What exactly is "cheese?" I have often found myself grappling with this perplexing question in the context of trying to understand the aversion players have to "cheese." When contemplating the larger significance of "cheese," the philosophical SW:CCG player must return to this fundamental question. Debates about "cheese" have raged since Premier, yet a working definition is very elusive. A definition of "cheese" is essential to categorizing "cheese." If you ask SW:CCG players this question you would get a variety of responses as unique as each player. However, there are some common components to most responses. When combined, these components create a working, hopefully universal, definition of "cheese."
One component of "cheese" is the level of interaction intended by the strategy. Most "cheese" is deemed non-interactive. Non-interaction takes on two forms: active and passive. Active non-interactive strategies stop your opponent from interacting by hindering their ability to play the game on a fundamental basis; strategies of this kind include: Imperial Stasis and Dark Manipulation. These are actually the most devastating strategies in terms of enjoyment level and game evolution. Active non-interaction is so powerful that the powers that be at Decipher usually put an end to the strategies in the form of legislation, errata, and new cards. Passive non- interaction involves strategies that are barely dependent on interaction with the opponent; a strategy is set-up during the course of the game that the opponent can do little or nothing or about, but the opponent is still able to play their own strategy. There are more examples of this type of non-interaction: Inserts, Turbo-Dark-Deal, Turbo Asteroid Sanctuary, and Dagobah Drain.
The relative strength of "cheese" is a key determinant in labeling a strategy as "cheese." "Cheese" is rather powerful in comparison to "non-cheese." However, this power is not offset by the rarity or value of the cards needed to construct a "cheese" deck, or the level of thought needed to construct and/or play "cheese," leading me to the next criterion often associated with "cheese."
Stupidity is often cited as the main complaint against "cheese." Players say that it doesn't take much intelligence to construct a "cheese" deck/ This is validated by the fact that "cheese" decks are easy to replicate. However, the original innovators of "cheese" strategies wrongly share this stigma they were the smart ones, the first to conceive of a powerful new strategy. Players say that playing a "cheese" deck is too easy and that "cheese" is the crutch of an inadequate player who is too stupid to play anything else. For neutrality's sake, "cheese" is considered by many player to be too easy to create and play, thereby undermining other strategies.
Overall, players dislike "cheese" because it isn't as fun to play or play against. After all SW:CCG is a game and games aren't fun if you don't get to play the game the way it "should" be played.
Therefore, "cheese" can be defined as a powerful, non-interactive strategy that is relatively easy to construct and replicate, challenging the enjoyment level of all players involved.
GAWD