royal Flush of VS, but in Spades. Likewise, Quicksilver-based decks are Royal Flushes in Hearts, and Kree are Royal Flushes in Diamonds.

My point is, overpowered cards like Ahmed raise the bar for the competitiveness of other teams and decktypes. Not only is Ahmed so far above Superman (the Pair of Twos of VS), but he further increases the gap by forcing R&D to create other overpowered cards that can actually compete with him (Kree, Quicksilver, etc etc).

The ideal situation is one where every team and decktype is more than just (Royal Flush/Two Pair) all the time, but where an element of luck exists such that it can range anywhere on the scale.

THAT is parity at its best. Just look at the NFL.

I really don't think Checkmate is over-powered. Maybe in relation with other teams - but that's an issue of them being bad.

I mean honestly, what does Checkmate do that's over-powered? The deck doesn't do anything overly crazy like burn you out on turn four or make you discard your hand. All it has has are really good fundamentals - it can brickwall, attack up the curve, and hit all it's drops. Aren't these the crucial things about the game that people cite as being the flavor of VS?

Given that, shouldn't we be glad to see more teams being balanced around Checkmate?

While I understand completely what you're trying to say, out of context, that's an entirely awesome format for a quote.

And you dont think being able to swing up..brickwall and COMPLETELY erradicate luck from your deck is OVERPOWERED?

And no i would NOT be glad of more team-ups

They can do just about anything you desire. Yes other teams have skills to help them win, look at the new synister syndicate, the idea is to win on turn four, and hence get many attack boosts to do it. But, they also have a massive drawback as they are being burned to death in the process. making the game very close.

Checkmate get to search everyturn enabling them to prepare for any eventuality, with no real drawbacks, as actually KOing Ahmed is probably the most difficult thing in the game.

Synister Syndicate dont have any means of preventing their endurance burn, they just accept it and try to outdo there opponent. The game can go either way.

Teams should not be balanced around a specific team, All Teams should be balanced around the entire game.

If a player wants to win he should not have to team-up with a specific team (i.e. checkmate) to do so. A player should be able to play a non checkmate deck and still stand a chance of winning

Uh-oh...you said it now

Oh dear, have I just landed myself in it ;)

http://metagame.com/vs.aspx?tabid=46&ArticleId=6283

Seems like a turn 4 kill against checkmate to me. And if Im not mistaken Adam was playing Threat Neutralized.

that was a little confusing......but true....see rob?

i told you had gone and done it not:p

Just to note the winning deck in that example has THREE cards that are now banned (Dr. Light, MoH, Detective Chimp, and Fiddler).

I wouldn't exactly use that as the best example of how easy it is to beat Checkmate.

Why is taking out as much luck bad? It's like condemed for people to play a fundementally sound archetype. It's not like a bad player uses Checkmate and mysteriously wins.

This is one of the fundamental questions that gets asked all the time.

"How much luck is too much?"

With a game like chess, there is essentially no luck, just play skill. If you're the better player; you win.

With poker, it's essentially all luck. You get the cards that are dealt. The play skill is the ability to determine player behavior and calculate the odds of a specific sequence occurring.

Vs, and almost every other CCG, is trying to straddle the line in between. UDE wants a game that requires a high degree of skill related to designing a solid deck and adequately piloting that deck. There must also be some degree of randomness to present a challenge to the players. Without luck, the game becomes a series of known equations, each with a specific answer, like chess.

Most interestingly, after MSM, which is routinely criticized, the game shifted to Teen Titans and Curve Sentinels because they removed the luck factor to the highest degree. After that UDE had little choice, but to keep pushing the luck factor down to allow for more competition. You see that in the set progression after DSM, almost every set has a search component.

We are now in the era of balancing just how much search is too much to prevent stagnancy. We'll see as the sets keep coming out.

One last thought, to me the most interesting thing that UDE has come up with over the last two years may be the "new" Inmates with the idea of instilling randomness into a team. For those that long for more luck in the game, I have a feeling that Arkham may be your sanctuary.

If every team was as good as checkmate this game would be so much more fun, also games would last longer than 6 turns and we could finally get some use out of 8, 9 and 10 drops. Relying on luck is silly and not-at-all fun. If I wanted to rely on luck and bluff with my opponent I would play poker. The only thing that makes Checkmate so powerful is the consistency they bring to the table. Nothing else they do even comes close to that. I can't remember the last time I missed Ahmed when playing Checkmate. That's understandable when you are running 16 copies of him. (Connie x4, Brother I x4, Enemy/Mobilize x4 and Ahmed x4)

That's what makes Black/Blue so powerful in the current Magic Block - You can Teachings for Teferi and once he's in play you can Teachings for pretty much anything you need when you need it. Of course the downside is you still need to hit the mana to play it all. Vs. has the benefit of no mana screw.