To glyph or not to glyph?

[hero9510]

Ok, here's the story. My first 4 or 5 games I played with glyphs. Now my friends and I no longer like them. They add new tatics and such to the game, but we find that it can upset the balance of the game, like in Risk when you get 50 reinforcements and its the only reason you win becuase you got the last set. The glyph adds boosts to the characters and we don't like the way it can swing the game.

My question is does anyone else not play with glyphs?

[jbbnbsmith]

If playing an official scenario, which is pretty rare, we'll use the glyphs. We sometimes use them as special markers or objectives rather than glyphs. I've just never been a big fan of them. When used properly they do add another level of decision making to the game, but if they are placed poorly they can really make a game unbalanced.

[Brownsfan82]

If I am just playing for fun we will have a lot of glyphs. If we are seriously competitive, we will not use them. If we are practicing for tournaments, we will use one or two glyphs.

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by jbbnbsmith

If playing an official scenario, which is pretty rare, we'll use the glyphs. We sometimes use them as special markers or objectives rather than glyphs. I've just never been a big fan of them. When used properly they do add another level of decision making to the game, but if they are placed poorly they can really make a game unbalanced.

What he said, minus the italicized part. I generally like glyphs. I also feel that they are the easiest way to make or break a map.

Bad glyph locations or selections can easily ruin a map, but a map without glyphs lacks a certain level of excitement and promotes turtling. On the other hand, a player who owns midfield and the glyphs will also be almost impossible to dislodge on a lot of maps. Glyphs also encourage the use of Deathreavers, which leads to defensive play all on its own.

[rym]

I like the use of glyphs. I also like the non-use of glyphs. I think glyphs add a certain...something...to the game that you just don't get otherwise.

Sometimes we use all the glyphs, sometimes we pick the glyphs we want, oftentimes we'll play Massive Curse and Revive all in the same game. It makes it fun and exciting. Do you go for the glyph and risk getting shot at from range? Or do you let your opponent grab it and shoot him from range? Glyphs add so many variables.

That being said, as often as not, sometimes we just want to straight-up battle, and glyphs can take away from that to a degree. Bottom line: Use em if you want to; or don't if you don't want to. Either way, you're playing 'scape, and that's what it's about.

[Ugly-Caco]

Yes to glyphs.

----------
Glyph using is seasonal for me though.

[Snotwalker 8000]

We usually mix it up... I'd say, on average, we're 60/40, with glyph-use slightly more often than not. And whenever we do use glyphs, they're always face-down and randomly drawn from a select pool of non-broken glyphs (NEVER use Def +2 or Thorian, for example). (unless official scenario is played).


Glyph Advantages:

1. Creates fun mini-objectives during gameplay
2. Encourages wider use/exploration of the entire battlefield
3. Creates highly-valued ground in low spots (where we almost always prefer glyph placement) to prevent all units from always seeking the high-ground.
4. Discourages overly-defensive "turtling" play
5. Typically speeds up gameplay, as players are more likely to be aggressive and risk-taking to displace opposing units from valuable glyph spots.
6. Encourages drafting "glyph-grabbing" units that may not otherwise see as much play. (ie: Tarns)
7. Allows for really fun and unexpected twists/turns in the game, particularly when a Summoning, Curse, or Revive glyph are revealed.

Glyph-less Advantages:

1. Games tend to be more straight-up skill vs. skill, tactics vs. tactics, without a side simply gaining an easy glyph bonus to gain an edge.
2. Without glyphs, it's easier to justify going with an all-hero army if desired, since you don't need to worry about grabbing/holding glyphs with squads.
3. Without glyphs, you're more free to try out intentional and pre-planned strategies with your army builds, without as much in-game forced reacting to glyph effects. (ie: intentional order marker useage to strategically / methodically move up your army in formations, without feeling so "rushed" to simply run to the nearest glyph spot.)

Keys to Good Glyph Use:

1. DON'T place glyphs on height, except in rare situations.
2. Make a player "work" to get to some glyphs... (ie: placed in a lake, on a lava rock field, etc.)
3. Make it harder to "keep" some glyphs, by having several higher spots adjacent to them.
4. Use of random/face-down glyphs is fun, particularly when the glyph pool also includes a handful of "duds", like the brandar glyph.
5. When map building/placing glyphs, try to ensure that both starting zones are of relative equal hex distance from an equal number of glyphs, if possible. In other words, don't give one side of the map an automatically unbalanced advantage with closer and more numerous glyphs available than the other side.
6. Occassionaly make some glyphs mobile and unit-specific, where they either only add their bonus to that particular army card or that particular figure, and can be carried around and dropped during the game. (Brandar glyphs can be fun as a "wild card" as well, where the owner can choose what it will be from a limited selection while that unit carries it...)

Glyphs can add a really unique and fun element to Heroscape that isn't available in many other games. But they do need to be chosen and placed well to avoid drastically unbalancing gameplay.

In short, games are fun with 'em, and games are fun without 'em. Variety is a good thing...


SW8K

[Uprising]

The only time I play with Glyphs is when I'm at a tourney and they are using them. The Glyphs never see the light of day at my place. I'm sure games could get fun with them but we just like our Scape raw.

[Atombob]

I currently don't use glyphs but have been wanting to try them. I just can't seem to figure out where to put them on my maps. I think I just get too worried about unbalancing the game.

Maybe I'll try them out the next time I play.

[CheddarLimbo]

My wife absolutely hates to play with glyphs because of the "swing" factor. She feels like any strategy she comes up with can be too easily negated by random bonuses.

I feel like they add a fun element to games and keep things interesting, so I use them whenever I can. Games without glyphs become very predictable and/or repetitive.

[DarkBladeCB]

I voted sometimes because that how often we generally seem to use them, but I can't say I'm a big fan. I understand what they can do to a map when they're used well, but it drastically alters the nature of the board and the figures and often times--particularly when I play my Dad--we really just like to go head to head and see what we can do. Besides, we both play so aggressively (and build armies accordingly) that the biggest advantage of the glyphs really falls to the wayside.

[The Silver Surfer]

Most of the time I can't get anyone to allow me to place glyphs on the map, so I don't really get to use them, but I'd really like to because of the strategy it can add. And also, I think glyphs can bring out the best glyph-grabbing common squads which usally aren't all that great for any other purposes, such as Gorrilinators, Venoc Vipers, or other fast moving, low defense units. But again, I hardly ever get to use glyphs, so my opinion is simply one of observation, not of experience.