Isamu Strategy Article

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

Reality - 10 point figures are not used "Out" of the box, and a strategy article for players shouldn't be suggesting using him any other way than what is optimal. If you labeled this "Fun ways to use Isamu that are against the norm." Everyone would like it

That square peg just won't fit in that round hole.

Every piece can be used out of the box. You just have to dig a little.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Dysole

It's certainly better. Fire Elementals are missing (although admittedly dok had to remind me of that one) as is Sudema. You also have Isamu listed as variable at the beginning and pawn in the meat of the article. It's overall not bad, but I do think what Foudzing mentioned of placing Isamu once he vanishes to minimize further attacks needs to be added at the very least. I don't think there's a whole ton of strategy to Isamu but as far as an article about what strategy is there it's much improved from the first read through. Also you may want to bold TKN and the other things you added in to match the other's format.

~Dysole, informationally

EDIT: dok pointed out to me that the additional following figures can add autowounds or instakill Isamu while avoiding vanish.

Hounds
Kee-Mo-Shi
Cyprien
DW7k
Mogrimm
Frost Giant
Nakitas
Arkmer
Greater Ice Elemental
Rechets

Thanks, this is helpful. Will edit these asap

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Owlman

I'm tempted to go back, and nitpick every single strategy article that's ever been listed, and compile a long list on why these all have something wrong with them...

I am looking forward to this.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by flameslayer93

@Owlman , I'd encourage you to go nitpick at the other strategy articles. I wrote a handful, and they're scattered across the books. Maybe it'll encourage me to write the other 2 I've wanted to write.

Places to start looking:
Omnicron Repulsors
Syvarris
Einar Imperium
Empress Kiova
Retiarius
Deepwyrm Drow
Deathwalker 9000
Raelin 2

Have fun!

I'll go do that.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

That's not what anyone is saying! Nobody is being hard on you for having an unpopular opinion. It's the way in which you are clearly too inexperienced to be lecturing everybody on how to use Isamu, but you are carrying on as if you are an expert. Who wants everyone's help in writing his lecture. It's irritating, like if (as @Foudzing said) a chess player without competitive experience in that game signed up to a chess forum, and started lecturing a bunch of people who have been playing for years about how to use their queens.

It's not the opinion. It's the manner in which it's expressed.

I really can't explain this any better than I have, I'll just say that even in your most recent posts in this thread you make it clear that your experience playing this game does not qualify you to write a strategy article. Not (just) because you haven't played competitively, but because you don't appear to know what you're talking about. It's no one thing, like when to use Isamu, it's lots of things. And that's ok! It just means you should give your students a rest, while you get a better grasp of the material yourself.

I'm not judging. I haven't written any strategy articles either. We all contribute in different ways.

What I would like *you* to offer, if you care to do so, is battle reports. Heaven knows there are never enough of them, and if you can take some pictures, so much the better. It's how I really got my start here, and I cherish that thread, linked in my sig. Or do something else. But you should really stop lecturing people on how to play better, because it's doing a disservice to the positive enthusiasm you want to share.

My article is not intended as a LECTURE! Stop taking it that way. Seriously, you're taking this thing WAaaayyy too seriously. All of the strategy articles should not be taken as gospel, for that matter.

Some strategies tend to work for some players, while others do not. For example, I've had tremendous success with Isamu, but HORRIBLE success with the Izumi Samurai lately, while others have informed me the opposite. They tend to use Isamu in a last ditch effort, which is perfectly fine, and arguably the BEST use for him. I'm simply trying to point out how there can also be other ways to use him as well.

Any poster who feels like I'm coming across like "play Isamu RIGHT or go home!" should re-evaluate. Rather, look at this fun little tidbit as an opportunity in your next game to try something different with the 10 point head ache. Or simply don't, it's up to you.

And for the love of all that is Heroscape, did NOBODY get my Willy Wonka reference? How does one take that seriously hahaha??

[Aldin]

Owlman,

It seems that there are multiple issues here. In writing a strategy article for Isamu you clearly started from a template which you were asked not to use. You wrote the article in a very experiential way, looking more to your personal highs and lows than at a more general experience that would be common to many players across a variety of competitive formats. Finally, you wrote about a unit that requires very little investment and thus has far less need for careful management in order to realize its potential.

No one is unhappy that you posted about how much you love Isamu and about how you want to share your insights from playing with him. People are various degrees of unhappy over one or more of the issues listed in the first paragraph.

One would imagine that you are familiar with the concept of intellectual property. The idea that it is wrong to plagiarize someone else's work, use their trademark, pirate their software, etc. has been fairly prevalent in the news in recent years. In creating a strategy article "inspired" by the official version of such articles, you've stolen a format which other people spent time developing and refining and which they asked others not to use without permission. Naturally, some people are upset that you seem to feel that you have some sort of right to use their work without approval.

In writing experientially, you've created an article which could be misleading to players by failing to consider what possibilities that lay outside of your personal experience. You've been steadily improving that part of it based on feedback, but if it had gone unchallenged it could have resulted in players relying on your article and getting in unfortunate situations because of it. By presenting your experience as authority, you created a false impression that others could generally rely upon your advice.

Lastly, a significant concept of strategy articles is the thought of maximizing investment. How can you get a good rate of return for the amount you spent on a unit? Some units are fairly straightforward, like Major Q9 - stick him somewhere good and pile Order Markers on him. Many, however, are complicated, requiring a strong understanding of the unit itself, the synergies it has with other units and how it functions with regard to opposing figures, board position and order marker management. Ornak is a good example of this type of unit.

Isamu is neither an expensive investment, nor is his strategy particularly complicated. Because of that, there is a strong reason to think that a strategy article for him isn't particularly necessary. What does your audience learn by reading your article that they didn't already know? Did they really need help understanding how to best employ Isamu?

To sum up, posting your love if Isamu is great! The format chosen and the method by which it was presented have caused some friction. I wasn't planning on responding to this, but now that you've started critiquing other strategy articles without understanding the above, I thought it might be useful to you.

~Aldin, strategeryishly

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Owlman,

It seems that there are multiple issues here. In writing a strategy article for Isamu you clearly started from a template which you were asked not to use. You wrote the article in a very experiential way, looking more to your personal highs and lows than at a more general experience that would be common to many players across a variety of competitive formats. Finally, you wrote about a unit that requires very little investment and thus has far less need for careful management in order to realize its potential.

No one is unhappy that you posted about how much you love Isamu and about how you want to share your insights from playing with him. People are various degrees of unhappy over one or more of the issues listed in the first paragraph.

One would imagine that you are familiar with the concept of intellectual property. The idea that it is wrong to plagiarize someone else's work, use their trademark, pirate their software, etc. has been fairly prevalent in the news in recent years. In creating a strategy article "inspired" by the official version of such articles, you've stolen a format which other people spent time developing and refining and which they asked others not to use without permission. Naturally, some people are upset that you seem to feel that you have some sort of right to use their work without approval.

In writing experientially, you've created an article which could be misleading to players by failing to consider what possibilities that lay outside of your personal experience. You've been steadily improving that part of it based on feedback, but if it had gone unchallenged it could have resulted in players relying on your article and getting in unfortunate situations because of it. By presenting your experience as authority, you created a false impression that others could generally rely upon your advice.

Lastly, a significant concept of strategy articles is the thought of maximizing investment. How can you get a good rate of return for the amount you spent on a unit? Some units are fairly straightforward, like Major Q9 - stick him somewhere good and pile Order Markers on him. Many, however, are complicated, requiring a strong understanding of the unit itself, the synergies it has with other units and how it functions with regard to opposing figures, board position and order marker management. Ornak is a good example of this type of unit.

Isamu is neither an expensive investment, nor is his strategy particularly complicated. Because of that, there is a strong reason to think that a strategy article for him isn't particularly necessary. What does your audience learn by reading your article that they didn't already know? Did they really need help understanding how to best employ Isamu?

To sum up, posting your love if Isamu is great! The format chosen and the method by which it was presented have caused some friction. I wasn't planning on responding to this, but now that you've started critiquing other strategy articles without understanding the above, I thought it might be useful to you.

~Aldin, strategeryishly

I do agree as to the feedback, I got some good stuff. Also some bad stuff, from a couple rude posters who need not be mentioned.

As to your reasoning that an article is unnecessary, I say that's incorrect. I think every and all units could use a little Strategy Article love. I could just as easily sum up these units: (Let's be honest, does ANY unit really need a long-winded read? Not really. It's fun, though, because we're all nerds.)

Deadeye Dan: Set him on Height, and snipe away every once in a while. Don't engage in close combat. Simple.

Izumi Samurai: Best used only as bodyguards or tie-up units. They are a good, cheap squad. Boom, done.

Einar Imperium: Do NOT use in competitive 500 point armies. Horrendously over priced.

Omnicron Snipers: Decent snipers, whom you should set on Height and shoot at (nearly) all enemy units in range. They have some Bonding ability which may come in handy.

Taelord: Another horrendously over priced figure. Not recommended for competitive 500 pt. games. Has good synergy with the Minions of Utgar, and can benefit others within 4 clear sight spaces. Otherwise, bleh.

Sir Denrick: Ok Hero, slightly over priced. Can be great against Large/Huge figures, and with the Knights of Weston. Otherwise, Meh.

Sudema: (Arguably a Rook class unit, not a Knight class unit.) Too expensive for the points. Can vaporize squad figures, and the occasional Hero. Does not belong in competitive armies unless backed with excellent support.

Zombies of Morindan: Swarm. Eat. Repeat.

Brunak: Charge in swinging. Try to target squad figures with lower defense.

Elite Onyx Vipers: Over priced. Good for attacking a single Hero or squad. (Don't count on Frenzy.) Then they die horribly.

And I could go on...

I post this not to sound disrespectful, but to prove a point. ANY unit(s) can be easily dismissed. If I posted this in each section without detailing why, how would that come across? Not very well. Likewise, those who simply dismiss my article for not being necessary are, well...Kinda rude, if you ask me.

Regarding the format, so noted. I ask is it copyrighted?

My guess is no. Many players use Chess analogies on gaming message boards. It's not that big of a secret. I even edit'd again later on that I pilfered the exact translation. Enter at your own risk. (Copying is also the height of complimenting, too.) If anything, folks should take it as a compliment.

But, I'll tell ya what: Since I seem to have offended the honor of other strategy article writers by borrowing their "copyrighted" classification scale, I'll be nice, and edit again. How's that sound? (Under protest, however.)

So to sum up, I do appreciate the helpful feedback. Also encourage others to take strategy articles with a grain of salt.

[Aldin]

Well, I tried to go with negotiation, understanding and accommodation. I can see that I failed, so let's switch modes to administration.

Owlman, on this site we have a Unit Strategy Review group which uses a particular format they have requested others not use without permission. You have stolen enough elements of that format that it is instantly recognizable in your post. You must immediately change the format of your post so that it does not infringe on the intellectual property of the Unit Strategy Review Group. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of this thread in its entirety.

~Aldin, administratively

[Kinseth]

Unsubscribing from this, I see no point being here anymore.

[Killometer]

Originally Posted by Owlman

Regarding the format, so noted. I ask is it copyrighted?

My guess is no.

I suggest you read the footer at the bottom of every page on this site, specifically the last sentence.

[Owlman]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Well, I tried to go with negotiation, understanding and accommodation. I can see that I failed, so let's switch modes to administration.

Owlman, on this site we have a Unit Strategy Review group which uses a particular format they have requested others not use without permission. You have stolen enough elements of that format that it is instantly recognizable in your post. You must immediately change the format of your post so that it does not infringe on the intellectual property of the Unit Strategy Review Group. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of this thread in its entirety.

~Aldin, administratively

Um...I did. Still not good enough? I changed the wording of the chess classification scale.

[Maklar the Silver Prince]

Originally Posted by Owlman

Um...I did. Still not good enough? I changed the wording of the chess classification scale.

Just change the names of the classification scale.

Also, the way you have it grouped in offense, defense, units to target, units to avoid, etc. I suggest you break it up into 2 sections: his core abilities, and impact on and from other units.

Also, you could change the thread title. I highly suggest "Why I Think Isamu Is the Coolest" or something along those lines. You have received a lot of friction for this "strategy article" (i.e. there is no need for an Isamu strategy article), so a name change would help, I think.