Scenario-based tournament idea

[ollie]

I seem to be generating ideas for slightly different ways to hold tournaments faster than I'm hosting events. But here's another. Like the first (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=24423) two ( http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=18096 ), I think this is best thought of as pitched somewhere between a tournament and a game day. The intention is to have a bunch of people show up and have fun, but still have space for a bit of competitiveness and bragging rights.

The Framework

The basic idea is easy: rather than one-on-one kill 'em all there are a bunch of scenarios. You win or lose and this feeds into a regular Swiss structure. When there are more than two players in a scenario, pair the strongest with the weakest (so in a two vs. two, players 1 and 4 face 2 and 3; in a two vs one, players 1 and 3 face player 2). There are no secondary criteria like points killed or strength of schedule. Roll a D20 to decide ties at the end.

All scenarios require armies in the 250-600pt range. You may bring up to 1200pts of units to draft from. Before each game, lay out your units for your opponent(s) to see and consider your opponent's units and the scenario you will be playing. Write down your army on an index card and all players reveal their armies at the same time (this format is stolen directly fron sideboard-allowed events we've had in the northeast; I think credit goes to nyys, Bengi and/or Monkeyclops).

The tricky bit is devising the scenarios. Please post ideas and examples in the thread. Here are a few overarching principles I think should be adhered to for the most part; I'll then go on to suggest a few specific scenarios.

No unit restrictions: Each player is limited already to 1200pts to do a lot of different things. It will be too limiting to demand that everyone is ready for a general-specific requirement, say, or to field a dragon.

No meta-play: In a three player free-for-all, two players can gang up on the other (say, the person ahead in the standings). I don't like this style of play (my main reason against it) and it can distort outcomes for non-game reasons.

Timing and out-of-timing: Ideally, the game will finish reasonably quickly. There needs to be provision for declaring a winner (or declaring a draw) if the game times out.

Some Scenarios

Here are a few to give an idea of what I have in mind.

Kill 'em all: An unscenario, I guess. No reason it can't be in the pool though. Two players fight to the death. Call the game on points if it doesn't finish. Possible quirks: glyphs or not; use a map from the asymmetric map workshop; roll a D20 to decide the point total (390 + 10x where x is the roll, for example).

Team play: Two against two. 250pt armies. A win for one side scores a win for both players on that side, even if one has had his/her army completely destroyed. Decide unfinished games on points.

The two against one RttFF scenario: Can't remember the name, sorry, but the one with reinforcements for the single player defending the bridge. Best official scenario in my opinion and very well balanced. Use the round counter as instructed; I guess it comes to total points if it times out in advance of that.

Heat of Battle: A GenCon favourite. 520pts. No start zones; take it in turn to place a card's worth of units anywhere on the map.

Capture the Flag: I've never tried this, but I've read reports of others playing it. Anyone have a succinct set of good rules?

Storm the Castle: One of the scenarios from the FotA rulebook. I haven't played them in a long time. Which one is fairest? Do you have other castle scenarios?

Bask in Raelin's Aura: An idea (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=671472&postcount=68) from Onacara. There is a Raelin that neither player controls and both players benefit from in the middle of the board. Otherwise it's regular kill 'em all. Neither player may draft their own Raelin (a mild exception to one of my rules above).

So...

Will this work, do you think? What needs changing to make it work? Any neat scenario ideas?

[Jexik]

I really enjoyed Heat of Battle and this version of Capture the Flag at GenCon (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=24382) this year. I'm thinking of including them both in a tournament I'll run later this year.

Heroscape - Heat of Battle
-Open to all players, 64 positions. 5 round swiss style tournament with a final match from 3p-4p. Bring a pre-drafted 450 point Heroscape (no Marvel) army that does not exceed 24 hexes. There are no starting zones; players will take turns placing one card's worth of units anywhere on the battlefield except on glyphs until all figures are placed. Tournament is played in one hour rounds. Prizes awarded to the top four finishers.

Heroscape - Capture the Flag
5 round swiss with no final. Players bring a pre-drafted 400 point Heroscape (no Marvel) army that does not exceed 24 hexes. Each player will have a Glyph to defend just outside of their start zone, and can win by ending a turn with one of their figures un-engaged and on the opponent's Glyph. Player's can move their figures onto their own glyph to defend it. one hour rounds. Prizes awarded to the top 3 finishers.

[Cavalier]

I would love to see a shift from Kill 'em All in tourneys. I think the simplicity of that mechanic will keep it dominant, though.

[ollie]

I really enjoyed Heat of Battle and this version of Capture the Flag at GenCon (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=24382) this year. I'm thinking of including them both in a tournament I'll run later this year.


Are you mixing them into a single event or running two independent mini-tournaments?

Thanks for the capture the flag rules. Straightforward and sound like fun.

I would love to see a shift from Kill 'em All in tourneys. I think the simplicity of that mechanic will keep it dominant, though.

I really like kill 'em all and I'd be sorry to lose it as the default. Switching things up from time to time is all I'd like to see.

[Jexik]

My idea is pretty simple.

I call it the Chicago Shake-up.

Every player brings up to 600 points worth of army cards.

Before every game, the Tourney Director will roll a Heroscape die, and follow this table.

SKULL: 500 points Kill 'em all. Players will draft one card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

SHIELD: 400 points Capture the Flag. Rules as at GenCon above. Again, players will draft one card at a time from their pool, with a 24 hex maximum.

BLANK: 450 points Heat of Battle. Rules as at GenCon above. One card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

Points might change, but that's the format. Scoring and organization-wise, it'll be Swiss.

[ollie]

My idea is pretty simple.

I call it the Chicago Shake-up.

Every player brings up to 600 points worth of army cards.

Before every game, the Tourney Director will roll a Heroscape die, and follow this table.

SKULL: 500 points Kill 'em all. Players will draft one card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

SHIELD: 400 points Capture the Flag. Rules as at GenCon above. Again, players will draft one card at a time from their pool, with a 24 hex maximum.

BLANK: 450 points Heat of Battle. Rules as at GenCon above. One card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

Points might change, but that's the format. Scoring and organization-wise, it'll be Swiss.

Nice. I like that all the players are playing the same game each round.

[ElvenEnvy]

My idea is pretty simple.

I call it the Chicago Shake-up.

Every player brings up to 600 points worth of army cards.

Before every game, the Tourney Director will roll a Heroscape die, and follow this table.

SKULL: 500 points Kill 'em all. Players will draft one card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

SHIELD: 400 points Capture the Flag. Rules as at GenCon above. Again, players will draft one card at a time from their pool, with a 24 hex maximum.

BLANK: 450 points Heat of Battle. Rules as at GenCon above. One card at a time from their pool. 24 hex maximum.

Points might change, but that's the format. Scoring and organization-wise, it'll be Swiss.

I like the concept, but I think some of the details could stand to change. Shield for Heat of Battle, Blank for Capture the Flag. A larger pool, say 750 points. I really like incorperating the draft back into the game, but I think it would take a large pool to really get the effect though.

[Jexik]

I like the concept, but I think some of the details could stand to change. Shield for Heat of Battle, Blank for Capture the Flag. A larger pool, say 750 points. I really like incorperating the draft back into the game, but I think it would take a large pool to really get the effect though.

I want it to be more about making a robust army that can handle a variety of scenarios, and less about drafting. HoB is the least likely to occur, because it is more extreme than CTF.

[White Noise]

I think you may have a difficult time balancing the castle siege scenario. The player on the castle should have less points due to the advantage of having the castle, but the problem is that there are so many figures that can get on top of or in the castle easily (flying figures, monks, Drake, TBR, etc.) that the player in the castle has a major disadvantage if there is a points handicap involved while facing an army with lots of those units. For example, a 400 point army on a castle would be at a disadvantage facing 500 points worth of Kyrie, because they quickly loose any advantage that comes from being in the castle. To fix this problem you could put a Glyph of Rannvieg on top of the castle (it's not a perfect fix, but it helps). This of course forces the other player to break down the door, which is extremely difficult, so they should get some glyphs to help, but that unbalances it once they get through the door, so the cycle continues...
Balancing it is possible, albeit difficult. I suppose you could experiment with plenty of different Glyphs (I wouldn't recommend Thorian, but Wannok would be interesting to put outside the castle). You may also want to consider giving the player inside the castle some start zone spaces on top for double-spaced figures since they can't climb ladders.

You could also try another type of scenario where there is a neutral unit or group of units in the middle of the board and whoever controls a glyph or rolls a higher number with a d20 gets to take a turn with them at the beginning of the round, after which any destroyed ones respawn from certain areas on the board. There are some official scenarios that do this (I think you can find some in the TJ and VW rulebooks), so you could use those, but if you decide to make your own, you could use units that don't often appear in a tournament environment. I've got some suggestions:

Marro Drudge (Swamp Map)
Dumutef Guard (x2) (Road Map)
Dzu-Teh (Snow/Ice map)
Obsidian Guards (Lava Map)
Marro Drones (x3)(Larger Maps)
Spiders (x2)
Einar Emperium
Roman Archers
Gorillinators

Any squad or hero could work fairly well, but I'd stay away from any with strong synergies with units commonly found in a tournament environment, as they could unbalance the game in one person's favor. Units that are commonly used in tournaments could also create unnecessary confusion if someone else has that unit in their army, so I'd stay away from those too.

[dok]

Yeah, at 750, the question starts to become "which army will I use in this situation", as opposed to "what will I leave out of the army in this situation".

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with making it about drafting, if that's what you want.

[Agent Minivann]

I think that in scenario based tournaments there ought to be some sort of point system in place for ties. Maybe have X possible victory points for the scenario. The winner gets a the win, but both players get the actual victory points earned. A win might be greater than 50% of the victory points, or some completed objective that grants at least 50% of the possible points.

For a pulled out of thin air example, a capture the flag game might last 12 rounds max. A victory point could be awarded for every time you are controlling your opponent's flag when you place your order markers for the round. There is a possible 11 victory points per person. Getting the flag back to your base for the win ends the game immediately and earns you 6 victory points. This makes it possible for the winner to theoretically have fewer victory points than the winner, but if you control the flag that much and you don't end the game, you don't get the "W" on the score board. If the game ends on time, victory points determine victory, with total points left on the board as the tie breaker.

Something like that. Some victory points for both players to serve as a tiebreaker when wins and losses are tied.

[ElvenEnvy]

I like the concept, but I think some of the details could stand to change. Shield for Heat of Battle, Blank for Capture the Flag. A larger pool, say 750 points. I really like incorperating the draft back into the game, but I think it would take a large pool to really get the effect though.

I want it to be more about making a robust army that can handle a variety of scenarios, and less about drafting. HoB is the least likely to occur, because it is more extreme than CTF.

I think it would be too much of a crap-shoot to make a 600 point pool that can handle your generic 500 battle, yet cut weight to 450 and 400 to take on different scenarios. Not to mention that you'd need to choose a lot of 100, 50, and 25 point units to remain flexible, or decide to sit on 5-25 points of bravado for some games. I guess that would make it a lot more about army selection and working your point totals which would be different and fun, but possibly frusterating.


I think if the games where all of the same point totals with a small sidebar you would acheive your desired effect with less frustration.

[ollie]

What do you all think of the 1200pt cap in my proposal? Should that be lower? I'm thinking maybe it should be---I don't want people to have an army for each scenario, but I also don't want people to have to essentially write off one of the potential situiations they might find themselves in (for example, if the limit were down at 600pts you might decide to just hope you don't draw the castle seige at any point and concentrate on the others).

[Warlord Alpha]

What do you all think of the 1200pt cap in my proposal? Should that be lower? I'm thinking maybe it should be---I don't want people to have an army for each scenario, but I also don't want people to have to essentially write off one of the potential situiations they might find themselves in (for example, if the limit were down at 600pts you might decide to just hope you don't draw the castle seige at any point and concentrate on the others).

Depends on the scenarios. I mean, if half of the scenarios call for one or more armies to have 600-700 points then the point pool will have to be pretty high. Of course, the opposite holds true as well.



I think it would be too much of a crap-shoot to make a 600 point pool that can handle your generic 500 battle, yet cut weight to 450 and 400 to take on different scenarios. Not to mention that you'd need to choose a lot of 100, 50, and 25 point units to remain flexible, or decide to sit on 5-25 points of bravado for some games. I guess that would make it a lot more about army selection and working your point totals which would be different and fun, but possibly frusterating.

I think if the games where all of the same point totals with a small sidebar you would acheive your desired effect with less frustration.

The thing is, if you have 1000 points to bring, those filler units will only take up a small amount of that because they are exactly that - filler units. Maybe 75 points of that will be fillers. I don't see it as much of a problem. Of course, the opposite holds true where it might be deemed OK to bring along any cards you want of < 50 points even if it causes you to go over. It would be up to whoever is organizing the event, both would work.

[ElvenEnvy]

What do you all think of the 1200pt cap in my proposal? Should that be lower? I'm thinking maybe it should be---I don't want people to have an army for each scenario, but I also don't want people to have to essentially write off one of the potential situiations they might find themselves in (for example, if the limit were down at 600pts you might decide to just hope you don't draw the castle seige at any point and concentrate on the others).

Here's what i think...

If you ended up having all of your ideas included and the 1200pt pool people would probably just bring an army pool with some good variety and hope for the best.

If you ended up doing only a handful of scenarios people would probably bring an army for each scenario with very little overlap (units planned for multiple armies) in each at 1200 points.

A 600 point limit and all the scenarios would be a crap-shoot for certain.

A 600 point limit and a handful of scenarios may have some people write-off scenarios.


I guess the happy medium would be somewhere around 4 scenarios and 1000 point pool. It would require a fair amount of army overlap and if the probability for getting them is even you wouldn't want to write anything off.

[ollie]

What do you all think of the 1200pt cap in my proposal? Should that be lower? I'm thinking maybe it should be---I don't want people to have an army for each scenario, but I also don't want people to have to essentially write off one of the potential situiations they might find themselves in (for example, if the limit were down at 600pts you might decide to just hope you don't draw the castle seige at any point and concentrate on the others).

Depends on the scenarios. I mean, if half of the scenarios call for one or more armies to have 600-700 points then the point pool will have to be pretty high. Of course, the opposite holds true as well.

I was thinking that 600pts would be an upper limit (with the exception, I guess, of the reinforcements scenario with some lucky rolling) with most being in the 400-500pt range. Scenarios like Heat of Battle and Capture the Flag which are inherently a bit speedier (is this true?) would maybe be put in the 500s. Team games would be much lower. 250pt/player works OK I think.

[ollie]

If you ended up having all of your ideas included and the 1200pt pool people would probably just bring an army pool with some good variety and hope for the best.

If you ended up doing only a handful of scenarios people would probably bring an army for each scenario with very little overlap (units planned for multiple armies) in each at 1200 points.

A 600 point limit and all the scenarios would be a crap-shoot for certain.

A 600 point limit and a handful of scenarios may have some people write-off scenarios.


I guess the happy medium would be somewhere around 4 scenarios and 1000 point pool. It would require a fair amount of army overlap and if the probability for getting them is even you wouldn't want to write anything off.

I was imagining that no scenarios would be repeated. Given that twenty people is a typical turn out in southern VT (based on an admittedly small sample) that means ten different scenarios. Of course, most will be fine for most units and only a few, such as castle attacks, are especially difficult without dedicated troops.

I suppose I'm imagining people bringing a central 600-700pts that can be whittled down to an army for most formats and then alongside that having some specialists for particular scenarios. Maybe 1000pts is the way to go.

EDIT. Oops, twenty people does not mean ten scenarios as some require more than two people. At least eight though (and probably ten or more just to have leeway and then they can be used). Another thought: with judicious use of three player scenarios, byes won't need to be used whether there is an even or odd number of players.

[Taeblewalker]

I had a scenario once, where players had to capture two glyphs of Brandar in order to summon X points worth of reinforcements. I believe we chose Charos for one team and Su-Bak-Na plus Marro Warriors for the other team. There were several twists:

1) There were 4 Glyphs of Brandar in play, so that each player could eventually gain reinforcements by bringing them to his start zone.
2) The glyphs were all face down among other glyphs, which included about 4-6 others.
3) The map was a canyon with two road bridges across it and a natural bridge on one side, with "soggy" sand hexes (2 move to enter) on the other.
4) When someone entered a road space there was a chance that a neutral Dumutef Guard would appear and attack the nearest figure (roll randomly for more than one).

I called it Mysterious Bridges over Whitewater Canyon.

[ollie]

I had a scenario once, where players had to capture two glyphs of Brandar in order to summon X points worth of reinforcements. I believe we chose Charos for one team and Su-Bak-Na plus Marro Warriors for the other team. There were several twists:

1) There were 4 Glyphs of Brandar in play, so that each player could eventually gain reinforcements by bringing them to his start zone.
2) The glyphs were all face down among other glyphs, which included about 4-6 others.
3) The map was a canyon with two road bridges across it and a natural bridge on one side, with "soggy" sand hexes (2 move to enter) on the other.
4) When someone entered a road space there was a chance that a neutral Dumutef Guard would appear and attack the nearest figure (roll randomly for more than one).

I called it Mysterious Bridges over Whitewater Canyon.

I think that sounds like too many twists for this context: players need to reaad and comprehend the scenario and then do the army-picking thing on top of the usual tournament time-users. (In fact, I think this would be better as a four round event rather than the usual five.)

I do like the ideas though and can see a pared down version working well (possibly a few different ones, each using one of the ideas). I think the magically appearing Dumutef is my favourite.

[ElvenEnvy]

I had a scenario once, where players had to capture two glyphs of Brandar in order to summon X points worth of reinforcements. I believe we chose Charos for one team and Su-Bak-Na plus Marro Warriors for the other team. There were several twists:

1) There were 4 Glyphs of Brandar in play, so that each player could eventually gain reinforcements by bringing them to his start zone.
2) The glyphs were all face down among other glyphs, which included about 4-6 others.
3) The map was a canyon with two road bridges across it and a natural bridge on one side, with "soggy" sand hexes (2 move to enter) on the other.
4) When someone entered a road space there was a chance that a neutral Dumutef Guard would appear and attack the nearest figure (roll randomly for more than one).

I called it Mysterious Bridges over Whitewater Canyon.


I like the gaining control of glyphs to gain reinforcements.

Perhaps this alternate.
Place x' glyphs face-down when you land on a glyph you get x" amount of reinforcement points and remove the glyph. At the end of a round you can choose to spend the points, or save them in hopes of gaining more points. Reinforcements are chosen from your sidebar and placed on the field in your starting zone prior to placing OMs.

[Xn F M]

Storm the Castle: One of the scenarios from the FotA rulebook. I haven't played them in a long time. Which one is fairest? Do you have other castle scenarios?

I've stated this opinion in other threads, but the castle in the FotA book is broken for the Defender. I'm firmly of the opinion that none of those scenarios are appropriate for tournament play unless there is a castle redesign.

I do have some other thoughts, but I'm a little pressed for time atm. I'll try to get back over here later this afternoon.

[ollie]

Storm the Castle: One of the scenarios from the FotA rulebook. I haven't played them in a long time. Which one is fairest? Do you have other castle scenarios?

I've stated this opinion in other threads, but the castle in the FotA book is broken for the Defender. I'm firmly of the opinion that none of those scenarios are appropriate for tournament play unless there is a castle redesign.

I do have some other thoughts, but I'm a little pressed for time atm. I'll try to get back over here later this afternoon.

Fair enough. I'm interested in what else you have to add (especially if it's a balanced castle siege!). If nothing else, there are a few good castle options in the asymmetric workshop that are at, or close to, tournament-ready. I'd really like one with the door if possible though.

[Agent Minivann]

I think that a castle siege as a 2 vs 1 scenario with the same points on each side (P1 250 points, P2 250 points, and P3 500 points) works well. The attackers getting 2x the order markers balances things out rather well, in my opinion. One condition on that, having a "back door" so the attackers don't have to destroy the $&#**^% door.

[ollie]

I think that a castle siege as a 2 vs 1 scenario with the same points on each side (P1 250 points, P2 250 points, and P3 500 points) works well. The attackers getting 2x the order markers balances things out rather well, in my opinion.

Does this work with the build in the rulebook? (Actually, is one of those 2 vs 1? How does that one spread the points?) I definitely like the idea of having more multiplayer scenarios. Has anyone played the Tundra or SotM ones. I never have. How are they?

Edit. Heh, typed this before you added the door comment!

[Agent Minivann]

I think that a castle siege as a 2 vs 1 scenario with the same points on each side (P1 250 points, P2 250 points, and P3 500 points) works well. The attackers getting 2x the order markers balances things out rather well, in my opinion.

Does this work with the build in the rulebook? (Actually, is one of those 2 vs 1? How does that one spread the points?) I definitely like the idea of having more multiplayer scenarios. Has anyone played the Tundra or SotM ones. I never have. How are they?

I can't remember the points in the FotA book's scenario, but I've always played castle sieges this way and they make pretty good games. Somewhere on here there is a battle report for a 6 player castle siege that we did that very thing. Equal points on each side, but the attackers got double the order markers. It came down to Deadeye Dan and a Warrior of Ashra and an initiative roll. Dan wins, he can attack from range (and height), the elf wins, and it becomes a melee battle. I think that something else that might need to be considered for a siege is a longer time limit. I haven't played a castle siege in a long time, so I can't remember for sure how much time they take.

Edit. Heh, typed this before you added the door comment!
It was one of those "oh carp!" moments when I realized that I didn't mention the door. I hate that stupid thing! :x

[ollie]

I haven't played a castle siege in a long time, so I can't remember for sure how much time they take.


Hmmm, to make it work in the tournament structure, it needs to be down at around an hour (especially as this type of asymmetric game is the least satisfying to have to settle on points). Lower points might be the way to go, or controlling a hex in the castle vs surviving a certain number of rounds. Other ideas?

[Warlord Alpha]

I haven't played a castle siege in a long time, so I can't remember for sure how much time they take.


Hmmm, to make it work in the tournament structure, it needs to be down at around an hour (especially as this type of asymmetric game is the least satisfying to have to settle on points). Lower points might be the way to go, or controlling a hex in the castle vs surviving a certain number of rounds. Other ideas?

Well, I have had this idea in my mind for a week or two and next time my friend comes over we will have to try it.

Without giving too much away (because I want an excuse to post a map/scenario thread), it would work kind of like a scavenger hunt, minus the clues. A bunch of face-down glyphs would be present and whoever gathers the most, and then retains at least the winning amount for a round, wins. All kinds of things could be done to make this more interesting like some of the glyphs are glyphs of Proftaka, 2 face-up wind glyphs could be put in very close proximity (like, 1 or 2 hexes away) from the start zones to make bringing the glyphs back harder, etc.

The best part is, it would be very easy to get a clear winner, and if nobody can hold onto a winning amount of glyphs points killed could be a very obvious secondary victory condition if time runs out.

Like I said above though, I have more to the idea I am not going to say because I need to test some things out next time I can play a game with somebody. I also have some ideas for a really good map for this.

[ollie]

A bunch of face-down glyphs would be present and whoever gathers the most, and then retains at least the winning amount for a round, wins.

Sounds good.

Perhaps this format could see the much-loved herb-gathering scenario from RotV included! ;)

[Xn F M]

I think that a castle siege as a 2 vs 1 scenario with the same points on each side (P1 250 points, P2 250 points, and P3 500 points) works well. The attackers getting 2x the order markers balances things out rather well, in my opinion.

Does this work with the build in the rulebook? (Actually, is one of those 2 vs 1? How does that one spread the points?) I definitely like the idea of having more multiplayer scenarios. Has anyone played the Tundra or SotM ones. I never have. How are they?

Edit. Heh, typed this before you added the door comment!

The biggest issue with the castle in the rulebook is that the defender can get great height on the spaces directly in front of the door. Breaking the dor is hard enough without having to worry about the defender getting "auto skulls" against you.

(still more to come once I get off work)

[rednax]

I think you may have a difficult time balancing the castle siege scenario. The player on the castle should have less points due to the advantage of having the castle, but the problem is that there are so many figures that can get on top of or in the castle easily (flying figures, monks, Drake, TBR, etc.) that the player in the castle has a major disadvantage if there is a points handicap involved while facing an army with lots of those units. For example, a 400 point army on a castle would be at a disadvantage facing 500 points worth of Kyrie, because they quickly loose any advantage that comes from being in the castle. To fix this problem you could put a Glyph of Rannvieg on top of the castle (it's not a perfect fix, but it helps). This of course forces the other player to break down the door, which is extremely difficult, so they should get some glyphs to help, but that unbalances it once they get through the door, so the cycle continues...
Balancing it is possible, albeit difficult. I suppose you could experiment with plenty of different Glyphs (I wouldn't recommend Thorian, but Wannok would be interesting to put outside the castle). You may also want to consider giving the player inside the castle some start zone spaces on top for double-spaced figures since they can't climb ladders.

You could also try another type of scenario where there is a neutral unit or group of units in the middle of the board and whoever controls a glyph or rolls a higher number with a d20 gets to take a turn with them at the beginning of the round, after which any destroyed ones respawn from certain areas on the board. There are some official scenarios that do this (I think you can find some in the TJ and VW rulebooks), so you could use those, but if you decide to make your own, you could use units that don't often appear in a tournament environment. I've got some suggestions:

Marro Drudge (Swamp Map)
Dumutef Guard (x2) (Road Map)
Dzu-Teh (Snow/Ice map)
Obsidian Guards (Lava Map)
Marro Drones (x3)(Larger Maps)
Spiders (x2)
Einar Emperium
Roman Archers
Gorillinators

Any squad or hero could work fairly well, but I'd stay away from any with strong synergies with units commonly found in a tournament environment, as they could unbalance the game in one person's favor. Units that are commonly used in tournaments could also create unnecessary confusion if someone else has that unit in their army, so I'd stay away from those too.

Also, in the SotM rulebook, there is a scenario where control of the hive switches between players. It would heavily favor Marro armies, so it would probably be best if you knew ahead of time, that the hive could be controlled by anyone.

[Taeblewalker]

I had a scenario once, where players had to capture two glyphs of Brandar in order to summon X points worth of reinforcements. I believe we chose Charos for one team and Su-Bak-Na plus Marro Warriors for the other team. There were several twists:

1) There were 4 Glyphs of Brandar in play, so that each player could eventually gain reinforcements by bringing them to his start zone.
2) The glyphs were all face down among other glyphs, which included about 4-6 others.
3) The map was a canyon with two road bridges across it and a natural bridge on one side, with "soggy" sand hexes (2 move to enter) on the other.
4) When someone entered a road space there was a chance that a neutral Dumutef Guard would appear and attack the nearest figure (roll randomly for more than one).

I called it Mysterious Bridges over Whitewater Canyon.

I think that sounds like too many twists for this context: players need to reaad and comprehend the scenario and then do the army-picking thing on top of the usual tournament time-users. (In fact, I think this would be better as a four round event rather than the usual five.)

I do like the ideas though and can see a pared down version working well (possibly a few different ones, each using one of the ideas). I think the magically appearing Dumutef is my favourite.

The real reason why people would risk the Dumutefs is that the bridges were high ground, especially to the glyph-seekers below, and I believe I had Astrid and Ivor on the two bridges.


I like the gaining control of glyphs to gain reinforcements.

Perhaps this alternate.
Place x' glyphs face-down when you land on a glyph you get x" amount of reinforcement points and remove the glyph. At the end of a round you can choose to spend the points, or save them in hopes of gaining more points. Reinforcements are chosen from your sidebar and placed on the field in your starting zone prior to placing OMs.

This is a nice touch. The scenario might also limit the reinforcements to 8 or so start hexes, so that a big hero might be taken, but not 4 squads of something.


I'll work on taking these ideas and making them into less involved scenarios. How about adding to the Dumutef idea and having Moltarns possibly attack figures that move near lava? Maybe on a 1-8 on a d20 they attack, in which case you can risk sneaking past them, or try to take them out before they attack you.

[NecroBlade]

This, too, sounds like a really fun way to hold a tournament. If I can think of any useful scenarios, I'll try to remember to come back and post them, but until then, :popcorn:

[Gold1]

I've got a few ideas. I got this idea from AliasQtip. Basically there is a horde of treasure in the center of the board. These artifacts can be glyphs, weapons, equipment or any other thing you want them to be. By getting the treasure your army will be better equiped to take down the enemies units.
Another one is to have the field built in zones. Each zone has its own uniqueness in terrain whether it be lava, jungle, desert, water, a bridge, etc. Each section has its own unit(s). For example:Water-Elite onyx vipers. Jungle-Sujoah. Bridge-Krug. The goal is to get to the other side of the board first. There will be one player who controls the creatures while the other players try to get across.

[White Noise]

I'm surprized no one has suggested a king of the hill type scenario yet. Granted, you'd probably want to change it to king of the valley or something because you'd run into issues with height advantage, but a scenario where you have to be the only one occupying a seven hex area for an entire round could work pretty well.

[Warlord Alpha]

I'm surprized no one has suggested a king of the hill type scenario yet. Granted, you'd probably want to change it to king of the valley or something because you'd run into issues with height advantage, but a scenario where you have to be the only one occupying a seven hex area for an entire round could work pretty well.

Anyone here play Halo? I can't help but take ideas from the things I have played, and one thing that would work very well is designate an area on the map, like you said maybe a 7-hex, and at the end of the round ANY figures in the hill from your team grant you a point. Any figures from the opposing team grant their team a point. So, if you had say 3 stingers in the hill and your opponent had 2 vipers, then you just earned 3 points and your opponent earned 2.

A lot of strategy could come into this. At first glance it sounds like a squad-fest, but Braxas would be just as effective, if not more so, than fighting fire with fire (so to speak). But if you go with the more effective hero option, you don't gain as many points at any given time.

[nyys]

This is what happens when you go on vacation, you get way behind in Scape discussions. ;)

Ollie an I spoke of this topic briefly in the Asymmetric Map thread. I have a lot of ideas for a tourney like this as well (have read nothing in this thread yet). Scenarios that range from a specific goal in one game (like capture the flag) all the way to having a pre-set army for a certain map (with a natural advantage) to see if you can beat the odds.

I will elaborate more, when I get a chance.

[White Noise]

A lot of strategy could come into this. At first glance it sounds like a squad-fest, but Braxas would be just as effective, if not more so, than fighting fire with fire (so to speak). But if you go with the more effective hero option, you don't gain as many points at any given time.

Perhaps a more fair way of scoring it, then, would not be to use the number of figures in the area but how many points worth of figures are there. In my opinion, scoring based on number of figures would overly favor cheap squads (Deathreavers would be a nightmare), but scoring on points would hopefully balance it out or even favor heroes for a change.

[Warlord Alpha]

A lot of strategy could come into this. At first glance it sounds like a squad-fest, but Braxas would be just as effective, if not more so, than fighting fire with fire (so to speak). But if you go with the more effective hero option, you don't gain as many points at any given time.

Perhaps a more fair way of scoring it, then, would not be to use the number of figures in the area but how many points worth of figures are there. In my opinion, scoring based on number of figures would overly favor cheap squads (Deathreavers would be a nightmare), but scoring on points would hopefully balance it out or even favor heroes for a change.

But then the choices would be obvious. It would become Jotun vs. Charos in the middle of the hill. Nobody would want to use anything else. There needs to be a scoring system that encourages both Heroes and Squads.

[IAmBatman]

Here's a bit of an oddball idea: "Unique Hero Highlander"*
Basically it's a kill-all scenario, but with a twist. When unique heroes destroy other unique heroes they "absorb their power," meaning they can then use all the special powers on that card as well. So, if Sgt. Drake destroys Q9, suddenly he's kicking the Quelix Gun. Or if Nilfheim kills Sgt. Drake, he's got Thorian Speed, etc. You get the point.
For ease of play, and to make people think hard about including a tough hero or two in their army, common squads wouldn't absorb powers at all.




*There can be only one!

[NecroBlade]

I'm surprized no one has suggested a king of the hill type scenario yet. Granted, you'd probably want to change it to king of the valley or something because you'd run into issues with height advantage, but a scenario where you have to be the only one occupying a seven hex area for an entire round could work pretty well.
I actually thought of something similar last night. You could use two or even three areas to control (mark the center space of each with a Glyph of Brandar). At the end of each round, you score 1 point for each area you have more units in than your opponent (if it's a tie, no one gets a point). Then the first to 5 points or something like that would win.

Another that's not on the front page is those "activate the Deathwalker" games or whatever they ran at GenCon. I've never been, so someone else will have to tell us what the rules are, though. :p

[White Noise]

A lot of strategy could come into this. At first glance it sounds like a squad-fest, but Braxas would be just as effective, if not more so, than fighting fire with fire (so to speak). But if you go with the more effective hero option, you don't gain as many points at any given time.

Perhaps a more fair way of scoring it, then, would not be to use the number of figures in the area but how many points worth of figures are there. In my opinion, scoring based on number of figures would overly favor cheap squads (Deathreavers would be a nightmare), but scoring on points would hopefully balance it out or even favor heroes for a change.

But then the choices would be obvious. It would become Jotun vs. Charos in the middle of the hill. Nobody would want to use anything else. There needs to be a scoring system that encourages both Heroes and Squads.

That is an issue...
Perhaps if it were combined with Necroblade's idea? You have two or three areas to control, and whoever has the most points in an area at the end of the round gets a point. This would discourage high point cost units like Jotun or Charos because they'd be able to hold one area, but it would not leave the player a whole lot of points left to claim the other two. If scoring is only based on whoever has more points in the area as opposed to how many, it would help balance it out.

[ollie]

All great scenario ideas. The point of the exercise isn't to generate new ideas (though that's a great side-effect); it's to build well-established balanced scenarios into a tournament. I think the ones that'll work best are those that have a fairly simple variation on the core rules and/or are widely played.

[Gold1]

Here is a variation for the castle seige that I've just thought up. In the castle there is a traitor. Once per round a twenty sided die may be rolled. If its a 1-18 nothing happens. If its a 19-20 then the traitor has opened the doors wide open for the enemy, and the door may not be closed. Every round that the door does not open you may add one to your roll for every round that has passed. So for example, after six rounds you would have to roll a 13-20 to open the door. I know this isn't exactly a well known idea but I think it could work. Its also simple. Hope this is what your looking for.

[rednax]

Here is a variation for the castle seige that I've just thought up. In the castle there is a traitor. Once per round a twenty sided die may be rolled. If its a 1-18 nothing happens. If its a 19-20 then the traitor has opened the doors wide open for the enemy, and the door may not be closed. Every round that the door does not open you may add one to your roll for every round that has passed. So for example, after six rounds you would have to roll a 13-20 to open the door. I know this isn't exactly a well known idea but I think it could work. Its also simple. Hope this is what your looking for.
Interesting...interesting.

[Taeblewalker]

Here's a bit of an oddball idea: "Unique Hero Highlander"*
Basically it's a kill-all scenario, but with a twist. When unique heroes destroy other unique heroes they "absorb their power," meaning they can then use all the special powers on that card as well. So, if Sgt. Drake destroys Q9, suddenly he's kicking the Quelix Gun. Or if Nilfheim kills Sgt. Drake, he's got Thorian Speed, etc. You get the point.
For ease of play, and to make people think hard about including a tough hero or two in their army, common squads wouldn't absorb powers at all.




*There can be only one!

That might be unbalanced, depending on who the hero is and other heroes are. Perhaps you could add an attack die for each hero killed? Zetacron would be really tough, but then he is fragile.
In any case, if you absorb a hero who has absorbed powers, does the killing hero get all the powers the killed hero has already absorbed?

[GaryLASQ]

Was looking through some old Hasbro scenarios and it occurred to me how interesting a Soulrazor Canyon Tournament might be for having a very simple tournament that was a little more than just kill-em-all.

Only one map is used, Soulrazor Canyon (http://heroscape.glasq.com/battlefields/hsbf0006.htm). (This map dates all the way back to GenCon 2004). There are three (http://heroscape.glasq.com/battlefields/hsbf0006.htm#s02) Master Scenarios that have the same start zones and army points, but each one adds a slight twist with it's special rules.

I suppose players should only bring one pre-made 400 point army they think would work best in any of the three scenarios. A 20-sided die is rolled before the game begins. 1-6 for Lingering Spirits, 7-12 for Marked for Death, 13-18 for The Grass is Greener, 19 or 20 reroll.

Using just the one map might make army selection too predictable; however, the scenario twists might keep it interesting. Lots of flying I suspect, but maybe not. Maybe lots of frenzy would be better. Or maybe use Finn, or Thorgrim. I have a hunch that "Protectors of Ullar" would be a favorite pick.

Lingering Spirits is the least interesting of the three scenarios. A better one would be a scenario that combined the special rules of all three of them into one scenario. :)
.

[IAmBatman]

Here's a bit of an oddball idea: "Unique Hero Highlander"*
Basically it's a kill-all scenario, but with a twist. When unique heroes destroy other unique heroes they "absorb their power," meaning they can then use all the special powers on that card as well. So, if Sgt. Drake destroys Q9, suddenly he's kicking the Quelix Gun. Or if Nilfheim kills Sgt. Drake, he's got Thorian Speed, etc. You get the point.
For ease of play, and to make people think hard about including a tough hero or two in their army, common squads wouldn't absorb powers at all.




*There can be only one!

That might be unbalanced, depending on who the hero is and other heroes are. Perhaps you could add an attack die for each hero killed? Zetacron would be really tough, but then he is fragile.
In any case, if you absorb a hero who has absorbed powers, does the killing hero get all the powers the killed hero has already absorbed?

No, for simplicity you'd probably just have it be the powers on the hero's card, not all the powers that hero has absorbed. But it's probably too complicated and potentially problematic for a tourney like this. Still, I think it's something that could be tweaked for balanced competitive play. Maybe you can only absorb one other hero's card's powers at a time?
Though your +1 attack die isn't a bad idea. Maybe +1 life as another option?

[Taeblewalker]

Though your +1 attack die isn't a bad idea. Maybe +1 life as another option?

That could work. The first kill could be Attack, and the second could be Life, the third Defense. You should probably designate only one hero from your army who can receive this benefit, calling him your "highlander." It need not be MacDirk! :lol:

[Xn F M]

Sorry it's taken so long to get this posted. I got a bit burned out after work the other day and spent the last couple days moving.

Anyway as I've mentioned elsewhere I've been thinking about doing generic scenarios that can be applied to any balanced map, something like Warhammer 40k scenarios. Breakthrough missions (hard to do on a Heroscape map), Hit and Runs, Assassinations, Escalating conflicts, et c. Depending on how busy I am next week with school starting up I should be able to get something drawn up for some of them, but for starters:

Breakthrough: Move your army off of the enemy's side of the map. This would obviously need custom designed maps, and a bit of thought would have to go into balancing the scenario rules.

Hit and Run: This could potentially be done on any map essentially an attacking player would have to eliminate a certain % of the defending army and then move off the battle field with a predesignated % of his army.

Assassins: Each player is required to draft a certain number of unique heros (3?). If a player can eliminate a designated hero in the opponent's army, they receive extra vp's. The designated hero could be determined randomly, or by one of the players. (I'm pretty sure there is a scenario with this premise on the site or in one of the rulebooks somewhere that could easily be adapted.)

Escalating Conflicts: As a few other people have mentioned a scenario using large reserve forces could have an interesting effect on army composition and tactics.


I have a castle design with a scenario that I think is balanced. However I don't have a map to put it on. I'll try to remember to get some VS renders and such and get the work in progress posted to my map thread. Unfortunately I don't have room where I'm currently living to really play around with map builds and I'm not good at using VS for this kind of thing. Anyways, the short version of the scenario: attacker gets 50% more points than the defender and a 24 hex start zone, defender gets a 15(I think, I'm not on my computer atm to check the design) on the floor of the castle, the castle has a stair inspired by Doc's maps to get two-hex non-fliers to the wall walks. It's a simple siege, but I think with that castle design it should be functional.

[IAmBatman]

The "breakthrough" idea is a fun one that might be a good place to include those pesky castle doors without the accompanying castles (or height advantage!). Just stick a castle door at the back of either start zone and say those are the only ways off the map ...

[ollie]

Obsidians vs. Drudge. Two player kill 'em all. Both roll the D20; highest gets to pick Obsidians x2 or Drudge x4 (and the other player gets the other option). Select an additional 340pts from your pool to create a 540pt army. Fight to the death.

Suggested map:

Halo Of Ashes (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=642)

http://www.heroscapers.com/downloads//haloofashes2_Me9.jpg

Of course, any swamp 'n' lava map should work (or do something similar with Dzu-Teh x2 and Drudge x3 on a snow and swamp map).

[Taeblewalker]

I really like this idea, Ollie. I have a few other fixed army scenarios, and I wasn't sure they'd go over well, but later on I'll post some. One involved Brunak, Syvarris and 2x Aubriens attacking into a cave system (map edges were LOS blocking walls) against 2x Obsidians, Marro Warriors, Me-Burq-Sa and something else for 50 points. It was a flag capture scenario, and there was both water and lava in the cave (for water clone and lava throw).

[Xn F M]

Ollie, while I was checking out another thread I stumbled on something that might be appropriate for this type of tourney. AliasQTip has a scenario that is essentially a standard skirmish, but uses a tiny battlefield (8 hexes x 10 hexes) and smaller than normal armies.

Iceberg (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1003)and the scenario included seems like it might be an interesting/appropriate inclusion into this type of tournament.

AliasQTips's scenario thread. (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=22124)

[killercactus]

I don't know if this would be workable.... maybe as a tournament final or something. But, as far as a thematic scenario, I think this would be really cool:

Player 1:

Ulginesh - 150
Sonlen (considered a Wizard instead of Archmage) - 310
Emirroon - 390
Chardris - 480
Jorhdawn - 580
Arkmer - 630
Kyntela - 650
Acolarh - 760
Morsbane - 860
Theracus - 900

vs.

Player 2:

Khosumet - 75
Wolves of Badru x5 - 475
Anubian Wolves x5 - 850
Dumutef Guard x2 - 900

Player 1 gets a Glyph of Brandar representing the Dire Stone. The starting zones are 24 hexes, so a bunch of Player 2's units start off the map. They can use their first movement point to move onto an unoccupied space of Player 2's starting zone from off of the map. Player 1 wins if they can get the Dire Stone to a marked point on the map (closer to, but not adjacent to Player 2's starting zone) and be unengaged at the end of the turn, or by destroying Player 2's army. Player 2 wins by destroying all the Elf Wizards (they can ignore Theracus if they want). Each player could add 100 points of reinforcements to make 1000 point armies I suppose.

Another one that might be cool:

Utgar, planning a surprise attack into Jandar's territory through the Thaelnik Tundra, first needs to eliminate the Dzu-Teh monsters that inhabit the frozen wasteland. In order to keep his element of surprise, this needs to be done quietly.

Knowing that his troops aren't the most subtle, he contacts the cold and cunning Vydar, and offers him a truce in the war and a large sum of money if he can eliminate the Dzu-Teh quietly. Vydar accepts, and so sends his best hunter, Dund the fearsome Doggin, along with his top operative, Agent Skahen and James Murphy - a lawman that feels like, for some reason, he missed his calling as a renowned explorer and scientist, into the Tundra to eliminate the Dzu-Teh

However, the merciful Major Q10 has learned of the plot in Vydar's camp, and feels sorry for the kind-hearted Jandar. He will aid the Dzu-Teh in their battle.

Player 1

Major Q10 - 150
Dzu-Teh x4 - 450
?? of Reinforcements - ??

vs.

Player 2

Dund - 110
Agent Skahen - 230
James Murphy - 305
145 of reinforcements (Utgar or Vydar only) - 450

Player 2 can win the game just by killing all of the Dzu-Teh. Only having 145 of reinforcements eliminates most ranged special attacks (except Murphy's, obviously, and Laglor), giving the Dzu-Teh good use of Glacial Camouflage. Obviously this would need to be a snow/ice map, and Player 1 should start within the snow and ice.

[ollie]

It's official: it's possible to have a fun successful scenario tournament. Nyys and Bengi (and their team of scenario designers and playtesters) did a great job to put on Battle of the Border 3 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=29073) yesterday.

Scenarios:

Treasure Hunt (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1050624#post1050624) by DarkMage7a
Marro Mayhem (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1050637#post1050637) by Bengi
Stone Statues (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1050691#post1050691) by Bengi
Marvel Rumble (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1052408#post1052408) by Bengi
Last Night on Valhalla by tomcollins2000
Jail Break (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1055151#post1055151) by tomcollins2000
Gorillas in the Mist (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1055471#post1055471) by Bengi
Underdark Springs (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1055601#post1055601) by Bengi
Escape the Lair (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1059601#post1059601) by nyys
Water World (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1060439#post1060439) by nyys
Deathwalker Gauntlet (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1060470#post1060470) by nyys
Ambush (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1063327#post1063327) by tomcollins2000
Heated Battle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1063328#post1063328) by DarkMage7a
Frozen In Time (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1063330#post1063330) by nyys
Shrine Skirmish (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2227) by Bengi
Zombie Island (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2225) by Monkeyclops/Bengi
The Great MacDirk Escape (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2224) by Velenne/nyys
Bigfoot Battle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=2221) by Bengi

Battle Reports (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=29987).

Each scenario lasted six rounds. This worked nicely for time (we played six games each in just over six hours). There was a total of six points available for each game, so you could win 6-0 or 4-2 or whatever and it was possible to tie 3-3. Placement was decided by total points from your five highest scores. A success all-round.

In terms of structure, I'd have prefered win/loss as the primary criterion. This would have worked equally as well as far as format and scheduling goes. This isn't really any different to the conversations about using total points killed as the primary ranking mechanism so I won't rehearse it all again here. Also, these scenarios would have been very well suited to the Rolling Rumble format, and the fixed round limit would have reduced the problems Dok mentioned from one of his tournaments of "stalemates".

Anyway, I recommend that you steal their ideas, both on scenarios and format, and run your own scenario tournament. At the very least you should check out and play some scenarios.