Today’s Brand Development tenet (#3 for those keeping track) focuses on game play. The two tenets that we previously discussed hinge on corporate philosophy as well as brand and R&D philosophies. The scope of the two previous tenets was pretty wide, too. The particular topic of today, however, just speaks to the game of HeroClix.

Brand Development Tenet #3

The game of HeroClix inherently should reward offensive game play over defensive game play.

For some, I believe this concept may seem like a no-brainer; for others, I can imagine this being a little bit controversial. Let me elaborate.

The game of HeroClix replicates a comic book battle. HeroClix allows fans to stage, recreate, and wage battles of huge comic-book magnitude. In the subatomic DNA of HeroClix, questions wait patiently for answers.

Who is tougher the X-Men or the Avengers?

How many Arkham villains can Batman take out?

What would happen if the Civil War played out differently?

How does the <<INSERT YOUR FAVORITE COMIC BOOK CHARACTER>> play?

In my mind, turns represent panels in a comic book. The game showcases slugfests, amazing powers and abilities, and resolution of questions (at least briefly) that are mused about in comic shops around the globe.

The comic book IP (intellectual property for non-brand people) compels Brand Development to reward action. Comic books are about doing things….brave things. They are about KOs. They are about knocking down walls, rescuing those in distress, and duking it out with your archenemies. For those not into the whole heroic thing, comics are about shootouts, complex deathtraps, revenge, and well…duking it out with your archenemies.

At its heart, Brand Development would commit a disservice to the game by not creating game play that fosters offensive play environments.

Does this mean removal of strategy from the game? H***, no.

To use an analogy, a SWAT team is offensive, but requires great strategy and tactics. Leading the Guardians of the Galaxy into combat, you would need heavy duty firepower, guts, and the military direction of Rocket Raccoon.

Does this mean that we’re going to make figures easier to KO, or go wonky with Attack values?

No. It means that when given the option between focusing on the offensive characteristics of a character or defensive characteristics of a character, we will tend to favor the offensive. Don’t worry, Cap still will have his shield, Superman will remain the Man of Steel, and Steven Segal will still be Hard to Kill.

The major change, I believe, is that the department will ask the question of each figure/cardboard element- “Does this figure/FEAT/BFC lead to consistently defensive, unappealing games?”

While comic book accuracy is a goal (and is verified with our licensor on every game piece), it should not cripple game play.

So, HeroClix fan, you’re probably saying to yourself, “what about the elephant in the room?” What about SIF? (For those that don’t know SIF is the acronym for Structural Integrity Field, a fairly dominant piece of cardboard in our current Organized Play environments.)

Personally, I can’t stand SIF.

While I do believe that there are some reasonable solutions to it and while it only appeared once in the top 8 of our HeroClix 2008 World Championships, when it works, it creates abysmal games. As a brand manager, SIF gives me cold sweats.

Imagine explaining the game of HeroClix to a friend at a hobby shop.

You are showing them around the tables, and they see heroes smashing each other, terrain evaporating in their wake, true slugfests. Now, you reach the table where SIF is working. Rather than watching the game, both players are watching the clock. One player is sorting through the traded figures he acquired earlier in the evening. The other player waits for a two-minute window at the end of the game to squeak out a victory.

Just like the comics, right?

Do I fault players for playing with SIF? No. It’s powerful and consistent. Though it only appeared once in the Top 8 of HeroClix’s World’s event, it won the event. Do I fault HeroClix World Champ Ben Cheung for playing it? No. It’s powerful and consistent.

Do we want to remove all defensive strategies from the top tables at events?  No. We would like to see them evolve to showcase more interactive, solvable game play. No piece should dominate the tournament scene the way SIF does, regardless of being defensive or offensive.  Its defensive nature makes it all the more miserable.

Does Brand Development have a duty to the game to solve SIF game play? Yes.

Do we have a firm game plan for what we want to do? No.

There are several options, but each leads HeroClix down slippery, less than ideal paths. Are we talking about solutions? Yes.

Am I going to ask myself more questions in this blog? No.

SIF forces are tough, unfriendly to the health of the brand, and force non-comic game play. We’re talking about some fixes, and monitoring the situation closely.

Until tomorrow,

-Jake