40k: Dirty Tricks (No. 13) - Keeping Your Eye on the Prize

Ok, so this doesn't really qualify as a "dirty trick," per se, and it probably won't work out to be much of a tactics article, but I do get to use at least one funny picture that I've been itching to use, so that's GOT to count for something, right?

The point of this article is really an opportunity to admonish those of you that manage to let a game that is 'in the bag' slip through your fingers by getting too greedy, or by forgetting the point of the game.  A clever opponent, who realizes that he's lost the game, may trick you into handing him a draw if you're not careful.  One such way your opponent may try to con you out of a win is through a simple bait and switch.

BAIT AND SWITCH

Take a good look at the picture below.  This is one of those situations where you really have to be careful as to your next move.  It's the top of turn 5, and you've got two objectives in the bag.  Your opponent only has two tiny little units to harass you, and he's only got a single objective of his own... but there is a very real threat that you really can't ignore.  It's your turn.  If this game ends after your opponent's turn, your next move is critical!

What you see here is a classic 'bait & switch' maneuver that is about to be dropped on your head.  Your opponent has intentionally tipped a hand in your direction where it appears as though he is going to assault your #2 objective next turn with the unit out in the open -- all he has to do is whether the storm of gunfire that is bound to come his way, and then he can hit you with whatever is left over.  If he lives through the fusillade of fire, he assaults you, pulls you off the objective, and swoops in with the unit in cover behind you to contest (or even take!) the objective.  Even if he can't weather the firestorm, what are the chances that you're going to take him out with just one of your unit's weapons?  If you have to use both squads, he's still free to move the unit in cover right on top of the objective for a tied game.  Right?

So, you weigh your options:
(1) Try to shoot both units.  The unit in cover is more survivable, which means you have to fire more weapons at it in order to break or destroy it.  Mathematically this means you have to use your smaller amount of guns on the unit outside of cover... but even if you have a solid BS4, only half those shots will hit, and then how many will actually wound?  How many of those will be negated by armor saves?  This is a bigger long shot than it looks.  Even with 12 guys on the table, and even if half of them have heavy weapons, it's going to be tough to take out six opponents where half of them are in cover.  Shooting just isn't as bad-ass as it used to be, and the numbers almost never work out the way you want.  And on the off chance that you don't wipe out the squad in the open, there is a chance that he will not only survive to assault you, but may even charge in such a way to pull your squad off the objective completely!  A potential loss is staring you right in the face here...

(2) Assault and fall back.  A more certain way to make sure you only have a single squad to contend with in your opponent's turn is to use the squad on objective #2 to move towards the squad in the open, shoot him with your pistols and assault weapons (assuming you have them), and then charge him.  After your shooting phase, and assuming you're not challenging a squad of terminators with storm shields, you should be able to wipe that squad out (even guardsmen vs. space marines) and then use your consolidation move to make sure you're back in cover for your opponent's shooting phase.  This frees up your other squad to direct all of its fire at the enemy squatting in the bushes -- hopefully knocking it out or making it run. While this creates a better chance to have only one squad to face in the open during your opponent's turn, it's still risky.  Your odds are still bad that you'll wipe out the cowering squad, and there is an additional concern that by assaulting, you may not kill the other guy, and be trapped away from the objective, or else not have enough distance to consolidate back onto the objective (and thus be hung out to dry for the opponent's shooting phase) -- thus creating an easy path for a win for the other guy.

But these are the choices you make when you don't keep your eyes on the objective.  What is the point of the battle above?  To hold more objectives than the other guy.  How do you keep the objective out of your opponent's hands?  By making it impossible for the other guy to reach the objective.  You have a third option here:

(3) Circle the wagons.  Your opponent can move towards the objective during his movement phase, during the shooting phase (by running), and in the assault phase (and any follow-up if he wins).  You can deny him the ability to move towards the objective in the first two possible ways by simply making it impossible for him to get within 3" of the objective.  If you circle your squad so that you're just over 2" away from the objective, and leave less than a base size in between your own men, then it is impossible for the opponent to get within 3" of the objective!  You can still move, rapid fire the squad in the open (and thus give yourself the best odds in the ensuing assault), and just stay put.  The odds that the enemy will pierce the bubble are really, really slim, thus nearly guaranteeing you maintain your victory.  (Well, so long as he doesn't manage to lay down enough dakka to make you run... of course.)

That's not to say that all bets are out the window if you go to turn 6, but if you end at turn 5, you're more likely to win the game because you kept your eye on the ball.

And here's something else you may not have seen coming... The distance between objectives #1 and #2 is 12".  With a 3" bubble created by each objective, you do understand that all your opponent has to do in order to WIN is to jump in between those two points and cover a little over 6" of ground.  Each of those three man units is capable of spanning 7" of ground (1" for each base, and 2" in between each man in the unit).  That means that either unit can jump in between your objectives and WIN the game by contesting both at the same time.  He doesn't have to assault you at all!  This should create an even greater emphasis on the idea that you have to protect that 3" bubble at all costs.  If you're not at the fringes, then your eye is not on the ball... and you could lose!

Make that bubble a habit, and your opponent may not even realize you've kept him out of range... which means he might leave himself out in the open for no good reason if you're lucky.  The less you look like you're keeping your eye on the prize, the more likely the opponent will not see what kind of tricks that YOU have up your sleeve.  Focus on the objective... but don't let other guy know  your focusing:

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 38)

Movie to See: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

I consider this movie the natural fallout of the first two movies in the Lisbeth Salander. The title is entirely apropos as Lisbeth stirs up a helluva firestorm with her actions in the prior two movies. In this installment, the natural repercussions of her actions start to set in. Her actions, in turns out, have uncovered a conspiracy that goes back all the way to the cold war, and there are still those with power in the current Swedish government that have ties to conceal that go back to that earlier conflict. They have a lot to lose, and they come after Lisbeth to shut her up or snuff her out. 

 

Like the second movie in the trilogy, this movie is much more about international intrigue than the original crime thriller of the first. Accordingly, if you're not into that level of story, it may be lost on you. And again, if you don't like to read your movies, then you won't enjoy it either as this movie is also spoken primarily in Swedish. Personally, I found Lisbeth's character fascinating. She has led a tormented life - as you discover over the course of the three movies, and yet is still able to rise above it to punish those that have instigated terrible wrongs. Lisbeth is, in a very real sense, an anti-hero. Unlike her partner throughout these stories, Mikael Bloomkvist, her motivations are largely driven by vengeance and egocentricity rather than out of a sense of justice or out of a search for truth. Watching Lisbeth and Mikael strive to reach the same ends, while each being driven by a completely different ethos, is very interesting to watch. And it is also interesting to watch which alliances each chooses to make along the way as well as the form of punishment each exacts on the bad guys. 

 

Sadly the author of these stories, Stieg Larsson, died before any of them could be published. He only completed three of his originally planned ten stories, which is really a shame as Lisbeth and Mikael are compelling characters. Regardless, I think this trilogy is worth your time. I only hope that Hollywood does them justice when they remake them in English over the next few years... If you're smart, you'll watch these gems before Hollywood studio executives get a chance to butcher them.

---

Movie to Skip: Contract Killers

This is a silly movie. Ok, sure, it's cool that the heroine is a hot super-spy, but the believability of this movie is extremely low. In fact, if you watch this movie, and then pop in any Steven Seagal flick made after 2001, you'll think the Seagal flick is a frickin' documentary level exemplar of truth. The technology of this movie is laughable, and the sheer lack of any real emotional response from any of the characters in this film could have made it appear to be a study on anti-social personality disorder if it weren't for the overuse of machine gun fire and helicopter assaults (by US secret government swat teams over numerous foreign countries...). 

Was this supposed to be a serious film? Of course not. Is it intended to break up the monotony of a late weekend evening when your Xbox stops working and you just want to watch something on the television that will put you to sleep? Mmmm... possibly, although I'm not sure anyone honestly sets out to create that kind of schlock. It just kind of happens when someone hands a self-absorbed moron a pen, camera and a little financial backing. Although this is better than your typical post-Zoolander Billy Zane flick, it probably isn't that much better. You can sleep soundly if you miss this one. 

Public Service Announcement: Sucker Punch

Is it just me, or does this movie look like it's going to be a LOT of fun?  I enjoyed Watchmen and 300, so I have high hopes for Snyder's next installment.  Let's go through the checklist, shall we:

• Sexy femme fatale
• A whole band of sexy femmes fatale
• A whole band of crazy sexy femmes fatale
• A whole band of crazy sexy femmes fatale wearing anime-inspired ninja suits (do I really need to go any further along this path...)
• Over-stylized retro setting
• Guns, swords, knives and other hurty objects
• Nazi's, were-beasts, mutants, zombies, and other monsters
• Vietnam era helicopters and bombers fighting WW I planes, bombers and zeplins
• Dragons
• Monstrous robot samaurai
• Other killer robots with crazy vulcan cannon arms
• Pyscho killer combat in an anachronistic trench warfare setting

Can anyone give me two good reasons as to how this movie won't be a smash hit on the visuals alone?  This one's got so much eye candy that you'll have to watch it a dozen times just to figure out what the hell is going on!  I don't care if the script sucks for this one or not (and I don't know that it will), but I think Sucker Punch has got "guilty pleasure" written all over it.  Now I'll just need to find a nice empty spot in my movie cabinet...

Enjoy the trailer:

 

 

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 37)

Because of the natural sequence of these films, I'll be reversing the 'see/skip' order for this one...

Movie to Skip: Hard Revenge Milly

 

There is a certain breed of Japanese film that spans the gap between exploitation film and live-action anime. Hard Revenge Milly falls right into that category. The film itself is very low on plot, but high on atmosphere and cartoon violence. I say cartoon violence because while it certainly has a horrific element, with heads and limbs being chopped off on a regular basis, it is also of a character that is unbelievable because of the over-the-top silliness that goes with it (e.g. in one scene, for instance, a man with a recently chopped off head continues to walk and shoot in a manner similar to a chicken with his head cut off...). The fact is, of course, that this kind of movie is extremely violent, and is certainly not something you'll be enjoying with your significant other. 

 

This particular film has its faults. The basis for Milly's revenge is certainly justified, but the backstory, shown through flashback, is just a little too... graphic considering the tongue-in-cheek nature of the rest of the film. Frankly, I've never been a fan of watching violence against children in a movie, and this one goes just a little too far outside my comfort zone. It takes a certain level of sick mind to joke around about certain things, and the writer(s)/director of this film goes there. I suppose that's the "shock" element of the film that gives you the taste of an exploitation film. I would have preferred to spend more time in the anime side of things...
 

That one element aside, this is a surprisingly enjoyable film for the obvious low budget and poor quality of writing. (The acting wasn't too bad, for a B-movie...) I can't go so far as to recommend the film, although some people might enjoy it for the novelty of the thing... or as a primer to its better sequal, Hard Revenge Milly: Bloody Battles. The long and short of this film is that the potential audience for such work is probably fairly small. And that's probably a good thing...

---

Movie to See: Hard Revenge Milly: Bloody Battles

Like the first movie, Hard Revenge Milly this is also a gap bridging movie between live action anime and an exploitation film. Mercifully, this one is much more on the anime side of the equation. In fact, there is an interesting sequence near the end of the film where the ulimate villain and Milly have a pretty good fight in a style similar to something you'd see in Full Metal Alchemist, which was kind of fun to see.
 

If you've seen the first Hard Milly movie, then you've pretty much seen this one too. Although Milly becomes more of an agent of revenge rather than being out for her own vengeance... not that it really matters. Ulimately the plot is fairly similar and the action relatively similar to the last. But unlike the first movie, this one is actually fairly well done in the special effects department. Yes, there is still some over-the-top silliness, but it is done in a way that is better than the limb chopping technology of the first Milly that wasn't much better than the Black Knight sequence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail... if that's something you're concerned about.
 

If you want to get a taste of what I mean by a film that bridges anime and exploitation, then this is probably the film I would recommend you see. The first one is just a tad too exploitation, and this one is much more comfortably situated in the anime realm. My bet is that if you like anime, and you're looking for a live action version of that, then this is closer to what you're looking for than the original Milly movie, or even something perhaps more iconic of this genre like The Machine Girl.

 

Buzzard's Top Fives

Top Five Foreign Films: 2000-10

I know that seems like a pretty restrictive category, but you'd be surprised how easily it was to fill this category!  My increasing enjoyment of foreign films over times means that SO many films that qualified for this category, that I simply had to narrow it down to a year range.

(1) Lust, Caution (2007) - This is an amazing film by Ang Lee.  Set during WWII, and specifically during the Japanese occupation of China, this is a movie about love and espionage.  An absolutely brilliant movie, and possibly one of my favorites of all time. 

(2) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) - Another brilliant film by Ang Lee.  This is an epic tale that combines Lee's amazing use of character driven drama as well as breathtaking cinematography and some of the most 'graceful' kung fu you'll ever see.  This is the movie that changed my mind about "reading" foreign films rather than waiting for them to be dubbed...

(3) The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (2009) - The only 'Western' film on the menu (and the first of the trilogy), this is a fantastic departure from your typical formulaic crime thriller.  I now have the books on which the movie trilogy is based and have all three in my reading cue.  A great story with original characters.  What more could you ask for?

(4) Red Cliff (2008) - This movie is a portrayal of the Battle of Chi Ben (Red Cliffs) which occurred at the end of the Han Dynasty.  This is a sweeping epic film that blows across the screen in a way that only John Woo could have pulled off.  Beautiful and surprisingly thought provoking, it combines some of the best elements of large action films, such as Troy, a pinch of traditional mysticism, and the grace and cinematography of other great Chinese films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  One of the best parts for me, is the inclusion of Tony Leung Chiu Wai who plays Zhou Yu, a much different character than the intimidating Mr. Yee in Lust,Caution.

(5) Ip Man (2008) - I think of this as the 'kung fu' version of Lust, Caution.  The setting is identical and the costumes and scenery are very very similar; although the story, of course, is waaay different.  This is a martial arts movie with a LOT more soul than the typical fare.  It is a lot of fun to watch, and all the visual elements are in place to ensure that this is a delightful immersive experience.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 36)

Movie to See: Arn: The Knight Templar

The Crusades is an interesting topic for a movie scenario. Religious zealotry, brutal combat, political intrigue, fighting against impossible odds -- there are a lot of potential avenues for exploration. Not surprisingly, a lot of these stories are pretty hit or miss. The 2005 Orlando Bloom film, Kingdom of Heaven, while not perfect certainly had a lot of bling and sand to throw in your face, which made it a fun film (in my opinion). Like Kingdom, Arn also centers around the Knights Templar and the potential fall of Jerusalem to the superior military strategist Saladin. And also like Orlando Bloom's character, our hero in Arn also meets with Saladin prior to the fall of Jerusalem and earns his respect (and a potential way out of the slaughter to come). But for all their similarities, Arn was the superior film. 

 

While Arn was a huge budget film like Kingdom, the money wasn't spent on cgi and blockbuster names. Arn was filmed in the desert on location. This means that the actors got dirty, things were gritty, and your sense of scale didn't come from a model. There was a very authentic feel to the set and the scenery which you don't get with a cgi film. Further, the characters were also very real. There were no over-the-top good guys or bad guys. The Ridley Scott film had a megalomaniac in charge of the Templars that allowed the city to fall because his pride would not allow him to do what was best for the people that lived there. In Arn, the same kind of megalomaniac was in charge, but he wasn't acting solely out of pride -- he was also just genuinely inept as a military leader, which gave him a slightly softer edge, and his actions (however stupid) actually made a certain kind of face palm-ing sense. Further, our main character was not without his own foibles. Unlike Bloom's character, who goes into the mouth of Hell out of an over-wrought sense of courage and an unwillingness to abandon his post; Joakim Nätterqvist's character (Arn) only heads into that final pivotal battle because he has no other choice! Arn, unlike Bloom's character, Balian, is a pragmatist; a brave and courageous pragmatist, but he wasn't about to throw his life away simply because it was the noble thing to do. 

 

Arn was also the superior film because it had a truly epic path for the main character to follow. Instead of 10 minutes of being a blacksmith (and another three or four minutes showing us why he has a broken heart and a chip on his shoulder) and then the rest of the movie spent in the desert, Arn shows us the entire life of our hero. We see the childhood and education of Arn. We see him rise through the ranks of the Templar, and we see what happens to him when the Crusade is over. Unlike Kingdom, the point of this movie isn't the Crusade; it is the story of how an educated boy becomes a man in the forge of war and then takes his new found skill and courage to make a better life for his people in Sweden. 

 

Oh, and did I forget to tell you that this is a Swedish film? Yep, the majority of the dialogue has to be read, although I will happily point out that there is a fair amount of English spoken (as Arn is educated under the tutelage of a British priest), and even the Swedes have to read a fair amount of dialogue in Arabic...

 
Arn is an epic film, both in quality and in scope. If you're in the mood for a quality medieval film, this one probably won't disappoint.

---

Movie to Skip: Zulu

Want me to sum this one up for you: 'Yea, Britain! We're awesome because we keep a stiff upper lip..." And that's about it. Basically, it's a lot like some of the other over-nationalistic crap that went out of favor in Europe near the close of the Cold War that certain American crap... er... schlock... no, FILM-makers can't seem to get enough of. Does the film question the Imperial presence of Britain in Africa? Does the film punish the 'I inherited my command because I'm the son of someone important' attitude of a certain officer in the film? Do the members of the British army really learn anything about the native army that is kicking the crap out of them at every turn? Or more importantly, do they even try to learn? Nope, No, No, and yeah, right...

 

To be fair, from the standpoint that this was the story of some very brave men who fought outrageously superior numbers, against an admittedly tactically superior commander, and managed to 'scrap it out' and fight with amazing bravery: this was definitely a story worthy of telling. It's just a shame that it was painted on a canvas that was so starkly black and white. Perhaps that made it more authentic, I guess, but it just feels like the movie was lacking any serious soul searching. That was really disappointing. (It's kind of like watching a US Western circa 1950-65; although with at least a little more respect for the natives. At least the British soldiers see the enemy as a foe to be feared and respected and not just a reason to break out the six guns...)

 

Ultimately, however, this was a movie about the British Alamo. If you're into that kind of fatalistic courage, then you'll probably like this one. However, if you can't get beyond a storytelling style that feels like unnecessary propaganda, and an obvious uncaring eye towards the political motivations that were so prevalent (but ultimately dismissed) in the movie... then you'll probably want to pass. I watched this one because it's a classic that felt like I had to see. But if it hadn't been for that, I probably could have skipped it and would have been perfectly happy to do so. 

 

Public Service Announcement: Buy a Calendar

Folks, it's the middle of March, and you still haven't purchased a calendar for 2011?!  For shame...  But since you've been lazy and have already been missing appointments in droves, might I suggest:

 

Calendars are pushy... but sometimes they are candidates for being an absolute 'good.'  In the words of one of the most interesting men in the world...  "Stay thirsty, my friends."

 

40k: Dirty Tricks (No. 12) - Slicing the Pie

Recently on Bell of Lost Souls, Spacecurves gave us a tactics class on how to manipulate a flamer template to hit a vehicle and its accompanying squad through the use of using a blocking squad to hijack template placement.  Essentially what this boils down to is that when you've got two kinds of weapons in a squad (or on a vehicle), that is - some for anti-infantry and others for anti-tank, it doesn't always make sense to waste a shot on the vehicle if you're not going to do any real damage.  While the raider is a bad example below, since you may actually hurt that paper tiger with a flamer, but if it was a landraider you'd merely scratch its paint and thus would be wasting time to even attempt the shot.  As Spacecurves points out, however, template weapons are unique in that they can be placed to hit both the vehicle you have to shoot at per the rules, as well as something a little softer nearby that you have a prayer to hurt.  In the picture below, which is from Spacecurves' article, you can see how to manipulate squad placement such that the landspeeder can make maximum use of his multi-melta and heavy flamer in the same shooting phase to essentially hit two different targets.  Remember that the rulebook says you must hit as much of the vehicle as possible with the template.  Without the intervening squad, the template would have to be placed in such a way that it wouldn't cover any of the enemy squad sitting outside.
 

 

While Spacecurves definitely highlights an important tactic in his article, as usual, he is really tapping into two different tactical concepts here.  The first, and most obvious, is positioning your flamer models so that they can do maximum damage when it comes time to unleash a flood of burning promethium.  When you're moving your models forward, you don't leave your flamer out on the end of the squad, tucked behind one of your own troopers so that you can't hit more than a single member of the target unit.  That would be foolish!  

Any commander worth his salt is going to pay very close attention to where that flamer is located as he moves his miniatures forward.  You're going to move them so that you have the best possible shot at all times.  Sometimes it is hitting as many of the enemy squad as possible.

And sometimes its hitting the softer unit behind the squad you're actually shooting at with the rest of your squad.  Your goal will depend on your situation on the battlefield, obviously.

The other tactical element that Spacecurves taps into is the concept of 'slicing the pie,' most commonly referred to as an element of dynamic entry. 

 

If you're a military junky, like a lot of 40k players, the concept is probably not completely foreign to you.  The idea is that you don't just walk into a room potentially full of hostiles.  You carefully dissect the room by presenting as little of yourself as possible as you enter, increasing your angle of exposure slowly as you view what is in the room.

If you've never played paintball, or the SWAT series of video games (or frankly, any number of first person shooters), or God forbid, have never been in a life threatening situation as a soldier or law enforcement officer where you've had to employ this technique, then maybe you'll miss some of the obvious advantages that slicing the pie offers you in several different situations on the battlefield.  Like the Spacecurves article, and in flamer template placement in general, slicing the pie is a matter of using your own troops (either in your own squad or with a nearby unit) as a moving wall.  You place the wall in such a way that your flamer can only see certain parts of the enemy, and thus can only shoot at certain parts of the enemy -- generally where that flamer shot is going to be most effective rather than where the shot must typically placed by default in the rules.  But don't forget that this technique can be applied in several ways.

In 40k, if half or more of your squad is in cover, then everyone gets a cover save.  Thus, like the picture below, the enemy can typically only see as much of you as you present to him (higher ground, weapon placement on vehicles, etc. all have an influence here).

 

Let's pretend for a moment that those four blue guys above are not just shadow elements in the diagram, but actual members of your four man squad.   This schematic is showing you FAR more than you think it does. 

First, if you look at the top blue guy, he obviously can't see the guy in red.  But when you look at his line of sight, realize that in addition to himself, everyone in that squad can see everything in his line of vision.  If you're looking to maximize your squads firing potential such that as many guns as possible can contribute to the squad's firepower, then you need to shoot at something in that top guy's field of vision.  I realize this seems like a no brainer, but how many times have you seen a juicy target that is obviously open to some of your guys, and then declared it before you actually counted up the number of guns you'd be able to bring to bear?  That happens a LOT, which is why it is important for you to not simply start looking for juicy targets, but to look at your squad's field of vision first, and then identify the best target in their line of sight.

Second, this field of vision diagram also shows you whether or not the guy in red gets a cover save.  Let's say the guy at the bottom of the blue stack has an AP1 weapon that will blow a hole clean through Mr. Red if it hits him.  And let's say that that grey line is no longer a wall, but a hedge that all of your guys can see over.  Now, this picture is a close call, but let's pretend that you and your opponent can agree that the guy at the bottom of the stack has a clear unobstructed view to Mr. Red.  If that's true, then all of a sudden, you have to decide if you want to go the route of 'fusillade of fire,' or if you want to take a chance with blowing a hole in Mr. Red that he can't save.  If you opt to only shoot with the guy at the bottom, then Mr. Red will not get a cover save -- the only shot made is unimpeded.  Think backwards: if the majority of the shots fired are made at models in cover from them, then the target gets a cover save; if the majority of the shots fired are made at models that do not have cover from them, then the target does not get a cover save.  Just as if you were firing from a rooftop where only your heavy weapon had the range to make the shot, it doesn't matter if the rest of the squad, had it been in range and fired, would have done so from a position that would have given Mr. Red a cover save -- if only the heavy weapon fires, then he doesn't get one.  The same concept applies here.

Third, in addition to determining whether he's going to get a cover save from you, it is also telling you who is going to be in cover from Mr. Red when he fires back!  The cover rules in 40k are really weird in that they can be manipulated in such a fashion where you can leave a special/heavy weapon hanging out in no man's land with no cover, and yet somehow still get a cover save because everyone else in the squad is cowering behind a rock.  If you want to avoid your enemy's weapons that need a line of sight to shoot at you, then you can slice the pie with intervening models and terrain to make sure that the enemy doesn't have a bead on you.  Similarly, you can slice the pie in such a way that you can minimize potential damage to your squad by making sure that your squad will have a majority of its members in cover to make best use of the abstract cover rules.

Whether or not you're conscious of it, you're slicing the pie all over the battlefield!  Angles and lines of sight are key elements to the game of 40k, and if you're careful about your exposure, you'll be able to take advantage of several aspects of the cover save rule.

Now... go eat some pie.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 35)

Movie to See: The Jacket
 

This movie is essentially the love child of Memento and Donnie Darko brought up under the care and nurture of the good parts of Inception. The Jacket is an enjoyable mind frell of a film where, inexplicably, the mind is not only malleable under careful psychiatric treatment, but also has the ability to create pathways to an alternate universe. Yes, it can be confusing. Yes, there are a fair number of unexplained plot elements, but the trip is enjoyable nonetheless. I believe the enjoyable nature of this film is due, in large part, to the exceptional cast. Adrien Brody, Keira Knightly, Kris Kristofferson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and a nearly unrecognizable Daniel Craig... and the list just goes on and on. 

 

From the box cover, this film is about a wounded Gulf War veteran who hitch hikes with the wrong guy, and ends up in a mental institution after being falsely accused for murdering a police officer. The rest of the story then explores his ability to see the future while being part of a clandestine psychological/pharmacological experiment by mad scientist/psychiatrist Kristofferson. While this is interesting, it starts to become a little confusing when our hero is somehow able to interact with people from the future in such a way that he can shape and alter it from the confines of his institutional confinement. 

 

The fantastical element in this story is not satisfactorily explained, in my opinion, but if you can get over that, The Jacket is actually a pretty good movie. The characters are believable and sympathetic, and there is a sense of urgency that drives the action as Brody's character desperately tries to change the future lives of those around him for the better. It is almost thought provoking, but certainly entertaining.

---

Movie to Skip: Driven to Kill

 

Short and sweet: This is a post-2000 Steven Seagal movie, which is pretty much everything you need to know, as it will be everything you expect it to be. The character is pretty much the same one he has been playing since 1988's Above the Law, except, of course, he's a 'former' Russian gangster in this one rather than a cop/CIA agent/former special forces magician. Otherwise, this is pretty much a recycled version of many of his other movies. But, when you're cranking out two or three of these things straight to video every year, you kind of have to expect that, I guess. 

 

One positive thing about this movie compared to many of the others, however, is that he is playing a character that has retired and admittedly past his prime... which is certainly apropos for a Seagal role. Of course, that doesn't stop him from being better than all of the current gangsters, despite youth, health, and better firepower, but I guess I've just come to expect that... 

 

This is not a great movie, but potentially better than some of Seagal's more recent offerings... although I'd hardly call that a solid endorsement. Seagal simply hasn't been the same since he jumped the shark in Executive Decision, and this is just more evidence. 

Buzzard's Top Fives

Top Five Action Movie Quotes

Sometimes the only saving grace for an action movie are the memorable (sometimes laughable) one liners that someone quips right before the explosions start going off.  Of course, the best action movies give you the full package of a great script, a solid plot and some great eye candy -- I think most of my picks below fit that bill.  After giving it a little thought, here are some of my favorite action movie quotes:
 
(1) Tombstone: "So run, you cur, run! Tell all the other curs that the law is coming.  You tell 'em I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me, you hear?  Hell's coming with me!"
 
Who didn't get a chill when a steely eyed Kurt Russell barked his little speech at the cowboys as he chased them out of town.  Was there any doubt in anyone's mind that there was some serious ass kicking on the horizon?  This was a brilliant set up with a perfect delivery.  One of my favorite hero monologues ever: simple, but to a razor sharp point.  Love it.  Probably my favorite Kurt Russell flick, too.
 
(2) Army of Darkness: "Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."  And, of course "It's a trick.  Get an ax." 
 
Army of Darkness has got to be one of the most quotable cult favorite movies of all time.  Ash is so frigging blunt, but absolutely hilarious because no one would actually say the things he says even when the moment is perfect to say them.  I couldn't decide which of these two was my favorite quote from that movie, so I went with both of them.  We'll call them 2a and 2b...  I love these two quotes because Ash is able to see through the eye rolling plot devices of most action/horror movies and cuts right to the chase: he with the biggest gun wins; and better to be safe than sorry.  Good stuff.
 
(3) Serenity: "Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight.  Or if he bothers me.  Or if there's a woman.  Or if I'm getting paid; mostly only when I'm gettin' paid."
 
Jayne is one of the most memorable characters in the Serenity/Firefly series because, like Ash in Army of Darkness, he's just so damn straightforward and honest about what he's thinking.  He doesn't hold anything back, and has a surprising amount of introspection when he's doing it. 
 
(4) From Dusk 'Till Dawn: "If you try to run, I've got six little friends; and they can all run faster than you can."

Clearly this is a guilty pleasure flick, but some of the one liners in this movie are fantastic.  Clearly the opposite of the blunt one liners in some of my other favorites, this movie is filled with clever dialogue gems.  But what else do you expect from a film written by Quentin Tarantino?  He is one of the masters of the truly forgotten art of action movie monologue... although he can overdo it at times.  I really wanted to pick one of his gems from Inglourious Basterds, but I haven't seen it enough for the dialogue to stick with me, yet. 

(5) Sudden Impact: "Go ahead, punk.  Make my day." 

Dirty Harry is the iconic anti-hero, and one of a handful of roles that only Clint Eastwood could have pulled off so successfully.  This is just one of those classic catch phrases that always sticks with you -- the 'good' guy just begging for an excuse to bust a cap in the villain.  Great stuff.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 34)

Movie to See: Restrepo

Restrepo is a fascinating documentary that follows the lives of the members of a platoon stationed in Afghanistan in the deadly Korengal Valley at Outpost Restrepo -- named for the platoon's fallen medic. Unlike a lot of documentaries, this film simply watches the soldiers and listens as they tell their personal stories. There are no interviewers. There are no introspectives from the film makers. There is no opportunity for the commanders, politicians or the natives to give their spin on the events. You are just watching the men of second platoon;in the dirt and sand, through all of the boredom of soldiers posted on the side of a mountain in the middle of nowhere as well as the confusion of combat as they make their security patrols through the valley itself. 

 

By all rights, this should have been an extremely boring film, kind of like watching a stranger's home movies. But the fact of the matter is that this film was so visceral, so gritty and unflinching, that you can't tear your eyes away. You get a very real sense of the danger that surrounds this handful of soldiers, and it seems amazing to see a mere 15 lightly armed men, stationed in a glorified foxhole, standing against a force of unknown size that comes and goes whenever it will. It is both moving to see the bravery of these young men as they stand along the wall without question, and also horrifying that we would ask them stand on that wall in the first place. This is the reality of warfare in Afghanistan. It is the reality of life as a grunt in a modern guerrilla war.

---

Movie to Skip: The Charge of the Light Brigade

Although billed as a "satirical" look at the events surrounding the vaunted British cavalry charge in the Crimean War, forever immortalized in Alfred, Lord Tennyson's poem by the same name, I'm not entirely sure I see where the 'satire' element is hiding. To be honest, this comes across as a fairly historically accurate account (as far as we know). For those of you who don't know (like, practically everyone), Wikipedia tells us that the infamous charge occurred on October 25, 1854 during the Battle of Balaclava. Lord Cardigan led elements of the 4th and 13th Dragoons, 17th Lancers, and the 8th and 11th Hussars across an open valley nearly a half mile long right into the face of Russian artillery. That's a bad thing. You see, if you're trotting over open ground in full view of artillery, they can blast the crap out of you before you ever get to their lines... and that's essentially what happened in the real life charge. Of the 670 or so horsemen that charged the enemy lines, 122 men were wounded, and 156 were either killed or taken prisoner when the charge finally reached enemy lines -- in all, nearly half of the entire force that led the charge. It was an absolute slaughter, and a testament to both heroic courage under fire as well as the danger of incompetence of command. 

 

The impetus behind the making of this classic was the Vietnam War -- countless soldiers coming back in body bags in a place they should never have been all because of the incompetence of the people sending them there. Incompetence of command is most certainly highlighted in this film. The era of warfare depicted in this film is one where your station in society determined your rank and command authority rather than your actual military prowess. This meant that all of the societal grudges and conflicts were just as prevelant among the battlefield commanders as they were at the various social functions at home. The result was pompous chaos at the helm of the military machine as men with no business wielding an army gave the orders. Yeah... I can see the parallel to Vietnam. 

 

While the actual buildup to the battle is interesting, the battle is suitably epic, and the fallout and finger pointing following the battle was all interesting to watch... that only comprised about a half hour of the actual film. The other hour and a half was a boring, and probably unnecessary, build up as we are instructed (pedantically) about the relationships and societal connections between the historical figures present at the battle. WOW was that dry, and frankly, I'm not sure I really cared. This film would not have been filmed the same way today, as I'm sure a competent director would have given us the same information CONSIDERABLY quicker, and in a carefully orchestrated flashback fashion so that the actual charge was the centerpiece of the film and not merely your reward for staying awake for the first part of the film. Sure, it's interesting for the historical exploration of the charge, but most of the movie is just not a lot of fun to sit through... If you're a history buff, it might be worth it. If you're looking for entertainment, however, I'd try something else.