quote:

---

Originally posted by rhane

Even when I thought I "got it" I was often just padding my warbands out to 12+ activations without a clear understanding of how best to use them. Its an ongoing struggle for me, and I compliment the top players out there who use each and every activation to their utmost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

quote:

---

Originally posted by rhane

Even when I thought I "got it" I was often just padding my warbands out to 12+ activations without a clear understanding of how best to use them. Its an ongoing struggle for me, and I compliment the top players out there who use each and every activation to their utmost.

---

Interesting. So you think the ability to efficiently manage activations is one of the things that seperates top players from others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Damn, I knew I should have kept my original background for the question. [:)]

What I meant is what sort of innovations have emerged among players. Things like warband concepts that differ from pre-established concepts, particular strategies, etc. Not things that the designers inserted into the game. (Though that might be worthy of a topic all its own.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

I think innovation in DDM is harder to come by than say in Magic. There are just less figures and less rules that keep it where there are not as many intricate innovative combos.

Before I got into competitve play (I just got in last year, missed the year before), all I saw the Drider was for blurs. When I used the transpose, I used the baleful part and tried to make others flip. The use of the Drider the way he was used I think was one of the true innovations. It was sick, I don't think it was how he was intended, and it caused HAVOC. (oh yeah and was one of the reasons for his ban).

Alot of times in DDM when you come with a "innovation" others can say, well yah thats common sense. But when I look back over the things I saw as truly innovative, they used it in a different way then I and my friends were, when we were just playing at the house. The IM is another example. I often used it to get out of the gates faster and get to the middle of the board, the timing and mastery of the GMA was something lost on us. When it was used well, that became one of the true innovations.


The double Couatl, even though it didn't work, was innovative, not as innovative as the GMA/Drider break throughs, but I think it was.

I think the minor resurge of the Harpy was, for its time, when fodder was everywhere, that was well played, pulling out an older unused figure and using it innovativly.

As I said, some things that I consider innovative at times are givin the no duh response. I thought the ZWD-fecta bands were, using it for traffic control, others don't. (and his viability seems to been killed by maps. He was great on tiles)

So heres a question, was Fenris's use of the Green Dragon with the Chraals and innovation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

quote:

---

Originally posted by AesophDarkfable

I think innovation in DDM is harder to come by than say in Magic. There are just less figures and less rules that keep it where there are not as many intricate innovative combos.

Before I got into competitve play (I just got in last year, missed the year before), all I saw the Drider was for blurs. When I used the transpose, I used the baleful part and tried to make others flip. The use of the Drider the way he was used I think was one of the true innovations. It was sick, I don't think it was how he was intended, and it caused HAVOC. (oh yeah and was one of the reasons for his ban).

Alot of times in DDM when you come with a "innovation" others can say, well yah thats common sense. But when I look back over the things I saw as truly innovative, they used it in a different way then I and my friends were, when we were just playing at the house. The IM is another example. I often used it to get out of the gates faster and get to the middle of the board, the timing and mastery of the GMA was something lost on us. When it was used well, that became one of the true innovations.


The double Couatl, even though it didn't work, was innovative, not as innovative as the GMA/Drider break throughs, but I think it was.

I think the minor resurge of the Harpy was, for its time, when fodder was everywhere, that was well played, pulling out an older unused figure and using it innovativly.

As I said, some things that I consider innovative at times are givin the no duh response. I thought the ZWD-fecta bands were, using it for traffic control, others don't. (and his viability seems to been killed by maps. He was great on tiles)

So heres a question, was Fenris's use of the Green Dragon with the Chraals and innovation?

---

Hrm, I am not so sure I agree with you about the dual Couatl, but that is because my view of it is framed in the perspective of history of the game, particularly the fact that the previous qualifier season and finals has the presence of trifecta builds featuring dual orc druids. The couatl was just an extension of that for a different faction.

Also, while the means of using the Zombie White Dragon was probably innovative. ::coughs:: That doesn't mean it was really that successful of an innovation, otherwise we would have further examples of that sort of warband or even other warbands that have successfully used the ZWD. As it is, its going to be dropped out of the toolkit with War Drums (unless War Drums brings a massive surprise.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Hrm, I am not sure if that is neccessarily true. In the Chraal build the green dragon was basically taking up "dead" points. Ones that weren't going into the commander or into the Chraals themselves. With the decrease in activations, you are going to have less dead points to play with, and thus less points to put into a truly beefy tile-grabber.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bshugg

The single greatest innovation has to be the "gaze all day" warband. It resigned the game as we know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tried

I would say the most important innovations are:

Ώ] Leveraging Last Activation/First Activation.
(really an initiative gamble that can pay huge dividends. Learning to use your big guns last.)

ΐ] Activation control.
(compare this with early displaced aggression bands)

Α] The advent of mobility: unexpected or extremely leveraged positioning. (True whether you consider transposition, telekinesis or GMA) This also made *more* possible previous theoretical strategies like commander assassination (which, while always possible, were then quite difficult against a player of equal skill.

Β] Construction using "True" synergies: As more figures have become available, it has become increasingly easier to optimize, or at least to recognize when a tweaked build *is* better, and why.

Γ] Point denial, rather than overt aggression, as a strategy.
(Of the top 4 bands in the constructed finals this year, 1 was aggression and 3 were point denial.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sienar

To expand on #5. Probably the first big meta game-altering concept was the points-denial. Specifically, Summoner-based points-denial. It was game-affecting enough that the rules were changed for it. As well as the fact that Assault came partially from points-denial bands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakkengi

I've thought about this many times and I've decided that one of the most important if not the most important difference between a good player and a great player is anticipation. The ability to look at your opponents pieces and positioning compared to your own and know what your opponent wants to do is huge. That means doing things as simple as putting undead fodder in the front lines so your opponent's Beholder can't affect you, to the more difficult things such as counting out the possible movements of your opponent's main pieces and keeping your own important pieces one space out of reach while still allowing them to be effective.

To go a little more in depth, it's also very important to be able to see the future possibilities sometimes 2 or even 3 rounds in advance. While it isn't always possible to do that, you should be able to figure out what both your opponents and your own best options are and react accordingly.

That's what I've found to be most decisive in the level of skill of a player.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Thanks for contributing Dagni!

I agree that the Mushroom Tangle Trap is a pretty useful innovation. I remember at Nationals in 2003 last year I was able to use it against many very good players, allowing me to win games that I probably shouldn't have been able to at the time.

Also, I remember the exact time when Inspiring Frenzy bands came to the fore, and I am fairly certain it was Nixlord who was pushing the 15 activation variant, while Kiddoc at first prefered a variation using the Crow Shaman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doubtofbuddha

Also, I remember the exact time when Inspiring Frenzy bands came to the fore, and I am fairly certain it was Nixlord who was pushing the 15 activation variant, while Kiddoc at first prefered a variation using the Crow Shaman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tried


Dagni - to add my 2 cents.

Smyrin played

Eye of Gruumsh, LRD and Ravager at KublaCon in May of 2004, and had been practicing with it before.

It may not have been called LRB way back then, but its pretty damn close.
Although Bshugg gave it the cool monicker and popularized it, this is the first use of an "LRB-like" band that I remember.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

[quote]Originally posted by Tried




But you're right, 'LRB' type bands existed long before bshugg populaized them. However, that's what made it so innovative, in my mind. Taking old concepts and putting them together into a whole that far exceeded it's individual parts. Just to take one small example: why the Drow Sergeant and Orc Champion instead of an Eye of Gruumsh and a few fodder upgrade points? Not only do you get a beefier commander, you save points!

It wasn't that the Eye was any worse than the Sergeant + Champ, it was that in the current format, the commander had to live to the end. The third hitter - be it an Orc Champ, or an Eye - had to be willing to attack early on. The Eye weakens the band, because it gives the enemy the option of concentrating on him first, and then manipulating the rest of the game against out-of-command units after that. So the super squishy commander was actually the *safer* commander to play.

- Dagni

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tried

So perhaps it was the advent of assault that paved the way for LRB, at least to some degree. Interesting.
At least, that seems to be my addle-brained recollection/understanding.

---