Topic on Range Attack Disparity - Wordy

[TradeMark]

I suppose this is the correct forum for what follows, as this specifically deals with theory on gameplay. I would first like to state that, while my post count deceives, I am an experienced strategy gamer and have both played Heroscape since its release and have ghosted this board for a while.

That being said, there is, I believe, a common consensus that ranged figures have a distinct advantage that has not always been considered in their points cost. Perhaps this is best reflected in the initial master set, wherein two particular squads seem, at least to my own eyes, to be rather overpowered for their respective costs - the Krav and the Marro Warriors.

What makes these units so deadly is that, on the one hand, both have abnormally high move rates linked with good range. This usually leads to them gaining high ground faster, indeed perhaps too fast, as well as allows them to strike an extremely disproportionate area of the board respective to their cost. As if this wasn't bad enough, they are granted an increase to the potential damage they can inflict by being higher. It is this second aspect which i think needs adjustment in order to bring melee units back into play.

Proposed Rule: Ranged units do not gain an additional attack die when attacking a non-adjacent figure from height.

The only reason I do not also discount the reverse rule, that of gaining an extra defensive die for non-adjacent height, is that already I feel that a figure like Q9, who is either drafted, or must be invariably kept in mind for counter drafting purposes in any balanced or competitive army build, needs no further assistance in destructive potential.

Of course, I realize that the krav and MW are also so powerful due to the special abilities the respectfully posses, however these powers are, I believe, not the crux of the issue. They are, of course, excellent and dangerous abilities, however it seems more the versatility of range and movement compared to price is what generally grants them their overplayed strength. Additionally, I don't believe that this change would, in itself, prevent people from continuing to draft these units, nor do i confine this universal appraisal of the ranged/melee difference to these particular models. It is not to contend that "in the right situation..." value comparisons are invalidated by this line of reasoning, only that this is a measure to slightly modify basic gamplay elements in a structurally balancing way.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Ooh... While your vocabulary may impressive, I think that it might impede conversation a bit...

Hmm... An interesting proposal... Have you play tested it at all? To me it looks like it would create a greater imbalance than it would solve... It wouldn't affect units such as Q9 or Kaemon Awa, and it would punish the more 'balanced' units such as the Tagawa Samurai Archers and the Aubrians...

[Taeblewalker]

I suppose this is the correct forum for what follows, as this specifically deals with theory on gameplay. I would first like to state that, while my post count deceives, I am an experienced strategy gamer and have both played Heroscape since its release and have ghosted this board for a while.

That being said, there is, I believe, a common consensus that ranged figures have a distinct advantage that has not always been considered in their points cost. Perhaps this is best reflected in the initial master set, wherein two particular squads seem, at least to my own eyes, to be rather overpowered for their respective costs - the Krav and the Marro Warriors.

What makes these units so deadly is that, on the one hand, both have abnormally high move rates linked with good range. This usually leads to them gaining high ground faster, indeed perhaps too fast, as well as allows them to strike an extremely disproportionate area of the board respective to their cost. As if this wasn't bad enough, they are granted an increase to the potential damage they can inflict by being higher. It is this second aspect which i think needs adjustment in order to bring melee units back into play.

Proposed Rule: Ranged units do not gain an additional attack die when attacking a non-adjacent figure from height.

The only reason I do not also discount the reverse rule, that of gaining an extra defensive die for non-adjacent height, is that already I feel that a figure like Q9, who is either drafted, or must be invariably kept in mind for counter drafting purposes in any balanced or competitive army build, needs no further assistance in destructive potential.

Of course, I realize that the krav and MW are also so powerful due to the special abilities the respectfully posses, however these powers are, I believe, not the crux of the issue. They are, of course, excellent and dangerous abilities, however it seems more the versatility of range and movement compared to price is what generally grants them their overplayed strength. Additionally, I don't believe that this change would, in itself, prevent people from continuing to draft these units, nor do i confine this universal appraisal of the ranged/melee difference to these particular models. It is not to contend that "in the right situation..." value comparisons are invalidated by this line of reasoning, only that this is a measure to slightly modify basic gamplay elements in a structurally balancing way.

This might correct a perceived imbalance in units that already have an Attack of 3, but it really reduces the usefulness of the Omnicron Snipers who rely on it and units like the Arrow Gruts and Aubrien Archers who need it.

[TradeMark]

Ooh... While your vocabulary may impressive, I think that it might impede conversation a bit...

Hmm... An interesting proposal... Have you play tested it at all? To me it looks like it would create a greater imbalance than it would solve... It wouldn't affect units such as Q9 or Kaemon Awa, and it would punish the more 'balanced' units such as the Tagawa Samurai Archers and the Aubrians...

Thats actually the real point of the post, I myself have tried play testing with the rule change. I was indeed going to ask others to try it, and ask for feedback after I'd heard some comments.

However, since you brought it up I figured I'd respond now. I've found that ranged units maintain a high threat level throughout the changes. Attack die, admittedly a huge part of the offensive ability of a unit, seem actually less important in game then the mobility of a unit. Take the samurai archers for example, since you use them in your own post. In comparison to lets say, the 4th mass, a 5 point difference in ranged squads where one squad is at a 1 figure and a 1-2 attack die disadvantage, seemed odd to me. However, the strength of the archers in comparison to other ranged units was their melee defensive abilities, which are unchanged in this case. 3x2 attack at range, with constant backpedaling if being chased by melee units, and the ability to counterstike closing blows actually makes the archers more draft-worthy in comparison with other ranged squads.

The snipers, admittedly, are one of those squads on which I tend to be interested in in terms of this change. Obviously, their own power was conceived with height-advantage play in mind. In response, I, one, note that they still are a squad with a very competitive range, as well as having a power that makes them better able and more likely to counter pursuit by melee targets by firing/fleeing, then engaging in a final phase with height in order to utilize deadly shot. In short, it basically make s along range attack squad that can snipe and dodge an enemy, choosing an engagement point to double their attack potential.

This might correct a perceived imbalance in units that already have an Attack of 3, but it really reduces the usefulness of the Omnicron Snipers who rely on it and units like the Arrow Gruts and Aubrien Archers who need it.

Actually, the arrow gruts are still quite a potent force, since the major reason the role they were designed for was a support unit. In fact, the arrow grut army, due to the extreme flexibility of their move and bonding, are still very versatile and feared on the table.

The Aubrien archers are, admittedly, one of the only squads I don't have. I would imagine that they, with a range of 7 and the ability to attack multiple times, would still be quite deadly. As I tried to convey to Dictatorbilbo, the value of range is not negated by this change, rather it provides a bit more survivability to melee squads, and require perhaps a bit more on-the-fly battle positioning for ranged units as they have to take more advantage of their own mobility.

Again, I request a few playtesters to see if my own results are verified or found bunk.

[The Super Atheist]

What about the Airborne? They can basically be put anywhere, so they pretty mush have automatic height advantage. and when ever some one gets close to them, all they have to do is move 4 spaces backwards, and still attack, so they can just constantly do that over and over again until nothing is left. That is the problem with range, all it does is move back and fire, move back and fire, move back and fire.

And so what if you never get to drop them? You will always get to drop them, 3 or 4 rounds it is almost a given.

Nilfheim is good for taking out the Airborne, but he costs like 2 times the amount of the elite.

I just think some units should cost more.

Raelin?! 80 points... nope. should be 120. the krav should be 120 also, the zettians should be 60, and the marro warriors should be 70. I'm thinking maybe 150 for the airborne elite, maybe 140.

[XSI Addict 32]

In the many strategy games I've played (proably significantly less than many other mebers here but) the one thing that seperated Heroscape from other games is the board. That is one of its defining features. A player must account for the advantages of being in a better area. This forces him to make certain decisions about how and where to move. The thing behind ranged untis is that if they get height, they are devistating. An army with mostly range will rush to control the hill. An army without range will rush to keep the hill from the other player. The point is to interact with the map. But if you take away the advantage the map gives to range then you take away the strategy. If I don't need the hill to be effective, than I might as well be playing on a 2D map. My ranged untis will shoot from any where. They can move anywhere. There is no reason to stay put. There is no reason to rush. So while yes, range does have the advantage, to take it away is to decrease the enjoyment of the game.

[Rÿchean]

I am not sure of the intent of this thread.

is it...

a.) to discuss the value of range attacks relative to the standard rule of height = extra attack die

b.) to actually lobby for a change in design of the game or the design of these units

c.) iron out the kinks in making a custom rule

if purely "a" then maybe this forum is the appropriate place, though I am not sure how it pertains to actual game play strategy.

if "b" then it is a spinning of wheels because that isn't going to happen. High ground extra die is a fundamental game component; it isn't going to change. The Krav and MWs have been around since day 1 and they are not going to be changed either.

and if "c" (which I believe it to be) then it needs to go to the Other Customization & HS Additions forum. (http://heroscapers.com/community/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=4c7c0d798a6bebc00236aba9d032c2e1)

[rai12]

The advantage of a Ranged attack is typically offset by low defense and low life.

It is not wise to counter a ranged attack with a melee figure, unless they are more manueverable.

The Airborne Elite are a prime example. Their range is incredible and they should always be able to obtain height advantage. The draw backs are they move at a snails pace, they have a pathetic defense, there is a chance that they will not drop when you need them, and they tend to be dropped in a precarious postion with the hope you will gain initiative. I have seen a squad of the EI eliminated before they fire a shot. Alternatively, I have seen them take out a massive amount of figures utilizing their granades. They are a very balanced unit. Just don't counter them with the Knights of Weston.

The Krav Maga Agents are probably the best run-and-gun units out there. The have great range, decent movement, and hold up well against ranged attacks. They are easily countered by tie-up unit like the Deathreavers, longer ranged units like Syvarris, fast moving melee units, like Cyprien or the Venoc Vipers, another squad of the KMA, or even Sgt. Drake, and DW7000.


The height advantage rule in the game rules is an obvious simplification of perceived real-life tactical advantages. I have not seen a real need to adjust these rules. The height advantage rule is kept in check by the fact that it is not applicable to special attacks. There are alternate units that you can select to counter most ranged units. The toughest ranged unit is Q9, and he does not benefit from height. You counter him with can-opener type heros that can withstand a turn or two of punishment.

I have drafted melee heavy armies against ranged heavy armies and fair pretty well. The key is to apply the correct counter to any given situation.

Eliminating the height advantage for normal ranged attacks would make many units less effective and possibly worthless. This includes the Omnicron Snipers, Marro Warriors, Aubrien Archers, Roman Archers, Ashigaru Harquebus, Samurai Archers, Zettian Guards, and the Arrow Gruts. The special abilities of these units do not make up for the lose of an attack die.

[Oyhedwig]

I have always thought that the Krav Maga and Marro Warriors were underpriced.

[Jexik]

I definitely agree that the game favors ranged units, especially mobile ones like Krav Maga Agents, Marro Warriors, and Arrow Gruts.

As important as height advantage is in Heroscape, I don't know if lessening the effect it has is the answer to improving non-ranged units, or the only reason that range dominates. As noted, some very popular heroes who primarily use their special attacks (Kaemon Awa, Major Q9, Nilfheim, etc) would hardly be affected by this, while ranged squads would then have an even more hard time with Q9.

I attribute ranged dominance more to the fact that you have very few 'wasted' turns with them. Even though you typically aren't rolling as many attack or defense dice as melee units, there are very few situations where you aren't within range to make some attacks.

Although I haven't been to any tournaments yet, I still feel that the key to winning in Heroscape is to make every order marker matter. I think an army of 10x Blade Gruts and Tornak would actually be remarkably effective against anything but Q9 and similarly tough heroes, but it would also take up 42 hexes. If an army like that were allowed, you'd also have to contend with rat swarms.

Deathreavers are also so cheap in points that you can use them in just about any army and make your ranged units that much better...

I like how height works though. As the others have pointed out, it makes the terrain slightly less important to take that advantage away, and might make it even harder for melee units to catch up with with ranged ones. As it stands, you have the decision to risk staying on height for one more attack, even if it might mean certain defeat the following turn. I like that.

[Velenne]

Another great observation from Jexik. Couldn't agree more. OTOH...

I've always enjoyed high-powered games, so to me it seems like the best answer is to make melee units better, not weaken ranged units. I've always wondered about giving an extra defense die to any unit defending against a ranged attack (normal or special).

And Rychean's got a point- this probably isn't the forum for this conversation but putting it here has at least gotten me to read it since I rarely venture into the customizations section. ;)

[Elginb]

Personally, I think this topic would be best in the Heroscape General Discussion, because it touches on several things. But then, I guess I don't really care what section it's in...

I agree that at this late a date, it doesn't make much sense to talk about fixing the mechanics of the game. Rather, I think it would be time better spent to try fixing things the way they have in the past-- that is, fix things by adding new characters and powers.

I find figures like Thorgrim to be invaluable, because he's a defensive booster who can actually move with melee units-- I'd like to see more units like him. It seemed like a big waste when the Nakita Agents were given movement bonding with another ranged unit-- their power would be much more useful if bound to a melee squad. Same with Sentinels or Minions-- being flyers, they're much more likely to get height advantage, so why are they given such bonuses? Give 'em to earthbound melee units. With that ogre that's coming out, they've finally given us ranged counter-strike, but why not give it to a melee squad? The rats are good, but it's boring to use them all the time, and they help ranged units more than they do melee units. Venoc Vipers are iffy, but good in large quantities. I think the Vampires are a step in the right direction: swift flyers with disengage who can heal themselves by killing low-defense squad figures-- ideal for intimidating ranged squads!

[Riggler]

Rather, I think it would be time better spent to try fixing things the way they have in the past-- that is, fix things by adding new characters and powers.
I find figures like Thorgrim to be invaluable, because he's a defensive booster who can actually move with melee units-- I'd like to see more units like him. It seemed like a big waste when the Nakita Agents were given movement bonding with another ranged unit-- their power would be much more useful if bound to a melee squad.

You see, that's exactly what they did with the Nakita Agent's move bonding ability, I think. They found the big monkeys were not considered a viable option. I know of very few people who played the gorillanators before the Nakita's come out. AFTER the Nakita's came out I've heard of the gorillanators hitting the table even without the Nakita's however. I think people learned how to use them better.

[Revdyer]

I agree with Riggler, maybe even more than he does. <grin>

I think it is a general principle, for I have seen it numerous times, including in myself, that after a while of playing the game, we all take a stab at improving it. Usually this means house rules, which we try, and, usually, within a short while abandon; concluding that the real rules are better.

The same is true with various units. First impressions tend to be "this is great!" or "these guys suck!" Then, after playing with them for some time, our opinions change. Sure there are stronger units (Q9) and weaker ones (Dund), but by and large, the huge mass of HeroScape heroes and squads, unique and common, are worth just about what they cost in points. That cost is intimately tied to the rules as published. That is what makes the game work.

For me, it works beautifully well. For others, I guess, "not so much."

For me, "it ain't broke; don't fix it."

[Sisyphus]

I don't think ranged figures are overpowered in general but that certain ranged figures are. 4th Mass is overpowered but not because they are ranged but because they are a squad of four. Reduce 4th mass to three figures like the other ranged squads and they would be balanced. I don't believe the Krav are unbalanced simply because they are unique and when you lose one their power goes down considerably. The Marro Warriors are not overpowered for the same reason. Although they can clone, it is chancy and they can't both attack and clone.

[Elginb]

Well, "big waste" was a bit of a hyperbole-- I agree that the Nakita Agents did help make the Gorillinators more playable (though I never thought they were that bad to begin with). But still, I look at the benefits the Nakitas provide the Gorillinators, and they're exactly what earthbound melee units could use in this game. It seems a little odd to me that the units with the best defense against ranged units are other ranged units (Nakita Agents & Krav Maga-- I suppose DW7000 could be considered, but we all know it has other serious flaws). I'd like to see more units of that type for earthbound melee units.

Rather, I think it would be time better spent to try fixing things the way they have in the past-- that is, fix things by adding new characters and powers.
I find figures like Thorgrim to be invaluable, because he's a defensive booster who can actually move with melee units-- I'd like to see more units like him. It seemed like a big waste when the Nakita Agents were given movement bonding with another ranged unit-- their power would be much more useful if bound to a melee squad.

You see, that's exactly what they did with the Nakita Agent's move bonding ability, I think. They found the big monkeys were not considered a viable option. I know of very few people who played the gorillanators before the Nakita's come out. AFTER the Nakita's came out I've heard of the gorillanators hitting the table even without the Nakita's however. I think people learned how to use them better.

[Oyhedwig]

Don't forget about Crixus. I find that for a melee unit, he's not bad to rush the ranged characters. That one shield defense should get him to his target, provided you don't whiff the dice rolls. And of course the Elite Onyx Vipers. Those ten defense dice usually don't fail. Usually. :)

[Snotwalker 8000]

I think that the Designers are already working heavily towards subtley balancing the melee/range disparity in the game (however much there may actually be...)

Just look at the new Jungle expansion set that's coming out, with the +1Defence against ranged attacks when adjacent to a tree.... That is, in my opinion, a well-thought out and very "smooth" way for the Heroscape Design Team to introduce a great "patch" for balancing the range threat in the game, without having to rewrite the official rules which have proven to overall work beautifully over the years.

I think once we start using the new jungle trees, all of the melee units will get a nice "shot" in the arm (pun intended) in terms of increased value and survivability against ranged armies.

But then again, I've always been a fan of army designs that include BOTH ranged and melee units, as they both have strengths and weaknesses.

[Jexik]

I think that the Designers are already working heavily towards subtley balancing the melee/range disparity in the game (however much there may actually be...)


You don't even need to look quite as far as the new Jungle set. Wave 7 features Cyprien and the Templar Knights- two very fast melee units. Beefing up SotM Drake is also a nice step.

Although if you do look forward, if units such as these and Gurei-oni become popular, it just might be enough to affect the dominant metagame. I don't necessarily have my hopes up yet though. The main problem is:

I don't think ranged figures are overpowered in general but that certain ranged figures are. 4th Mass is overpowered but not because they are ranged but because they are a squad of four. Reduce 4th mass to three figures like the other ranged squads and they would be balanced. I don't believe the Krav are unbalanced simply because they are unique and when you lose one their power goes down considerably. The Marro Warriors are not overpowered for the same reason. Although they can clone, it is chancy and they can't both attack and clone.

Sisyphus is right. When people think of 'ranged figures' they aren't talking about the Roman Archers. They think of the 4th. Massachusetts Line. Or Q9, Nilfheim, or the Krav Maga Agents. Especially when it comes to the minutemen, these units all seem a bit 'too good' for their cost. The KMA are arguably dominant mostly because of the popularity of other ranged units. The 4th. would still be good for 100 points, largely because they are a 4 figure ranged squad.

I'm really interested to see what they do with those Redcoats. The bayonets make me think they'll have some sort of bonus in melee instead of having Wait Then Fire.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Ah, but would anyone really draft the 4th Mass if they were 100pts? The 4th Mass are a solid unit to draft, but their range of 6 can easily be used against them by the Aubrien Archers, KM, AE, Q9, Q10, the various cowboy heros, Blastatrons, Deathwalkers, Kaemon Awa, Laglor, Microcorp Agents, Mimring, Omnicron Snipers, Syvarris, Zettians, and Warden 816.

Against these range 7+ units, the 4th Mass will alwasy need to advance to get in range, thus negating their wait then fire boost... and 4 shots of 2A is nice, but not worth 100 points with their low defense... and if you boost their defence with an all-valiant army, you really limit the synergy they can have with great units like Marcus.

So all in all, I'd say the 4th Mass are a solid unit, but not overpowered/underpriced. My :2cents:

[Jexik]

I'd say that 5x 4th. Mass would make an okay 500 point army. Like the 'trons, the best way to make a 4th. Mass army better is to get more of them. Always having 4 ranged attacks is handy, even if they are only 2 or 3 dice. It'd be boring, sure, and it'd have trouble with Q9. But keep in mind I'm talking about a 43% increase in cost here. How many units would really survive such a change? Imagine a 300-point Charos or Braxas.

Anyway, in the vein of reducing ranged-scape, and releasing some figures that Hasbro should have a few waves ago, I recently came up with this: Ulrick and the Dreadguls (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=13278)

[Aldin]

Welcome to the boards, TradeMark!

On behalf of our uneven and verbose community I extend to you a laurel and a hearty handshake.

As a new member, you can begin your journey on the path to the fellowship, praise and respect of your Heroscapers peers by checking out this announcement: http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=6970

My take on it is that giving some ranged units a +1 for height advantage can make them exceptionally powerful. On the other hand, there are plenty of counters to non-special attack ranged units. This feels more like an "ain't broke" situation to me.

~Aldin, curious as to what you wanted in exchange for Mark

[Taeblewalker]

Removing the second extra attack die for extreme height is a nice compromise for units who still need some advantage. The Omnicron Snipers, however, really lose out even with this compromise.

[rdhight]

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right, and the advantage of range is a problem that needs solving (which is far from certain). I think taking away ranged height avantage is a really weird suggestion for a fix, because it hurts some ranged units mortally (Microcorps, Snipers), some a moderate amount (Arrow Gruts, Syvarris), and some almost imperceptibly (Kaemon Awa, Q9, Deadeye Dan). The +1 to ranged defense granted by the jungle trees seems light-years better to me. First, the melee unit must do something to earn the bonus; it doesn't come to him for free. Second, it has the same effect against Deadly Shot, normal attacks, special attacks, whatever.

[Taeblewalker]

Good point.

[Roufus]

I'll go with 'no' on the rules change idea. It'll create more unbalanced (ie. useless) units than it would help.

Though annoying as having to snuff out ranged units who are dug in in good areas, there are ways around it. A typically balanced army would have heavy infantry to help accomplish that, or flanking ranged units of their own.

Or, just don't allow them to get into good positions to begin with. Instead of outright attacking, go for positions that specifically deny good ranged units the privilege of getting it.

Or make it worth while for them to move from their good position. Threaten another weak point. Regroup and stay out of their firing range. Force them out.

DRAFT better.

[Rythos]

No matter what game there will always be something that is slightly out of balance or could use slight revision. I am still learning to appreciate the game for what it is. It was hard at first to put aside things like thinking that figures should be able to attack every turn if they are adjacent or other common-sensical thoughts, :) but I'm getting better at it all the time.

I think the game is fundamentally sound, and it lends itself well to what it was designed for, quick one-off battles, and a younger playing audience.

Rythos

[The Archkyrie from Grut]

I suppose this is the correct forum for what follows, as this specifically deals with theory on gameplay. I would first like to state that, while my post count deceives, I am an experienced strategy gamer and have both played Heroscape since its release and have ghosted this board for a while.

That being said, there is, I believe, a common consensus that ranged figures have a distinct advantage that has not always been considered in their points cost. Perhaps this is best reflected in the initial master set, wherein two particular squads seem, at least to my own eyes, to be rather overpowered for their respective costs - the Krav and the Marro Warriors.

What makes these units so deadly is that, on the one hand, both have abnormally high move rates linked with good range. This usually leads to them gaining high ground faster, indeed perhaps too fast, as well as allows them to strike an extremely disproportionate area of the board respective to their cost. As if this wasn't bad enough, they are granted an increase to the potential damage they can inflict by being higher. It is this second aspect which i think needs adjustment in order to bring melee units back into play.

Proposed Rule: Ranged units do not gain an additional attack die when attacking a non-adjacent figure from height.

The only reason I do not also discount the reverse rule, that of gaining an extra defensive die for non-adjacent height, is that already I feel that a figure like Q9, who is either drafted, or must be invariably kept in mind for counter drafting purposes in any balanced or competitive army build, needs no further assistance in destructive potential.

Of course, I realize that the krav and MW are also so powerful due to the special abilities the respectfully posses, however these powers are, I believe, not the crux of the issue. They are, of course, excellent and dangerous abilities, however it seems more the versatility of range and movement compared to price is what generally grants them their overplayed strength. Additionally, I don't believe that this change would, in itself, prevent people from continuing to draft these units, nor do i confine this universal appraisal of the ranged/melee difference to these particular models. It is not to contend that "in the right situation..." value comparisons are invalidated by this line of reasoning, only that this is a measure to slightly modify basic gamplay elements in a structurally balancing way.

I can guarantee that the majority of the teenagers on this site have no idea what you're saying. That being said, although some squads seem overpowered, most people mistake that for being useful in many situations.
Also, I'm starting to get tired of people whining all the time about squads or heroes being too strong. It's a strategy game. The entire object of the game is to exploit your figures' strengths, and cover their weaknesses. Nobody's 'overpowered', because nobody has a lack of weakness.
I see this post as unneccessary, because of lack of clarity (to most gamers), and because so many people are saying the same thing. Using a thesaurus isn't any different than chatspeach.