6 Point Strategy - Heroscape

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.