• The Attack Zone 3x04: Modern Age & Tactical Play


    If you're looking for the Attack Zone, you're looking on the right Tuesday! This week, it's like the old days - Just Dave and Randy - as JT and Mike are dealing with their DM related travels from regional tournaments.

    It's a jampacked show today, as we cover both the recent rotation news and how we think it will impact competitive play. Then we talk about tactical play in Dice Masters connected to a classic - perhaps THE classic - CCG article: "Who's the Beatdown?" Dave talks about why he was wrong, Randy agrees with him, and good times are had by all.

    Thanks for listening, and we'll see you in two weeks!

    Want to correspond? Mailbag@thereservepool.com, @TheReservePool on Twitter, and of course our blogs and forums at www.thereservepool.com.

    Listen on iTunes | Subscribe to RSS
    Comments 5 Comments
    1. cnhiggins's Avatar
      cnhiggins -
      How long before the podcast is uploaded? I use PodBean and want to know when I can expect it.
    1. zeon20's Avatar
      zeon20 -
      @Dave I agree that a lot of the successful 2015 teams were very aggressive and kept the game as non interactive as possible. And while it gets old seeing the same win cons in tournaments, the tactical play is certainly much improved from the standard turn 3/4 rush kill teams. But I disagree that my dragon team falls in that same category as those teams. Since my dragon team was at least a turn or 2 slower than most of the meta teams at the time (tsarina rush, gobby, FW10, Nova bolt) I had to put together a lot of tech pieces that disrupted and slowed down my opponent (constantine to slow down their win cons a turn, spray with no pxg on my team to slow down their speed, puzzle to stop nova bolt and get rid of hulk, transfer power to disrupt the swing and protect with dck global a lot of teams were running, res to setup turn 2 constantine or turn 3 puzzle to get rid of jinzo, paladin for protection from taunts and gobby/tsarina dmg mitigation). The aggressive approach of rushing to your win con as fast as possible would never work for this team. The win con my dragon team had maybe similar to aggro teams but the success of this team was very much reliant on how well it could interact with and disrupt and slow down my opponent's team.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by cnhiggins View Post
      How long before the podcast is uploaded? I use PodBean and want to know when I can expect it.
      It's been up since midnight. Not sure how Podbean pulls stuff though.
    1. Dave's Avatar
      Dave -
      Quote Originally Posted by zeon20 View Post
      @Dave I agree that a lot of the successful 2015 teams were very aggressive and kept the game as non interactive as possible. And while it gets old seeing the same win cons in tournaments, the tactical play is certainly much improved from the standard turn 3/4 rush kill teams. But I disagree that my dragon team falls in that same category as those teams. Since my dragon team was at least a turn or 2 slower than most of the meta teams at the time (tsarina rush, gobby, FW10, Nova bolt) I had to put together a lot of tech pieces that disrupted and slowed down my opponent (constantine to slow down their win cons a turn, spray with no pxg on my team to slow down their speed, puzzle to stop nova bolt and get rid of hulk, transfer power to disrupt the swing and protect with dck global a lot of teams were running, res to setup turn 2 constantine or turn 3 puzzle to get rid of jinzo, paladin for protection from taunts and gobby/tsarina dmg mitigation). The aggressive approach of rushing to your win con as fast as possible would never work for this team. The win con my dragon team had maybe similar to aggro teams but the success of this team was very much reliant on how well it could interact with and disrupt and slow down my opponent's team.
      No slight intended Mike! I definitely agree that your team was more interactive than other things. I guess what I really mean to say is that teams in those days did a lot to protect themselves rather than impact the board. Spray was a good disruptor, for example, but it was also mostly opportunistic.
    1. SirFrankus's Avatar
      SirFrankus -
      Great podcast guys!
      It's too bad JT couldn't be around to discuss the tactical play stuff. Maybe a write-up or a revisit before nationals is in order?

      6 pack -
      I like the Rocket pick, but I felt a few cards weren't getting their due props. I think Rocket is great, but I always played the draft with him. Because he was a starter die, there weren't many of him available in any of my drafts, and I usually don't like using a first pick on a die I might only get one of (even if it is a 2 cost). With Superhero Reg. Act, Shocking grasp, or other ramp, I didn't feel an early 2 was always necessary or disruptive enough for the long game. Another example of playing the draft is if there are a ton of dice and I can reasonably expect 3, NAMORITA (Dave called it ) can be a very disruptive, (and more importantly, fun!) piece. Maybe not a 1st pick, because UC or SR Ronin were leaps and bounds better, but a solid piece nonetheless.

      What I really liked about Civil War is how most everything played off of each other or had an answer. Lots of decent control pieces combined with lots of tough aggression.
      Overcrush, Intimidate, had issues with Namorita, Nitro, Ronin, UC Songbird, and more.
      Nitro worked against Enlistment...UC Mary Jane played with Enlistment. Enlistment provided ramp if you had a die you didn't mind KOing.
      There was at least one BAC that played off KOing (The one I remember is both players KO a die, and a shield global to gain a life when something was KO'd), so that helped get your resistance abilities to trigger, (and also Nitro).
      Resistance was barely on anything, and the most effective way to make it work was pairing common Zemo with Captain America of all people (what a team up!)

      I've had lots of games where my opponent drafted overcrush, but I drafted control cards like Songbird, Ronin, and Namorita. Namorita could let that level 2 Dethlock go through for 0-2 damage by multi-blocking a different attacker and giving all my negation to the bomb. If it was a solo attack, 2 Namorita had the defensive fortitude to soak anyway. I'd just wall up until I could afford a 6 cost of my own with intimidate or overcrush (usually Thor, She was always passed to me at the tail end so I'd get 2 or 3 of them.)

      I'm interested in another CW 6-pack, because I want to hear your take on things like UC Moon Knight, C Punisher, C Wasp, and others.


      Rotation -
      Great introspective. I'm excited to see what bubbles up to the top. I'm a Johnny who typically challenges myself to build teams within 3 or 4 of the most recent sets anyway.
      I still believe that the major pieces are already in place for about 4 or 5 solid archetypes, and a few more cards will come out that decide which of those are the cream of the crop.
      I'm glad you guys discussed some of the major players likely moving forward, but no mention of Dormammu? He could be sneaky if someone finds a way to get him out early enough.
      Another one I'm thinking could do well is Blink-Exile. Chalkboard in a 2 cost mask, Chalkboard in Raven or Blink, buy up a bunch of cheap masks or bring Clayface to energy fix, and have on-demand continuous action die hate.

      I'm not quite sure why there were so many sour grapes all over the internet. Did people not understand that this is typically what CCGs have to do to remain viable? Plus, with "Golden Age" still being a thing, it's not like anyone is missing out as I think many store will run Golden Age often. What percentage of those hyper-competitive types aren't going to by the new tech and meta stuff anyway?

      Tactical play and the state of the game -
      Very interesting. I never really thought of the meta shift making things more interactive. I like variety, and seeing the same 6 cards with the last 4 belonging to 10 different tech pieces seemed stale to me...but actually learning how to play with and around that meta looks like it lead to more challenging and rewarding games than ever before.
      If I can use a board-game analogy, the shift from "follow the plan and the first/most efficient wins" to "may the best tactical maestro win" Is sort of like switching the game from a deck-building focus to chess.

      Thanks again guys!
      (and bolty bobs?....yeesh. Marvel gets no respect these days. I thought Randy was supposed to bring the love?)