thedixman2000

6 Point Strategy - Heroscape

2008-04-23T19:18:00.013-05:00

Okay, I know that 6 Point Strategy is reserved for card games, and I know that Heroscape is a miniature combat game. So what gives? My justification is as follows: (1) Your miniatures stats are on cards. (2) I REALLY like Heroscape.

In Heroscape, moving your troops efficiently is frequently crucial to success. Some scenarios call for you to search the map, or to transport a glyph, and being able to do so rapidly is paramount to your victory. But even when your only goal is annihilation, gaining control of high ground or choke points can be the key to your victory. So I've focused on troops that facilitate movement, or who greatly benefit from having their movement improved.

Tarn Viking Warriors

If you can get a little luck with the dice, the Tarn can be a quick swarm of destruction, coming in from long range and surrounding a hapless foe. Also, if you're trying to get or move a glyph, the Tarn are a viable option. And for only 50 points, they're reasonably strong in combat.

Theracus

At the start of a troop draft, while everyone else is grabbing dragons and giants, this is frequently one of my first picks. If your map has a notable high area (my group has a pair of the castle expansions), then getting ranged attackers to the top of the wall can be crucial. Having a range of 7 AND flying means that Theracus can cover a lot of ground quickly, and take another character along. With 3 life and 3 defense dice, Theracus can usually survive a couple of attacks, and only costs 40 points.

Syvarris

If Theracus is my first pick, then Syvarris is frequently my second. If I can carry Syvarris to a high place, he can start picking off opponents with impunity. In fact, in one game I managed to get him the Range +4 glyph at the beginning of the game, and spent the entire rest of the game using only him. I can't stress enough how VERY FAR 9 spaces can be. And if you have enough height to the map, then you can get the extra attack dice to compensate for his weak attack.

This is another character that I like to carry around. His attack is poor, but he's fairly resilient, and Mind Shackle can completely change the game. I like to carry him right up to the enemy's front line at the beginning of a battle, and then try to take over the front line. Sure, it's a long shot, but the payoff is huge, and the threat of it can cause enough panic that it can totally disrupt any strategy that my enemy might have.

Brunak

This is who typically carries Ne-Gok-Sa. His movement is not particularly good, although if your map has lava, he becomes invaluable. The reason that I like him, however, is that it means that Ne-Gok-Sa (or whoever) has someone standing next to him, and Brunak, unlike Theracus can be a significant offensive threat, especially if your opponent is depending on a clustered group of units with low life.

Airborne Elite

This is one of the riskier units in Heroscape, but they can easily reshape a battlefield. The risk is that you won't get to drop them on the map until it's too late for them to make a difference. But in many scenarios, the ability to drop anywhere can be huge. Behind enemy lines, on glyphs, or wherever their grenades will do the most damage. If nothing else, their range is almost as far as Syvarris's, and they have similar stats, and 4 attacks.

Deckbuilding 101- Part 2

2008-03-25T18:57:00.003-05:00

First, thanks to Acidburn for the banner.

Before I move on, I wanted to go back and further explain some of the things that I had talked about before, and also mention a few other basic concepts and ideas.

Card Advantage

I defined card advantage as having more cards available than your opponent. While this is basically true, there is more to card advantage than drawing and discarding. Another facet of card advantage is card efficiency. Card efficiency is the idea of trading cards to your advantage. Of course, now I probably need to explain trading cards. If your opponent plays a threat, chances are good that you will want to deal with that threat. For example, if your opponent attacks with a Raging Goblin. You in turn block it with a Goldmeadow Dodger, and both cards go to the graveyard. You have just traded cards. Likewise, if your opponent plays Hissing Miasma, and you destroy it with Demystify, that is trading cards. So, how do you trade cards to your advantage? Make one of your cards take out more than one of theirs. White has many of the classic examples of this: Wrath of God, Rain of Blades, Tempest of Light. Another seemingly obvious way to trade cards advantageously is to not trade at all. If you can take out a number of their cards without giving up anything at all, then obviously you have the advantage. I was personally reminded of this not long ago. A good friend completely decimated a deck of mine with nothing but two Disciple of Tevesh Szats and a pair of Grim Harvests. Most of my deck had toughness 1, so he would just tap a disciple to kill it. Anything bigger and he would sacrifice a Disciple to kill it, and play a Harvest to return it. The next time he had to sacrifice a Disciple, he returned the Harvest. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. I died without even seeing the rest of his deck.

Time Advantage

I actually covered this fairly well, but I didn't cover very well the interaction between Time advantage, also called tempo, and your mana base. As I said, I'm not phenomenally good at figuring this out myself, but there is a great article here. The only thing that I don't like about this article is that while it makes sure you have enough land, it doesn't talk as much about the dangers of too much land, or the wrong land. The problem with too much land is obvious. If you consistently draw nothing but lands, you'll never be able to play any threats. However, having the wrong land is a much easier trap to fall in to. When I was first starting to deckbuild, I loved the Ravnica bouncelands, such as Orzhov Basilica. After all, what's not to like? With 1 land, you get 2 mana with 2 colors! As a result, I was packing as many of them as I could into any deck where I could justify it. But when I tried to play these decks, I had a horrible time. The bouncelands slowed down my play far too much, putting me far, far behind my opponent. There was even a time when all I had were a few bouncelands, leaving me unable to play any lands at all.

Other Concepts

Board Advantage

I should first apologize. Board advantage is a term that I've made up, not having read the term elsewhere. As I've said, the board is simply the "in play zone", and board advantage is simply having cards in play that help control your opponent's actions. Before, I used Hissing Miasma to illustrate trading. But let's say that you have one in play. Your opponent will not want to give up life, so your opponent will be very hesitant to attack you. There are a number of other ways to keep your opponent stalled. I was once totally stymied because an opponent had a pair of Heartbeat of Springs in play, and I couldn't afford the mana burn.

Threat Advantage

Another term I coined, threat advantage is a little harder to define. Threat advantage is when your opponent suffers because of things you might do. While it could be similar to board advantage, not wanting to attack for fear of a counterattack, it can be so much more. If your opponent is playing blue, you might be hesitant to play a spell, fearing a Cancel. Not long ago, I played a Cho-Manno, Revolutionary, and was just about to triumphantly put a Pariah on it, rendering myself invulnerable. Unfortunately, it was Terrored, wrecking my plans. I spent the rest of the game being VERY careful. But my favorite example took place a while back. I had 3 life, nothing in play, and one card in hand. My opponent had 30 life, 3 cards in hand, and 4 untapped creatures in play. But throughout the game, every time he had tried to mount a substantial attack, I had played an instant that wrecked his attack, and had then threatened to regain control of the board. So, on his turn, when his attack phase approached, He looked at his side of the board, looked at my side of the board, and then looked at me. I casually put the card in my hand on its side on the table, shifted my other hand slightly towards my stack of lands, and cocked an eyebrow at him. He then ended his turn. I actually kept this up for 4 turns straight, never drawing anything but lands. Only later did he learn that the card I'd been holding was a Crossbow Infantry. Of course, I lost that game, but I learned the importance of being a perceived threat. Now, bluffing like that is something that shouldn't be done too often, lest it lose its effect, but as a rule, you should always do your best to appear unruffled and in control.

Hopefully, these concepts have further explained some of the concepts involved in successful deckbuilding. Next month will be more involved, with more specific strategies, and an example deck (or 5)

Embattled battlers: strategy games continue to struggle on consoles

2008-03-17T20:56:00.003-05:00

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am a nerd. To be honest, I was a nerd long before being a nerd was even a little bit cool. And it was never more apparent than when it came to video games. Sure, I was playing Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat right there with the cool kids, but I was also feverishly leveling up in Dragon Warrior, and even worse, I was even immersed in whatever strategy game I could get my hands on. Because I was a poverty-stricken nerd, I seldom had a computer that could run anything better than solitaire. So I bought whatever came out on my beloved Super Nintendo. Metal Marines, Liberty or Death, even the port of the original Civilization all graced my little 12" TV. But even then, with my lack of PC support, I knew that these games were lacking. When I got a better computer, I finally understood what I'd been missing. These games were MUCH better on the computer.

Now I'm older, and I still buy and play strategy games, both on my PC and on my consoles. But while the console strategy games are much better, and many have found a niche, such as the games developed by Nippon Ichi Software, they still almost always lag behind their PC counterparts.

But why is this? Well, for starters, there is a question of demand. While most serious gamers can now be expected to own both a PC and at least one console, it is a simple fact that for the most part, gamers look to buy different games for different systems. While RPGs have a market on both, people who buy consoles are usually looking for more action oriented games. While some action games, especially 1st person shooters, thrive on the PC, it is generally accepted as the home for more strategic gaming.

Another factor is the hardware involved. In an action game, fewer buttons can be desirable; when you have only a split second to hit a button, you don't want to have too many options to make mistakes with. But with strategy games, especially real-time strategy, you want many, many shortcuts and presets so that you can input commands quickly and efficiently. Also, when it comes to scrolling across a large battlefield, A controller's analog joystick simply can't compete with a mouse. Now, more and more console games are trying to bridge the gap, supporting keyboard and mouse, but any game hoping for any mainstream appeal can't simply assume that the player has an optional accessory, and as long as they have to design with a controller in mind, console strategy games will be a step behind.

But it's not always a very big step. As I've said, I love many of the Nippon Ichi games. Disgaea is a game that I don't feel suffers much at all on the PS2, and Grim Grimoire is a RTS title that is a lot of fun, although I admit that a mouse would be better. Even more impressive, Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars for the Xbox 360 received ratings that were very close to its PC counterpart. So while the gap remains, what was once a chasm has become a crack.

Deconstructing Preconstructed: Theme Decks in Magic: the Gathering

2008-03-17T18:56:00.008-05:00

Of the many arguments that my group gets into when we play or talk about Magic: the Gathering, one of the most persistent is regarding the role of the preconstructed decks that Wizards sells with each set. Some of us really think that they are great decks, well balanced and planned. Some of us feel that they are a great place for beginner decks, and therefore beginner deckbuilders. Some of us feel that they are a marketing ploy by Wizards; throw together some stuff, and trick players into paying a premium for mediocre cards. So who's right? Well, all of us.

First, what is a theme deck? Well, whenever Wizards of the Coast releases a new core or expansion set, they release a number (usually 4 or 5) of decks using the cards from that set. If it's a core set, then it is a 40 card deck; otherwise, the card count is 60. With almost no exceptions, the decks all have a similar structure, having almost exactly the same numbers of Rares, Uncommons, Commons, and basic lands. Having each deck built uniformly allows Wizards to attempt to keep each deck roughly equal, both in price and in power. While the former is a constant, the latter is certainly not. The power of the theme decks vary, sometimes wildly so. While the elf deck from Lorwyn can inspire a certain fear and respect in my local gaming group, the two decks that I purchased from Fifth Dawn most certainly do not. The same holds true for the core set decks. When I first tried out Magic Online, I extensively played the the free trial, which allows you to play the core set decks in a pair of special rooms. I didn't count the number of duels that I played, but I am certain that it was well over 100. In that time, it became clear to me that not all of the decks were created equally. While any deck can win or lose if it gets a particularly good or bad draw, certain decks were clearly a cut above. The black, red, and green decks almost seem to play paper, rock, scissors with red beating green, black beating red, and green beating black fairly regularly. White seems to be about average, winning and losing to red, green, and black. Blue, however, is the red-headed stepchild of the bunch. Although I tried numerous times, I was never able to win as blue. I did however lose one duel to blue, but in that game, I didn't draw a third land until turn 9, allowing me to only play one spell in that time. In spite of that incredible obstacle, I was able to reduce my opponent to 1 life the turn before I died, and I think that if I'd made a different decision or two, I might have actually won that game.

So why are the decks so unequal? Well, I personally believe that the power is not the point. Theme decks are about introducing people to something new. Core decks are for people newer to Magic. The core decks introduce people to the basic cards and concepts in the game, showing new players what each color has to offer them. The red deck offers speed and direct damage, black has discarding, regeneration, and creature kill, while green has rapid mana growth and huge, dangerous creatures. White boasts its ability to survive threats, but blue? Blue has few creatures, a few counterspells, and unfortunately, way, way too much card drawing.

Expansion decks, however, are about introducing players to a new set and what it has to offer. New art, new flavor, and most important of all, new mechanics and features are what determines a theme deck, not the overall power. If you don't believe me, take a good look at the decks in a few expansion sets. Lorwyn had a tribal theme, so the 5 decks are built around the 5 main tribes: Goblins, Elves, Giants, Elementals, and Kithkin. Future Sight boasts decks built around the Suspend, Scry, and Rebel mechanics, while blockmate Planar Chaos features Morph, Vanishing, rescue, and Madness decks.

So, are they great decks, great marketing, or great tools? The short answer is yes. In my group, several of us just think of it as a marketing ploy. But one of us wins her fair share of games using preconstructed decks, and another had a modified Guildpact deck that had an obscene winning streak. In the end, I suppose that preconstructed decks fill whatever role you want them to.

Video game rumors, myths and legends

2008-03-17T17:33:00.006-05:00

You know the stories. Bloody Mary. Hookhand. The prank caller who is already in the house. The naked code in Tomb Raider. Yes, it seems that every aspect of modern life is subject to urban legends, and video games are no exception. But why? Perhaps it's because video games have a long history of hidden content. Codes, Easter eggs, hot coffee, video games have always had hidden content, and gamers have always been willing to listen to rumors and legends about what might be hidden in the code. For nostalgia's sake, as April Fool's Day approaches, let's take a look back at some of our favorites.

As I mentioned already, Tomb Raider games have each been purported to have a nude code, fueling the fantasies of basement dwelling men everywhere. But Lara isn't the only one to have this rumor. Chun Li and Sonya Blade, were both rumored to have similar codes. I also heard that Killer Instinct had a finisher for Orchid where she performed her alternate finisher (the flasher) but that she faced towards the camera, rather than away.

Some myths exploit the emotional ties that we feel for the characters that we play as. Rumors abounded of ways that you could revive Aeris in Final Fantasy VII, and that it was possible to save General Leo in Final Fantasy VI. We the gamers get so attached to these little sprites on the screen that we desperately cling to hope that they might somehow be saved.

Some myths are just outlets for the dreaming overachiever. Jumping over the flagpole in the original Super Mario Bros., getting the triforce in Ocarina of Time, breaking damage caps in almost every rpg ever made, or fighting Kano in Mortal Kombat 2; all of these are persistent rumors of what can be achieved if you can complete some highly unlikely task or set of tasks. But perhaps the most common myths like this pertain to hidden areas or characters. I went to school with a guy who swore that he knew a code to make Reptile playable in the original Mortal Kombat. In an April Fools' joke gone awry, Electronic Gaming Monthly published a code that allowed you to play as Sonic and Tails in Super Smah Bros. Melee. This was total falsehood, but the Internet was flooded by excited gamers. Sonic 2 was reported to have a special area known as the Hidden Palace Zone, and everyone was looking for a way in. This myth actually had some truth to it. There had in fact been a Hidden Palace Zone planned for Sonic 2, but it had been scrapped, but not until after a beta containing part of the zone had been stolen. The most famous secret level of all, however, might be the cow level in Diablo. How this started no one knows, but at some point, the Internet was packed with ways that you could supposedly access the mysterious cow level. In response to this, Blizzard actually made one of the cheat codes in StarCraft the phrase "there is no cow level", but then relented and actually made a secret cow level for Diablo II.

Some myths, however, explore the darker side of human nature. One myth fed into political paranoia, claiming that in the year 2000, Saddam Hussein purchased 4,000 Playstation 2 units to power a military supercomputer. While this now seems even more ridiculous than WMDs, at the time, consumers had been flooded with advertising about how amazing the PS2 hardware was (and it was, my gaming computer actually has some PS2 components) and it seemed powerful enough to allow unprecedented computing power. In a more supernatural sort of myth, there was reported to be a curse on Sonic R for the Saturn. Supposedly, if you played as the Tails Doll, something bad would happen to you at some point. In truth, the Tails Doll is only guilty of being a little creepy, and the only curse seemed to be on Sega itself, as it continued to fall far, far behind other consoles.

In the end, perhaps video game myths are nothing but silly ways for people to try to get the attention of the gullible and naive. But I think that I like the fact that in these days, where almost every game has a strategy guide with a full walkthrough, and every code is only a few keystrokes away, that games can still have a little mystery to them.

Just a quick note

2008-03-09T14:28:00.007-05:00

I'm not really into previews, but Wizards is allowing us to check out a "booster pack" (15 cards) from the upcoming expansion set Shadowmoor. For those who were turned off by the happy, fairytale art of Lorwyn and Morningtide, you will be happier with these.

Shadowmoor has been described as a dark reflection of the plane of Lorwyn, and even the white and green creatures are, frankly, a little creepy. Ballynock Cohort has to be the most disturbing hobbit I've ever seen.

Now, the rules texts are blank, but the art, names, and mana costs have been revealed, and I'm facinated to see that the dual-color mana costs from Ravnica block have returned.

[Edit: If you position your cursor over the last card, you CAN read its text. Maybe more cards will be revealed as the release approaches.]

Check it all out here.

Videogame Movies

2008-02-26T00:30:00.005-06:00

It’s become chic to trash video game movies in general, and Uwe Boll in particular. The latter I can certainly understand, if only because you get to read his whiny, childish responses later. But he doesn’t bear the blame for all of the trash out there, even if BloodRayne II: Deliverance was the most unnecessary movie ever made.

For an example of Boll-less garbage, who remembers Super Mario Brothers? The most notable aspect of this movie was that somehow an entire team of moviemakers got together to make a Super Mario Bros. movie, and evidently none of them were at all familiar with Super Mario Bros. Seriously, Bowser was played by Dennis Hopper. And rather than jumping and collecting mushrooms and flowers, they shot at each other with flamethrowers and de-evolution guns.

Another non-Boll movie that is easy to trash is Doom. This movie had everything going for it. A solid star to play the lead. The tie-in to the new Doom III. Plenty of budget for special effects. In fact, it had everything it needed to be a good movie. Well, except for a good movie.

There are some video game movies that are hard to trash, however. DOA and the Tomb Raider movies were, in my opinion, very close to their source material. Some nonsense story that doesn’t make any sense, all circling around some good-looking women.

On the other hand, the Double Dragon movie was truly a waste of film. Fans of the video games were slightly confused, as this movie was actually based on a cartoon, which explains why it was so completely ridiculous in every way. Really, the main mistake with this movie was choosing to make it live action. If they’d just stuck with cartoons, this would have been much better.

In fairness, not all videogame movies are terrible, and not all of them are financial failures. the original Mortal Kombat movie, while not well thought of today, actually did quite well at the time of its release. And the Resident Evil series of movies has been very sucessful, as has Silent Hill.

The problem with making videogame movies is that generally, video games have very thin plots and poor characterization. We as gamers fail to notice this because we fill in those gaps somewhat by taking control of the characters and becoming a part of the story. But when a movie takes us back out of the story and gives us some distance, we can see how little there actually is. Obviously, role-playing games give the best chance to overcome these problems, but Advent Children aside, very few role-playing games are mainstream enough to support a major theatrical release.

So what is the formula for making a sucessful video game movie? Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Obviously, videogame movies usually need a lot of money for special effects. And any movie benefits from good casting. But other than that? Paul W.S. Anderson as largely responsible for the Resident Evil movies, but he also did Super Mario Brothers and the abysmal Street Fighter. Of course, you could just forget about good filmmaking, and just hypnotize children with brand recognition, as demonstrated by the unending series of Pokemon movies.

While I'm aimlessly tossing around ideas about video game movies, here are a few that I'd like to see, provided Uwe Boll can be kept at bay.
- Magna Carta: Tears of Blood. I really thought that the story was engaging, and I’d like to experience it without suffering through the relentlessly bad gameplay.
- One of the Front Mission games. It’s been a long time since there was a mech movie made, and I’m getting close to wanting one bad enough to rent Robot Jox.
- Prince of Persia. Nostalgia alone should sell this game, but if not, throw in the weird evil harem girls from Sands of Time.
- Diablo. I just think that there aren’t enough movies with amazons fighting demons.
- Tenchu. Same with ninjas fighting demons.

As much as I mock them, I still love watching video game movies, and I’m sure that I’ll give Mr. Boll another chance with Dungeon Siege. And then maybe I can read another ridiculous tirade.

Deckbuilding By Dix

2008-02-20T00:55:00.006-06:00

Welcome to Deckbuilding By Dix. This is an open-ended series of articles on how to build decks for Magic: the Gathering. I’ve wanted to write about building decks for a while now, largely because, for me, building decks is even more entertaining than actually playing the game.

But before I begin, a few disclaimers. As much as I do enjoy building decks, I’m not an expert or genius when it comes to deckbuilding. If you’re already a veteran deckbuilder, I may not have anything new to teach you. In addition, there are others who have written at length on deck building theory and strategy, and I encourage you to read their work as well. Where my writing will differ from others is that I will be brief, and that I will endeavor to define any terms that I use, so that someone new to Magic will not be confused. Also, I want to make it clear that this is not the only or best way to approach deck building. It is simply my way, and I believe that by reading it, you might gain a new perspective on how to build. And finally, my final disclaimer: as part of this article, I will be building an example deck. The deck, however, will not be a thing of brilliance. It will not make you a star with your local gaming group. It is, in fact, not a deck that I would personally build. But what it will do is illustrate many of the concepts that I will be writing about. Now, with all of that out of the way, let’s get started.

Deckbuilding Basics

Step 1: Beginning At the End

The first thing that I do when I start to write a deck is to develop a win condition. A win condition is simply the point in the game where you have the cards in play or in hand that you need to win. A win condition is not a guarantee; after all, Magic is all about making exceptions and breaking rules. But if you have a solid win condition in play, you SHOULD be able to win the game. Now, a win condition does not follow specific criteria. It could be something as basic as having more or bigger creatures than your opponent, or it might be one of the handful of cards that actually declare, “you win the game.”

For this deck, I decided to use Pickles as my win condition. In spite of having a terrible name, a Pickles lock is one of the more effective win conditions that has been established in a while, achieving success on the Pro Tour at many levels. In addition, Pickles is noteworthy because it is one of the few types of control effective in a multiplayer format. A Pickles lock is achieved using a Brine Elemental and a Vesuvan Shapeshifter. When the Brine Elemental comes into play, it causes opponents to skip their untap step. Then, the Vesuvan Shapeshifter copies the Brine Elemental, forcing them to continue skipping their untap every turn. This forces the opponent into an extremely one-sided war of attrition, as many of their cards can suddenly only be used once. With that accomplished, it is then easy to have your creatures do fatal damage to each opponent.

As a rule, if I want to include a card in a deck, I want it bad enough to include 4 copies. In that, I disagree with many deckbuilders, who would rather have fewer copies, instead having more versatility by having a greater variety of cards. But, you definitely want to make sure that you draw your win condition, and you want to have multiple copies in case something goes wrong, so it is usually advisable to have 4 of each necessary card. So, our deck so far looks like this:

Quantity Card Name
4 Brine Elemental
4 Vesuvan Shapeshifter
8 Creatures

Step 2: Taking Advantage

Okay, so now we have a win condition. Great. That and $3.99 gets you a booster pack. The fact is, a tight win condition doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t survive long enough to put it into action, or you get it in play too late. You have to have enough life, and you usually need the board to be stabilized, if not better than that. The board is the term given to the “in play” area of the table. It’s where all creatures and enchantments that are in play are located. When a board is stabilized, it means that neither player has a notable advantage over the other, and because of this, very little attacking is taking place. Obviously, all games of Magic will to some extent rely on the luck of the draw; however, there are many ways to try to skew this into your favor, and establish control of the board. This article will cover the two most common methods.

Card Advantage

Card advantage is most simply defined as having more cards available than your opponent. The more cards you have in your hand, the more likely that your hand contains the spell you need. There are two obvious ways to gain card advantage. Either you can increase the number of cards in your hand, or you can try to decrease the number of cards your opponent has in hand. Now, I should mention that generally, not just any card contributes to card advantage; most people only count threats. Threats are the cards that are actually damaging to your opponent, rather than lands or more innocuous spells. Therefore, while a spell that allows you to draw cards can help you establish card advantage, it is not in itself card advantage. For this deck, I elected to include Arcanis the Omnipotent. I like Arcanis for this deck, in part because it’s a permanent (a permanent is any card that stays in play, unlike instants and sorceries), so that you can reuse its ability to draw cards every turn. The other thing I like is that if you already have your lock in place, its power and toughness are high enough to help you attack for the win. Because Arcanis is a legendary creature, you can only have one in play at a time, so I will only include 2 in the deck.

Another, less obvious way to gain card advantage is through recycling cards. By bringing back cards from the graveyard, which is your stack of discarded, killed, or otherwise used cards, you can keep reusing the same threats over and over. My favorite card for this is Eternal Witness. When it comes into play, you get a card back, and have a 2/1 creature in play. But what if you don’t need a 2/1 creature? What if you’d rather have another card from your graveyard? For that purpose, I decided to add Vedalken Mastermind. With his ability, you can return Eternal Witness over and over, reclaiming your lost cards. But that’s not all Vedalken Mastermind is good for. He can use that ability on any of your cards in play, preserving your win condition, or saving one of your other creatures from death.

Our deck thus far:
Quantity Card Name
4 Brine Elemental
2 Arcanis the Omnipotent
4 Vesuvan Shapeshifter
4 Eternal Witness
4 Vedalken Mastermind
18 Creatures

Time Advantage

The second advantage is time advantage. Time advantage is getting your threats in play faster than your opponent. Again, you can achieve this by speeding yourself up, or by slowing down your opponent. If you choose to speed yourself up, you have two main ways to go about it: mana acceleration or tutoring. The most common source of mana is land, but the rules state that you can only play one land card per turn. Mana acceleration is getting mana faster, either by circumventing the one land rule, or by using alternate mana sources. To get past the one land rule, I decided to include Rampant Growth. Because Rampant Growth puts the land in play through an effect, it circumvents the one land rule. As an alternate mana source, I included Llanowar Elves. With both types of acceleration, this deck should be able to churn out middle and late game threats quickly.

Tutoring describes any card that allows you to search your library (the stack of cards that you draw from) for a specific card or type of card. The term tutor is derived from the many cards that possess this effect that have “tutor” in their names. Tutors sacrifice card advantage, because having a tutor card means that you have one more card that is not a threat. But tutors help gain a time advantage, because you can trade them for the specific threat that you need. One tutoring card in this deck is Summoner’s Pact. By having an initial casting cost of 0, Summoner’s Pact further increases time advantage by leaving your mana free to play the card you just tutored. By the time you pay for Summoner’s Pact during your next upkeep, your creature will be ready for action. Another tutor in this deck actually contributes to your growth of mana. Civic Wayfinder doesn’t put your lands into play, but it puts them in your hand, making sure that your mana growth doesn’t stall. Also, Civic Wayfinder is a 2/2 creature, making it an acceptable mid-game attacker or blocker.

If you choose to slow down your opponent, your most likely options are going to be either recycling or removal. In addition to helping with card advantage, recycling aids in time advantage. After all, if your opponent has to deal with the same threats over and over, it hinders their ability to deal with new threats or to advance their own win condition.

Removal falls into two categories. The first category is destruction. If you can simply destroy your opponent’s threats, then their game stalls while they have to play new ones. Recursion, also known as bounce, is the act of returning a card to its owner’s hand. While not as solid a solution as destruction, bounce spells generally require less mana, and can target different types of cards more easily than destruction spells. For example, Disenchant is a perfectly good way to deal with enchantments, but is helpless to deal with creatures; the opposite is true for Terror. But they can both be recurred. Our deck contains a pair of Boomerangs to serve this purpose, although they can serve the same purpose as Vedalken Mastermind if needed.

So now our deck contains:

Quantity Card Name
4 Brine Elemental
4 Vesuvan Shapeshifter
2 Arcanis the Omnipotent
4 Eternal Witness
4 Vedalken Mastermind
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Civic Wayfinder
26 Creatures

4 Rampant Growth
4 Summoner’s Pact
2 Boomerang
10 Other Spells

Firm Foundations

Okay, so you have a destination in the form of your win condition. And you have a route to get there, in the form of card advantage and time advantage. Now, all you lack is the vehicle to get you there. That vehicle is your mana base, which is simply the lands and mana fixers that will allow you to play the spells of your deck. Now, the exact number of lands to include has been discussed by minds far sharper than my own, with results that are heavily mathematical in nature. It is generally accepted, however, that a deck should have somewhere between 18 and 26 lands, depending on the cards in the deck. 18 is generally reserved for only the cheapest of decks, having few or no spells requiring more than 1 or 2 mana. Likewise, 26 is for decks full of high-powered spells. Most decks generally have somewhere between 20 and 24 lands. Because this deck has a great deal of acceleration, I am comfortable playing 20 lands.

But what lands? If this were a mono-colored deck, we could simply include 20 of the appropriate basic land, and we’d be done. But, if you were paying any attention at all, you’ll notice that this deck has both blue and green cards. Now, many would simply include 10 Forests and 10 Islands and call it a day. But that deck could potentially run into mana problems if they happen to only draw one type of land. To make a multi-color deck play consistently, steps must be taken to ensure that the proper mix of mana is available. This is referred to as mana fixing. To begin with, I will include 6 Forests and 6 Islands. This will insure that my Civic Wayfinders and Rampant Growths will have targets to search for. Also searching for them will be Terramorphic Expanse. This card functions in the same way as Rampant Growth and Civic Wayfinder, which means that in addition to time advantage, these cards also aid in mana fixing. The primary difference between Terramorphic Expanse and the other two is that you can play it for free as your land for the turn. The last land card that I want to include is Shimmering Grotto. This card is useful in that it can be used in decks with any number of colors. Basically, you pay one extra mana to get the color of mana that you want. If you don’t need a specific color, then it can produce a colorless with no drawback. And it doesn’t lose time by coming in to play tapped. Now, as a final step to mana fixing, I will include Joiner Adept. If it is in play, Joiner Adept will make sure that my lands are producing whatever I need them to. But if my mana supply doesn’t need any help, then Joiner Adept is an expendable attacker or blocker.

So, now that we have made our way through all of these steps, our deck has finally taken shape.

Quantity Card Name
4 Terramorphic Expanse
4 Shimmering Grotto

6 Forest

6 Island

20 Lands

4 Brine Elemental
4 Vesuvan Shapeshifter
2 Arcanis the Omnipotent
4 Eternal Witness
4 Vedalken Mastermind
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Civic Wayfinder
4 Joiner Adept
30 Creatures

4 Rampant Growth
4 Summoner’s Pact
2 Boomerang
10 Other Spells

However, just because you’ve built a deck doesn’t mean that you’re done building your deck. Even the most well conceived deck will need some fine-tuning, and that is best done through trial. As you play the deck, you will begin to see which cards are performing in the way that you had hoped, and which ones are not doing as well as you might like. Hopefully, you will be able to determine what you can do to improve the deck’s performance, whether it be adjusting the number of a certain card, or replacing cards that consistently disappoint.

Deck building can be one of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of Magic. As satisfying as it is to crush an opponent underfoot, it is that much more satisfying to do it with something that you created.

6 Point Strategies - Morningtide Edition

2008-01-31T18:54:00.001-06:00

With this weekend's debut of Morningtide, Magic: the Gathering's latest expansion set, I thought it was a good idea to cover some of the new cards here.

Stonybrook Schoolmaster

This is one of the many new merfolk cards that Lorwyn block has introduced. I like this one in particular because it can be so versatile. I mean, who doesn't need a few more tokens? And this one is so easy to activate. You don't pay a mana cost. You just tap it. And you don't have to just tap it. It activates when you attack with it. Or it can activate if you tap it to trigger some other ability. And it will totally short circuit defensive strategies that tap attacking creatures. And it's a common, so it's easy to find.

Grimoire Thief

This is another great tapping merfolk. Except that this one is almost a win condition by itself. You tap it, and your opponent loses 3 cards. And if your opponent plays a spell that you've removed already, you can sacrifice your grimoire thief to counter it. Offense and defense, for 2 mana.

Countryside Crusher

This might be my favorite card in the set. You get a 3/3 for 3 mana, which is a value very hard o come by in red. And it grows. Oh, how it grows. Basically, you play it when you have enough mana on the board, and everytime you draw a land, your crusher grows, and you draw again. It's perfect for making sure that a mana pocket doesn't ruin your endgame. Now, it's true that if someone destroys your land when this is out, you could be in trouble. But if you're afraid of risk, maybe you shouldn't be playing red.

Scarblade Elite

This is another card that can be a real value, provided you can build an assassin deck that doesn't use the graveyard. Unlike many similar black cards, this can destroy any creature of any color or type. And unless you were trying to use the graveyard, the ability doesn't really cost you anything, except for 2 mana.

Heritage Druid

This isn't as flashy as some of the other cards that I'm covering here, but it can be incredibly useful. Basically, this deck turns every elf into a Llanowar Elf, which can give your elf deck unprecedented acceleration, in a color that already had an impressive amount of acceleration.

Door of Destinies

There's not a lot to say about this card, except for WOW. If you put together a theme deck, then every spell that you play in that theme makes all of your creatures much, much bigger. You can overpower an opponent very quickly.

New graphics in Old Games

2008-01-30T23:30:00.000-06:00

One of my more controversial articles that I have written is the one called Why Graphics Really Do Not Matter. The reason it brews controversy is that I will then call out a game for not being poor visually. So it's easy to understand why I'm wincing as I type this, because I'm sure I'm about to get called out again. It's all because of the new computer. You see, because of my budgeting, I usually only get a new computer when the old one is minutes away from completely failing to function, and the computer I get is usually minutes away from being obsolete. Therefore, any game that I run is likely to be either very old, or on the minimum settings. This year, however, I got a computer for Christmas. And it is great. And it has breathed new life into some of my older games. The best example of this is when I loaded Unreal Tournament 2004 for the first time. I was able to crank up the graphics all of the way, and I was blown away. In all honesty, the difference was so great that it took me about 5 minutes to recognize the level I was playing on. Now, has that made a bad game good? No, I loved Unreal 2004 even when it didn't look good (and even when I lagged), and I love it now. I'm just trying to say that sometimes if a game seems stale, maybe you just need to give it a fresh look.

Gaming Squared

2008-01-30T23:12:00.000-06:00

In 2003, the world of console rpgs was forever changed. Gaming giants Square Soft and Enix merged into what became Square Enix. 5 years later, the world still hangs on their every release. But, some have complained about changes in development philosophy. But what changes have occurred? Well, to begin with, let’s look at the reasons for the merger.

Square Soft was considered the worldwide leader in console rpgs. Obviously, the Final Fantasy series is probably the preeminent brand in console role-playing. The company also had the cult favorite SaGa series, as well as the very successful Mana and Chrono games (Trivia note: the first Mana game was on the Game Boy, and was actually titled Final Fantasy Adventure.) Square had also made a splash with the mainstream-friendly Kingdom Hearts. Less well known outside of Japan, Square also owned the strategy based Front Mission series, as well as Parasite Eve. However, Square was not as profitable as many thought it should be, and games were released at a fairly slow pace.

Enix, however had a different problem. Although the Dragon Quest series (formerly known in America as Dragon Warrior) was extremely popular in Japan, it was not nearly as popular in the US and elsewhere. And the companies other notable properties, Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile, failed to accomplish mainstream recognition in the way that Square had. That said, Enix was still able to produce games regularly, and make profit off of what sales they had.

In short, Square had the talent, and Enix had the savvy. Enix absorbed Square, and Square Enix was born.

But what has the difference been? Well, many Enix games are much better marketed and developed than they once were. Star Ocean: Till the End of Time and Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria were much better marketed than their predecessors, not to mention much more enjoyable. On the other hand, Square’s properties have been released with more regularity, and some business philosophies have changed. For example, in the past, the Final Fantasy games had no direct sequels. Each game was set in a different world, had different characters, engines, and mechanics. Now, Final Fantasy X-2 changed the gameplay of FFX, but reused the characters, storyline, and even many of the maps. Final Fantasy XI and Final Fantasy XII also share a world, which happens to be the same one used for Final Fantasy Tactics, although in a different time period. The biggest departure so far, however, has to be FFVII. In addition to making a movie, Advent Children, there was also a sequel, Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus, which was actually a first person shooter, with minor rpg traits.

But what has it meant for gamers? Well, more games, some of which are better, some of which were worse. Because by changing the teams and stepping up the timetables, there has been some decrease in quality with some of Square’s games. And Square Enix is apparently doing very well financially, whereas Square Soft was always in danger of bankruptcy (The disastrously unsuccessful Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within would almost definitely have been a coffin nail if the merger had fallen through).

Ultimately, I feel that the merger was a step forward. Although I do feel like the wheels of progress might have dented a few of the games, I am happy knowing that the games will keep coming for a long time.

In the Mood

2008-01-18T17:50:00.000-06:00

No, this isn't going to be THAT kind of a blog. I want to talk about mood, and how it can relate to gaming.

Different gaming groups have different ideas on what the ideal mood for gaming should be. Some just want to play a game, where their characters play out their lives surrounded by chatter that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Other groups take their gaming VERY seriously, never breaking character for any reason. Most groups fall somewhere in between.

Obviously, there is no right or wrong here. It's a matter of preference. Some people just want to hang around with friends, and happen to do so over a game. Others want very much to immerse themselves in the game world, leaving all of their cares behind them. But what can you, as a GM or player, do to make the mood more consistent with what you want? Simple. Establishing a game mood is not so different than setting the mood for other occasions.

First, if you don't want a moody game, don't play or run a moody game. Leave the drama and intrigue for another day. Make up a lighthearted story. Maybe the local lord wants you to cross dangerous wilderness because there's a hermit there who makes great cherry pie. Maybe you're guards trying to keep order at a local festival. Or maybe you're just adventuring for no reason at all. Just keep it light and simple. And make sure that the ambiance is right, perhaps with some good music and a few pizzas.

If, however, you want a game filled with atmosphere, you're going to have to work a little harder, but it should still be manageable. Dim the lights if you can, or maybe light a candle or two. The internet is full of downloadable music and sound effects. Burn a cd, or else just turn up your PC speakers, and play the sounds that are appropriate. A word of caution, though, especially if you're going the computer route, although this applies to much of this article. Make sure that you test out whatever you're planning on doing before the game. For example, if you planned on having a dramatic battle take place outside during a thunderstorm, but your lame speakers make it sound like a gerbil with gas, the mood will be shattered by the mocking laughter of your players. Also, although much of the game is played in the imagination, try to adjust the decor of the room if you can to help out. If you're playing a horror-themed game, you probably shouldn't play in the Disney-themed room. Unless you splash fake blood everywhere, in which case, go for it, just don't ask me for help cleaning up.

Another thing that can be helpful to remember is props. While this was better covered by Acidburn here, I will offer a thought or two. Remember that any prop you use should be an aid to concentration, rather than a distraction. Also, moderation is key. As much as gamers love swag, if you give them too many props, it will all turn into a bunch of junk that they have to try to keep up with, making the game tedious.

One way that you can help decide how to stage your mood involves the use of other media. Once you have determined what mood you want, find a book, or even a movie, that has the mood and atmosphere you're looking for. Either read the description or hit pause, and pay a lot of attention to what the environment is like. Think about how you could create a similar setting. The group I play with has in the past played RPGs while camping, which they have always described as an excellent experience.

One last tip for GMs. Restrict eating. Light snacking during games is fine, provided it's not too crunchy, has a noisy wrapper, etc. But eating a meal is enormously disruptive to gaming. You should take a break, which will also give players a chance to let out some chatter. Also, it gives you a good chance to get instant feedback about how the game is going. Then, after the meal, tell your players that it's time to get back to the game, give them a brief moment to adjust and get into character, and pick up where you left off. A very quick recap can be helpful at this point.

But what can you do if you're a player, not a GM? Basically, do what you should. If mood has been established, don't break it. Don't admonish other players to be serious if the game is supposed to be lighthearted. Don't start talking about the funny thing that happened at work if everyone is trying to be serious. And remember to respect the GM, and what they're working towards, and try to stay in line with their goal.

To wrap up, I thought I'd talk about what my group tends to do, which might give some inspiration to you, the reader. My group is one that tends to fall in the middle. We try to take mood seriously, but pauses in the game are frequently filled with commentary and joking. Sometimes we get carried away, to the detriment of the game. One of the things that our GM does is assign bonus experience points at the end of the game, with the amount varying by how well you played your character. Another rule that has worked very well is that to speak out of character, you have to put your hand on top of your head. While this seems strange, it eliminates the possibility of confusion as to whether or not something was said in character or not. In addition, I think it cuts down on chatter because it's a little annoying to do. And forgetting the rule can lead to dire consequences, as anything that you say without your hand on your head, your character has just said or done. The last time we played, my character suffered for my forgetfulness. Okay, so he just ended up doing a ridiculous dance, but it reminded me to get in character and stay there.

Whatever mood you're trying to create, it can be accomplished with a little effort on your part. Just remember that it's supposed to be fun. If you try to create a more immersive, moodier game, but everyone seems to have less fun, it's okay to go back to what you're used to. The only firm rule in RPGs is that you should enjoy it.

Where Have All the Arcades Gone?

2007-12-05T18:17:00.000-06:00

When I was young, I did my best to organize my family's plans around going to places that had arcade games, so that I could (hopefully) beg a quarter (later 2) out of my mother so that I could enjoy a few moments of gaming bliss. And you used to find arcade games in the oddest places. The local video store had a small arcade in the back. Pizza places were always a good bet for arcades. In fairness, some still are. Strangest of all, 7-11s almost always had an arcade or two in them.

Of course, there were also those gaming meccas with large arcades in them. Most kid hangouts, such as miniature golfing, had a fairly large area crammed full of arcade games. And most areas with population had meccas dedicated to nothing but arcade games. I remember new games causing mass hysteria. Mortal Kombat 2 was a great example. Midway made a mint selling what were basically over-hyped beta games, then selling a more complete version to the same place a few months later. And it worked. I remember seeing a banner that read, "We have Mortal Kombat 2 3.0!!!!" The kids at school would be buzzing about it the next day.

Now, most of the places that had only one or two game machines are gone. Many of the places that had many now have a few, poorly maintained gaming cabinets spaced few and far between. And genuine arcades are becoming harder and harder to find. Golden Tee stands by itself, a lone sentry making a last stand in the cold.

But why must it be so? Well, first, let's explore what made arcades so successful in the first place. Perhaps the most important thing was cost. An arcade game back then cost a quarter to play. The NES cost a whopping $200 (yes, as much as a Wii), unless you splurged on the version with R.O.B., in which case you paid $250, and were probably mocked. And, as much as we complain about the cost of a game now, $50 was still a common price for games. So, while you might eventually pay more with the arcade, it would take a long time, and you could play whichever game you wanted, without having to save up big money. Also, the arcade's joystick and button combinations frequently felt better than a home system's controller, the joystick in particular. In fact, many early controllers, such as the NES Advantage, were attempts to make your home console feel more like an arcade. Of course, many games also used a large trackball, which gave a freedom that was impossible to replicate with a control pad. Remember Marble Madness? Yeah, much better with the ball. Another often overlooked detail was that arcades were one of the bast ways to make video games a social event. You could hang out with more friends than could fit in your living room, and everyone could play different games, all at once. Replicating that feat at home would be unbelievably expensive, not to mention terrible feng shui. Finally, the arcade games were just better games. The arcade games had better graphics and gameplay. If a home port existed, it was almost definitely an inferior product in almost every way.

Now, of course, things are different. Many arcades now cost at least a dollar to play, while the home games are still (roughly) the same price, the Playstation 3 aside. And the controllers? Now much, much better at home. Seriously, go look at your console controller. How many control pads and sticks are there? How many different buttons? How hard would it be to play on the damage-resistant flat surface of the arcade? Odds are, very. And now, Online gaming allows us to play and socialize not just with our friends, but with the world. And as technology has gotten better (and smaller), the home games are now at least as good as the arcade, better if you have a cool TV to match. And this is just talking about console games. If you factor in all the power and versatility that PC gaming has to offer, arcades just can't compete, can they?

So what then? Will arcades vanish from our nation, like parachute pants before them? Maybe, maybe not. There are still some successful arcade games out there. Pinball, for example, takes up too much space for the average home. Also, shooting games are still successful at the arcade, as home ports are somehow lacking, not to mention notoriously "twitchy" regarding function. And as motion sensing/capture technology has improved, more games are being made that require the player to actually become physically involved. In the past few years, I have had a lot of fun in arcades sword fighting as a ninja, shooting bad guys while actually having to physically duck and cover, and boxing. Games like this are difficult to set up and play properly at home, making them good candidates for the arcade. But will this be enough? Can these small sub genres keep an industry alive? Maybe the industry should branch out a little bit.

The other day, I was talking about this with fellow arcade aficionado Acidburn, and he had a good idea. Why couldn't first person shooters be fun on an arcade? Now, we had two different ideas on how this could be done. The simplest solution would be to switch the positions of the joystick and the buttons, and play two-dimensional fps games similar to Wolfenstein 3-d or Doom. This could be done quickly and economically, and arcades could be linked for multiplayer arena-style combat. Conversely, they could bring back the trackball, put a fire button next to it, and a joystick on the other side, and play more current-styled shooters. Really, I'm not sure if this, or indeed, anything will save the arcade industry, much less return it to its former glory. Time will tell. But I'm saving up my quarters and hoping.

Small Platform, Big Business

2007-11-11T19:14:00.000-06:00

There's a gaming system that's been out for a while, but no one takes it seriously. It generates millions of dollars in revenue each year, but on the average gaming site, it might not even get a footnote. And chances are good that you have one in your pocket right now. That's right, it's your cell phone.

Cell phones have become a large source of revenue, and bigger game developers have noticed. Companies such as Electronic Arts, Square Enix, and id Software all make games for your mobile phone. And they're not just substandard programmers making substandard titles. Noticeable franchises such as Age of Empires, Final Fantasy, and Simcity have all put games on mobile phones. Still don't think it's big business? Consider this: in 2005, Electronic Arts paid $650 million to acquire Jamdat Mobile.

Cell phone games have their own unique problems. The relatively poor control setup and the extremely small screen mean that the most popular console and PC games are not ideal for a mobile phone. First person shooters and fighting games, perennial favorites, take a backseat to strategy and sports games. But the real king of the cell set? Puzzle games. Yes, the genre reduced to marginal at best on consoles has risen to the top on mobiles. In fact, the $650M transaction that I mentioned? It was largely based on the fact that Jamdat had long-term rights to Tetris. The fact is that cell phones lack the memory space to put in state of the art graphics and the complicated systems that top shelf games boast. Which make cell phones an ideal starting point for new programmers and designers. And cell phones have breathed new life into older franchises. In 2005, id Software released a Doom RPG for mobiles.

No one is certain where the market for cell phone games is headed. But it is an industry that is definitely upwardly mobile.

Are Magic Cards Getting Too Powerful?

2007-11-07T17:34:00.000-06:00

In any game that has a following, there are going to be complaints. Some player somewhere will have an idea about what is wrong with a game, or how it could be made better. As more people play a game, more complaints will emerge. And the same complaints will be heard more often from more players.

One of the complaints frequently heard from people who have been playing Magic: the Gathering goes something like this: “They keep making the new cards more powerful, so that you have to keep buying them to compete.”

First, let’s get something out of the way. Yes, the people at Wizards of the Coast want you to buy more cards. They are in the business of making and selling cards, and they pay their rent by selling them to you. That is why they keep making new sets of cards. If they just printed up one set of their best cards, and never made any more, they would go out of business. Are we all in agreement here? The question under discussion is not whether Wizards is trying to get you to buy cards. The question is whether they are making old cards obsolete in the process. But is this really true? Well, sort of.

So we’ve established that the people at Magic are making new cards with the intent of getting you to buy them. So, how do they go about that? They can’t just print new copies of old cards, nor can they just give old cards new names and art (although a certain amount of this does go on). And, if you really look, they haven’t just given each creature and spell a boost. So what have they done? Add mechanics. In each set, new abilities and types of abilities are introduced, changing the way you might play a card. For example, the Dissension set introduced the Forecast mechanic, in which you paid part of a card’s cost, revealed the card from your hand, and then put the card back in hand. Forecasting thus allowed you to use part of a card’s ability without using the card. This is an example of forecast: (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=107379) The most recent expansion, Lorwyn, has a similar mechanic called evoke, in which a creature card with a “comes into play” ability is played for a fraction of its cost, but must immediately be sacrificed, effectively turning a creature spell into a sorcery. Here’s a quick example: (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=146599)
But what do these changes mean? The cards don’t exactly gain power, but they definitely gain . . . what? Versatility. And utility. Newer cards mean that there are more ways than ever to build a successful deck.

“So there!” you say. “They are making the new cards stronger!” Well, like I said, sort of. A lot of the older cards are still as good, if not better than their newer counterparts. Just look at Savannah Lions (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=867). Its absence from 10th edition is considered a big part of why white is weak in the set. It doesn’t seem like much, but being able to pay 1 mana to go toe to toe with a 2/2 creature is a big deal. But let’s go back a little further, and think just a little bigger. What about Counterspell (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?id=11214)? Countering spells is a big part of playing blue, and this is the best card to do it with. Many other counters have some kind of “out”, such as paying extra mana, or put it back on the library, etc. But this one was just a hard counter, pure and simple, for 2 mana. But where did it go? It became Cancel (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=129882). But what’s the difference? Just 1 mana. But that means that it takes 1 turn longer before you can cast it, and it’s going to be that much harder to have enough mana to cast a spell if you need to have enough left to cast a counter. Another not so minor change is the card Lightning Bolt (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?id=2291). This is a staple for any player playing a red deck. 1 mana, 3 damage, anywhere you want it. But where is it now? Well, it’s still around, sort of. There are a few cards that are a lot like it. Shock (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=5143) costs 1 mana, but only does 2 damage. Lava Spike (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=79084) does 3 damage, but can’t target creatures, etc. There is no shortage of direct damage in red, but nothing with quite the same power or efficiency. Of course, you might say, "What's the big deal? It's only 1 damage!" And you'd be right. Sort of. Since you can have up to 4 of a card in your deck, this could be a difference of 4 damage. If you get down to it, it's the difference between 8 damage and 12 damage. And when you only start with 20 life, that can be a big difference.

And if you really want to dig deep, there are a slew of old cards that are so out of control powerful (the term is “broken”) that they have been banned from tournament play, not to mention a number of casual gaming groups.
To let you know where I stand, I’m fairly new to Magic, and most of my cards are new. And I get a giggle whenever I get to show a veteran a card they haven’t seen, or exploit an ability they hadn’t heard of. But on the other hand, I wasn’t laughing at the last RPGX tournament, when I took 3 damage on turn 1, or had a spell fall flat on turn 2. So, ultimately, I feel like there’s a pretty strong balance between the old and the new. Of course, this article is put to the test every time an expansion set comes out. So we'll have to wait and see.

Card synergy in Magic: the Gathering

2007-11-07T17:32:00.000-06:00

This is the first in what I hope to be a series of articles about card synergy in Magic: the Gathering. The idea is not to give away an entire deck or strategy, but simply to talk about certain card interactions with the goal of inspiring a little creativity. In the interest of honesty, I feel it’s important to disclose that many of these ideas are not mine, and have been pulled from other decklists and articles.
The first card synergy is mostly an example to show everyone what I have in mind. It’s not very complicated, and is a driving force in the 10th edition theme deck Cho-Manno’s Resolve. Here you go:
Pariah (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=135248) and Cho-Manno, Revolutionary (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=130554)
Easy, huh? Put them together, and you can’t be damaged. Nothing to it.

This one’s a little more complicated. Reality Acid (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=125880) and Boomerang (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=129494) Reality Acid by itself isn’t a very useful card. You put it on something, and it dies three turns later. Big deal. But, if you put it on something you want dead, and then return Reality Acid to your hand, then you kill something, and keep your card.

This is a creature-killer that gives a little punch to a red-black burn deck:
Prodigal Pyromancer (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=134752) and Witch’s Mist (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=132222) Tap the Pyromancer to damage a creature, then use the Mist to kill it. Use these two together to take down the largest creatures for a minimum of fuss.

This is a risky 3-card grouping that a White Weenie deck might use to even the board in a drawn out game: Wrath of God, (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=129808) Armageddon, (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=233) and Patrician’s Scorn. (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=136213) Wrath of God clears all of the creatures, and Armageddon destroys all of the land. Since you’ve played a White spell already, you can play Patrician’s Scorn for free. If you are playing a deck of small creatures, you can COMPLETELY clear the board and start again. With a little luck, you can complete the kill before your opponents can recover.

Here’s a tricky pair of cards that can make doing damage to opponents a lot easier, while restricting their ability to do, well, anything: Manabarbs (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=130367) and Circle of Affliction (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=126803) Manabarbs has long been a staple of lockdown-style decks. Any time an opponent taps a land for mana, they take damage. Which is fine, but it does the same thing to you. So, traditionally, you lay down Manabarbs when you’re ahead, to prevent any resurgence. Circle of Affliction, however, is the modern descendant of the older Circle of Protection cards. In this one, you tap for 1 mana, and you gain 1 life, and an opponent loses 1 life. So what happens if you put them together? Well, you can set the Circle to Red, and tap a land. You take one damage. You then use your mana to pay for the Circle’s ability. You recover your one life, and target opponent loses one life. So, you can now tap a land to do damage to an opponent. Enjoy.