500 point armies = The new standard?

[Velenne]

The addition of flagbearers and our ever-expanding collections have given rise to a demand for larger armies. Many of the larger-valued figures simply aren't seeing much play in the normal 400 points games. So my question to the community is this:

Shall we make 500 points the new standard for armies?

[ZODGILLA!]

That makes perfect sense to me.

[player_of_volleyball]

got my vote

[Grungebob]

:lastweek: We have been going this direction for a while now :rofl:

[Chimpy]

But do we have an official ruling?

EDIT: That means: Will the Gencon tourneys be 500 points?

[Grungebob]

But do we have an official ruling?

EDIT: That means: Will the Gencon tourneys be 500 points?There are no official tourneys yet, but all of my tourneys I am helping to run are going to have at least 500 pts.

[ortimus]

I think that 500 pts will ad awhole new level or options. I'm all for the idea.

[K/H_Addict]

i think it should be a bit higher than 500, like maybe 600 or 650.


that vote under "no" was mine

[ninthdoc]

If 500 is all I can take, load me up! I'd prefer 600, though. ;)

[Josef]

Yeah, I like 500. With 400 we have less room for the large figs/Support figs. I just don't like going to high, 700 is way to much for me, but then again I'm a slug at perchasing expanstions

[Ketch]

600 points is a long game...
500 points is too.. I voted for it to allow use of bigger units to be more feasable.
Plus this way we can see more varied combos instead of Krav + 300 points. (or whatever the other popular units are)

However I definately do not want to go any higher than 500 for tournys... maybe some odd special high point tournies.. but then games drag, and you get bigger problems of starting zones and too few turns to number of useless units ratio.

I LOVE high point games for fun at home, but tournies in general is not the place for it IMO.

[feekonea]

I voted no.


The reason I dont like bigger games is the fact that peaple rely on power units more than synergy. I like 400 because it leaves so many options for armies, and also gives us the challenge of building "the one." I think adding just 100 more points will make a completely different effect on the tourny armies.

[playa1]

I voted no.


The reason I dont like bigger games is the fact that peaple rely on power units more than synergy. I like 400 because it leaves so many options for armies, and also gives us the challenge of building "the one." I think adding just 100 more points will make a completely different effect on the tourny armies.

honestly, i see some truth to this, but I have often found certain units are virtually unusable in 400 point games. Take the Gladiators for instance. 400 point limits really prevent Ornak from being taken. No way you could use Ornak with Krug or Taelord or Grimnak and still have points left to take advantage of any synergy with Gruts. You cannot build a good Kyrie army with only 400 points. You could take Concan and 2 Sentinels (300 points) But if you want to add Raelin or Saylind, then you are left with an unusuable 20 points, so then you are faced with the choice to lose a sentinel squad. Fine, you still will end up with odd leftovers if you choose another Kyrie hero or two. The bottom line is, the 400 points will limit you significantly from building armies and using certain types. Considering you need to make sure you have a ranged unit (a squad at least) and at least a strong attack hero or squad, your choices become very limited. We all know what it is like to try to build an army around your favorite squad or hero. It is just really hard to include your monks (for instance) and build a well rounded army. Certainly it is possible, but how many choices do you have to include a good ranged unit with them and a strong hero or dragon and still be able to include them. You end up dumping them for the Krav Maga (which everyone always picks) or Airborne Elite so that you can keep a strong ranged group.
With 500 points, you can include a favorite squad or two and still build a well-rounded army around it in spite of its weaknesses. I'm sure we can make a list of units that are virtually unusuable in a 400 point army: Braxas, Spartacus, Taelord, etc. -- sure there are those that can prove me wrong and show me good armies with these units (I like a Braxas/Roman Archer group myself) but your choices are severely limited. A Taelord/Minion army is pretty small since you'll have to add a ranged squad in order to make if feasible. And then how many choices do you have -- perhaps marro, perhaps Krav, but no way are you going to include your favorite elf because you'd have 30 leftover and you'd throw in rats or Guilty (because you'll have to in order to stay competitive). How many 400 point armies include Guilty because he was leftover. He gets way too much play becuse he is the cheapest unique. Do you see what I mean?
Bottom line -- 500 point armies allow more units to be included and more combinations of units to be competitively used.
(I apologize for the length of this -- I don't usually rant)

[Oprime]

In N.E. we've found 500 points to be preferable for a tourny setting.

Having played in only two tournys and one local "game day" 500 points seems ideal.

The first was 400 and the other two were 500. After playing the 400 point's, one of the first topics of discussion afterward was, should we have done 500?, and we didn't see much of a difference time wise for game play after the one in RI.

I voted 500

[Jormi_Boced]

We always change up our points. anywhere between 400 and 600 seems to work pretty well.

[ZODGILLA!]

Our group often plays with large point totals, usually 1200 points is the standard. We get one "rack" of order markers for every 400 points, so with 1200 p you get three racks of order markers. We then assign them to our troops however we want.

For a furious battle, we take one rack for every 300 p, this eliminates the stand and stare effect, this is my favorite configuration.

[CornPuff]

No standard is the new standard. Every tourney should have different point totals so that the same canned armies aren't seen too often.

[Jormi_Boced]

No standard is the new standard. Every tourney should have different point totals so that the same canned armies aren't seen too often.

Exactly!

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

(Sung to the tune of Sammy Hagar's 'I Can't Drive 55')

I can't draft 400 poooooints!
:rock:

[DoesntCompute]

Our group often plays with large point totals, usually 1200 points is the standard. We get one "rack" of order markers for every 400 points, so with 1200 p you get three racks of order markers. We then assign them to our troops however we want.

For a furious battle, we take one rack for every 300 p, this eliminates the stand and stare effect, this is my favorite configuration.

Again this idea. What difference does having extra turn markers have on the game? The ONLY differences I can see is that you roll for initiative less often and you have less tactical flexibility. Nobody has ever been able to sufficiently explain to me why they do this.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

The ONLY differences I can see is that you roll for initiative less often and you have less tactical flexibility. Nobody has ever been able to sufficiently explain to me why they do this.
We do two X markers and decide on the fourth turn which to use. I like the flexibility in strategy and rolling initiative just a little less often.

[Codeman]

No standard is the new standard. Every tourney should have different point totals so that the same canned armies aren't seen too often.

Exactly!

Exactly.. what I was going to say about CornPuff post... you beat me to it.

[DoesntCompute]

The ONLY differences I can see is that you roll for initiative less often and you have less tactical flexibility. Nobody has ever been able to sufficiently explain to me why they do this.
We do two X markers and decide on the fourth turn which to use. I like the flexibility in strategy and rolling initiative just a little less often.

Using the X does add flexibility. We allow X to replace one of the other markers for just that reason. What I don't get is what adding additional sets of markers does for you.

[Codeman]

Standard are great and are needed for many parts of the HS game, this is one area they are not needed. It make no sense to me to limit or set the point value across the board. You will be limiting part of your strategy ...your enjoyment of the game if you don’t get to make up various armies to fit the map and the point values. Several of you out there believe there should be a “ standard point value for an army” please explain why this is needed or a good thing.

[monkeyfish]

I'm open to adding more points to my games to add more options.

[GaryLASQ]

i like 520. there are a bunch of good combos that can be done with this number. (guess i should post a few...)

plus if your army isn't quite 520 you get the warm fuzzy of still being at or slightly above 500, not 400 something. :)

[Grungebob]

Standard are great and are needed for many parts of the HS game, this is one area they are not needed. It make no sense to me to limit or set the point value across the board. You will be limiting part of your strategy ...your enjoyment of the game if you don’t get to make up various armies to fit the map and the point values. Several of you out there believe there should be a “ standard point value for an army” please explain why this is needed or a good thing.It's simple really. If there is a standard that is used in the majority of tournaments, then preparing (or not preparing) is that much easier. Scheduling the rounds is easier. Figuring up VPs is easier. Having set deployment zones that are appropriate for the set points limit is much easier. I could go on, but this is all obvious. I don't see that there are any negatives in choosing an alternative points structure for a tournament, but I see many many positives for a standard.... Heck most games have a standard, it's handy. Also when there is a standard most players will think up combos that work for that point limit. They will have a few of these in their heads. When you show up at a game store and get a pick-up game it is faster because the other player already is prepared for a X00 point game.

[ZODGILLA!]

Our group often plays with large point totals, usually 1200 points is the standard. We get one "rack" of order markers for every 400 points, so with 1200 p you get three racks of order markers. We then assign them to our troops however we want.

For a furious battle, we take one rack for every 300 p, this eliminates the stand and stare effect, this is my favorite configuration.

Again this idea. What difference does having extra turn markers have on the game? The ONLY differences I can see is that you roll for initiative less often and you have less tactical flexibility. Nobody has ever been able to sufficiently explain to me why they do this.Because I am playing on a huge battlefield with a large amount of troops and I don't want them all standing around staring while four figures do battle.

I roll initiative just the same as always. (Not sure what initiative has to do with it?)

How can using more of my army be tactically limiting?

[dickflea]

Could be quite useful with FBs being at least 100 pts.

[Jormi_Boced]

Standard are great and are needed for many parts of the HS game, this is one area they are not needed. It make no sense to me to limit or set the point value across the board. You will be limiting part of your strategy ...your enjoyment of the game if you don’t get to make up various armies to fit the map and the point values. Several of you out there believe there should be a “ standard point value for an army” please explain why this is needed or a good thing.It's simple really. If there is a standard that is used in the majority of tournaments, then preparing (or not preparing) is that much easier. Scheduling the rounds is easier. Figuring up VPs is easier. Having set deployment zones that are appropriate for the set points limit is much easier. I could go on, but this is all obvious. I don't see that there are any negatives in choosing an alternative points structure for a tournament, but I see many many positives for a standard.... Heck most games have a standard, it's handy. Also when there is a standard most players will think up combos that work for that point limit. They will have a few of these in their heads. When you show up at a game store and get a pick-up game it is faster because the other player already is prepared for a X00 point game.

Simple doesn't necessarily equal fun.

[Grungebob]

Standard are great and are needed for many parts of the HS game, this is one area they are not needed. It make no sense to me to limit or set the point value across the board. You will be limiting part of your strategy ...your enjoyment of the game if you don’t get to make up various armies to fit the map and the point values. Several of you out there believe there should be a “ standard point value for an army” please explain why this is needed or a good thing.It's simple really. If there is a standard that is used in the majority of tournaments, then preparing (or not preparing) is that much easier. Scheduling the rounds is easier. Figuring up VPs is easier. Having set deployment zones that are appropriate for the set points limit is much easier. I could go on, but this is all obvious. I don't see that there are any negatives in choosing an alternative points structure for a tournament, but I see many many positives for a standard.... Heck most games have a standard, it's handy. Also when there is a standard most players will think up combos that work for that point limit. They will have a few of these in their heads. When you show up at a game store and get a pick-up game it is faster because the other player already is prepared for a X00 point game.

Simple doesn't necessarily equal fun.Neither does awkward, complex, or nonstandard. Besides this isn't an us vs them attittude at least on my part. No reason to refute my statement. We have always used standards and they don't seem to inhibit fun, and like anything else, are completely optional. In other words, if you are running an event then feel free to do whatever you want and have at it, but there is also nothing at all wrong with having a good old fashion standard either. When Heroscape first came out one of the most frequent questions on .net was "How many points makes for a good game" We discussed it alot back then. Folks settled on 400 points as a nice sized game.

[GaryLASQ]

It's simple really. If there is a standard that is used in the majority of tournaments, then preparing (or not preparing) is that much easier. Scheduling the rounds is easier. Figuring up VPs is easier. Having set deployment zones that are appropriate for the set points limit is much easier. I could go on, but this is all obvious. I don't see that there are any negatives in choosing an alternative points structure for a tournament, but I see many many positives for a standard.... Heck most games have a standard, it's handy. Also when there is a standard most players will think up combos that work for that point limit. They will have a few of these in their heads. When you show up at a game store and get a pick-up game it is faster because the other player already is prepared for a X00 point game.i completely agree with all the above. while it's true one of the great things about HS is the fact that it is so flexible with the modular terrain and scenario creation, this strength is also a bit of a weakness. standards and defaults are great time savers and provide a frame work. the popularity of Chess is proof enough. even Monopoly with its thousands of flavors is proof that familiar rules and structure sells.

i have no problem with a fan-based set of tournament parameters for the "Heroscapers Tournament" scenario; which includes army size, glyph selection, etc. for this scenario startzone location (not size) and glyph location (not glyph choices) would be dependent on each battlefield. a collection of tried and tested battlefields that work well with the tournament scenario will grow as time goes on, and the popular ones will stand the test of time.

this would be a good thing, imo.

[Tiberius]

I voted yes because it does open more variety as others stated above, however I dont think we actually need a standard. I like it when the person putting on the tournament says, here is what we are doing and for how many points because it sounds fun. And that is great to me. I like variety and the challenge of trying to come up with something new.

[GaryLASQ]

as GB already pointed out, we don't need standards. typically, standards are not necessary. they are merely helpful, for the sake of efficiency and familiarity. the group here can just create a "Heroscapers Tournament Scenario" along with some approved tournament maps. tournament organizers can use it or not use it. simple.

don't think of it as a standard. think of it as a guideline.

[spider_poison]

I don't really care about the point totals for any event. As long as the decided point total for an event is announced well ahead of time, I'm cool with whatever. But I do think that a one hour time limit should be a standard in Heroscape. Anything more than that just starts to cause problems with more participants. Also, I think most players should be able to finish their game (one army being completely eliminated) within the allowed time. Therefore, I think the maximum point total should be somewhere around 600, but definitely no more than 650. Lots of players can easily finish a 650 point game in an hour, but there are many players who can't.

[Codeman]

Standard are great and are needed for many parts of the HS game, this is one area they are not needed. It make no sense to me to limit or set the point value across the board. You will be limiting part of your strategy ...your enjoyment of the game if you don’t get to make up various armies to fit the map and the point values. Several of you out there believe there should be a “ standard point value for an army” please explain why this is needed or a good thing.It's simple really. If there is a standard that is used in the majority of tournaments, then preparing (or not preparing) is that much easier. Scheduling the rounds is easier. Figuring up VPs is easier. Having set deployment zones that are appropriate for the set points limit is much easier. I could go on, but this is all obvious. I don't see that there are any negatives in choosing an alternative points structure for a tournament, but I see many many positives for a standard.... Heck most games have a standard, it's handy. Also when there is a standard most players will think up combos that work for that point limit. They will have a few of these in their heads. When you show up at a game store and get a pick-up game it is faster because the other player already is prepared for a X00 point game.

Ok .. I’m enlighten a little bit… I believe I see you point, however I don’t totally agree as the tournaments posted on this site are usually a month to several months in advance….so saving time to put out an army does not really come into play. Even in a causal game it doesn’t take that long to put together an army based off a random number. Granted it may not be the best army you could put together over time but again I said this was a causal (get together just to play) game for fun.

GaryLASQ probably said it best when he referred to “The 500” as a “ guideline “ –vs- a standard. I can live with that …. Even better would be guideline of 500 + or – 100 point army for a battle with a one hour time limit.

[Grungebob]

I would like to see more spontinaety in tourneys. I remember when I was big into Warhammer we would put tourneys together on the day of. I remember one Saturday at the game store I was talking to the owner. I looked and it was a pretty busy day. I told him it would have been a good day for a tourney and he said that he had some extra product for prizes so I turned and hollered to the crowd: Anybody want to do a mini tourney?!! First thing answered was Standard 1500 point armies? I said Yep and everybody said yep and the next thing you know we had a nice little tourney going. We play Hewroscape at a game store that is somewhat central in this area. Our new thing is to just show up on the weekend. It is easy to just jump into a game without having to deal with figuring up points, map size etc..

[Jormi_Boced]

I would like to see more spontinaety in tourneys. I remember when I was big into Warhammer we would put tourneys together on the day of. I remember one Saturday at the game store I was talking to the owner. I looked and it was a pretty busy day. I told him it would have been a good day for a tourney and he said that he had some extra product for prizes so I turned and hollered to the crowd: Anybody want to do a mini tourney?!! First thing answered was Standard 1500 point armies? I said Yep and everybody said yep and the next thing you know we had a nice little tourney going. We play Hewroscape at a game store that is somewhat central in this area. Our new thing is to just show up on the weekend. It is easy to just jump into a game without having to deal with figuring up points, map size etc..

Granted a Heroscape army is a little bit easier to build than a Warhammer one:P

[CupidsArt]

I said Aye, because the 500 pointer games seems to better cover our current unit selection that we have.

The price raise is of course linked to the FB and Huge figures IMO. We all want to run a Braxas or Jotun but we don't want to have to limit ourselves to just using those and maybe 2 squads, BLECH!

Even though I said Aye, I don't believe that 500 should be considered "STANTARD". I believe it should be considered "COMMON" or something HS folk will choose often.

Having a standard point size could be fun but I would hate to see folk out there not exploring other point avenues.

A fun point size game to play is a best 2 out of three 6D roll.

Yeah you might have to play a few 100 or 200 point games but it's a fun way to mix things up, :D

[Grungebob]

I would like to see more spontinaety in tourneys. I remember when I was big into Warhammer we would put tourneys together on the day of. I remember one Saturday at the game store I was talking to the owner. I looked and it was a pretty busy day. I told him it would have been a good day for a tourney and he said that he had some extra product for prizes so I turned and hollered to the crowd: Anybody want to do a mini tourney?!! First thing answered was Standard 1500 point armies? I said Yep and everybody said yep and the next thing you know we had a nice little tourney going. We play Hewroscape at a game store that is somewhat central in this area. Our new thing is to just show up on the weekend. It is easy to just jump into a game without having to deal with figuring up points, map size etc..

Granted a Heroscape army is a little bit easier to build than a Warhammer one:PBut, I take it you understood the anecdote. Your just splitting hairs here.. :P

[deadeyedan42]

Aye lad! Ih' bet tha thu biggu 'amys could elp git thos biggu units in thar. and it could leave a bit mor rume for commons as well me boy! Ih always us' tha bigun's in my armys, like Jotun, an' Braxas.

[Jormi_Boced]

I would like to see more spontinaety in tourneys. I remember when I was big into Warhammer we would put tourneys together on the day of. I remember one Saturday at the game store I was talking to the owner. I looked and it was a pretty busy day. I told him it would have been a good day for a tourney and he said that he had some extra product for prizes so I turned and hollered to the crowd: Anybody want to do a mini tourney?!! First thing answered was Standard 1500 point armies? I said Yep and everybody said yep and the next thing you know we had a nice little tourney going. We play Hewroscape at a game store that is somewhat central in this area. Our new thing is to just show up on the weekend. It is easy to just jump into a game without having to deal with figuring up points, map size etc..

Granted a Heroscape army is a little bit easier to build than a Warhammer one:PBut, I take it you understood the anecdote. Your just splitting hairs here.. :P

Well I understand the anectdote, but my point is that I could announce a 465 point Heroscape army, and everyone in the room could build an army and be ready to play in the tournament in a very short amount of time. You can't do that with Warhammer.

[Grungebob]

I would like to see more spontinaety in tourneys. I remember when I was big into Warhammer we would put tourneys together on the day of. I remember one Saturday at the game store I was talking to the owner. I looked and it was a pretty busy day. I told him it would have been a good day for a tourney and he said that he had some extra product for prizes so I turned and hollered to the crowd: Anybody want to do a mini tourney?!! First thing answered was Standard 1500 point armies? I said Yep and everybody said yep and the next thing you know we had a nice little tourney going. We play Hewroscape at a game store that is somewhat central in this area. Our new thing is to just show up on the weekend. It is easy to just jump into a game without having to deal with figuring up points, map size etc..

Granted a Heroscape army is a little bit easier to build than a Warhammer one:PBut, I take it you understood the anecdote. Your just splitting hairs here.. :P

Well I understand the anectdote, but my point is that I could announce a 465 point Heroscape army, and everyone in the room could build an army and be ready to play in the tournament in a very short amount of time. You can't do that with Warhammer.You're assuming that everyone is going to have a huge collection with them. When we play on our lunch we usually have just an army or two with us. When I go to the game store I don't bring my whole collection.

[Jormi_Boced]

I guess if I am planning on playing Heroscape, I have all my figs with me. I only bring terrain if it is necessary.

[Aldin]

500 does help draft those high point heroes. For 225 Jotun, it is the difference between 175 and 275 remaining points. I can make an army core with 275, but 175 is really pushing it.

~Aldin

[K/H_Addict]

i think it should be 600. I played a couple 600 point games a few weekends ago and it worked exactly as i planned (except Q9 eating my whole army), and everyone was satisfied

[Codeman]

i think it should be 600. I played a couple 600 point games a few weekends ago and it worked exactly as i planned (except Q9 eating my whole army), and everyone was satisfied

Well that does fall into the 500 + or - 100 guideline :D

[Messenger]

500 does help draft those high point heroes. For 225 Jotun, it is the difference between 175 and 275 remaining points. I can make an army core with 275, but 175 is really pushing it.

~Aldin
Yeah, what he said.

In a tournament structure, what happens as the point value increases?
1) The luck factor decreases as a 'few good/bad rolls' are less beneficial/detrimental, overall.
2) As the luck factor decreases skill in army building and game-play-tactics becomes more critical.
3) Tournament results will correspond more to these skills than to 'luck', giving an accurate reflection of who is the better player.

The question then becomes, how big should the armies be? Like Spider-poison said, a one hour limit rule for tournament play seems right. 500min-600max should suffice

Agree? Disagree?

[Codeman]

500 does help draft those high point heroes. For 225 Jotun, it is the difference between 175 and 275 remaining points. I can make an army core with 275, but 175 is really pushing it.

~Aldin
Yeah, what he said.

In a tournament structure, what happens as the point value increases?
1) The luck factor decreases as a 'few good/bad rolls' are less beneficial/detrimental, overall.
2) As the luck factor decreases skill in army building and game-play-tactics becomes more critical.
3) Tournament results will correspond more to these skills than to 'luck', giving an accurate reflection of who is the better player.

The question then becomes, how big should the armies be? Like Spider-poison said, a one hour limit rule for tournament play seems right. 500min-600max should suffice

Agree? Disagree?

I don’t enough experience in tournament with that size of army to agree or disagree… However, from past tournaments I’ve been associated with my best guess is 600 points for an hour would really be pushing it. It is my belief that in tournament play you should have most of your players ( 80%-90%) finish within the time period. If too many groups of people are still playing when time expires and you then have to decide the match by points… I just feel this is not a good situation.

Again after saying this…. I do not know for sure that 600 would be an issue, but again I think it would be pushing the limits.

I do prefer playing the larger armies ( 475 on up )

[spider_poison]

It is my belief that in tournament play you should have most of your players ( 80%-90%) finish within the time period. If too many groups of people are still playing when time expires and you then have to decide the match by points… I just feel this is not a good situation.

Again after saying this…. I do not know for sure that 600 would be an issue, but again I think it would be pushing the limits.

I do prefer playing the larger armies ( 475 on up )

My thoughts exactly. I don't know the exact percentages of the people that completely finished their games at the TTO, but there were usually 2 or 3 battles still in progress after an hour at 490 points (about 85% of everyone finished). Then again, it seemed like those who used the full hour did so more than once, so maybe pressing the point total higher wouldn't really affect most players.

[Grungebob]

We experience similar results. I would say that <10% of the games go all the way to the clock. The same players over and over.

[kenjib]

Yeah, I think I'm one of those slowpokes. I can't stop myself from predicting out several moves in advance for everything I do.

[CornPuff]

I'm a slowpoke too. Against an evenly matched opponent I usually hit time and have to count points. This may be a threadjack, but what do other games do to quicken play? There's the infamous chess clock, but I don't know what else. For some, playing quickly isn't an option.

I would worry about games with over about 530 points. I think it would slow things down.

Fast playing armies are heavily bonded and/or with huge figures. I think not playing these armies at the tourneys I've attended has slowed me down.

[Grungebob]

Well CP in our last tourney the guy who won it was also a slow player (sorry Wisinger). Anyway, the way that tournament organizers deal with it is to reduce map size, and reduce the amount of deployment spaces. These two limts usually serve to reduce the amount of time players take to finish a game.

[GaryLASQ]

I would worry about games with over about 530 points. I think it would slow things down.agreed. like i said before, 520 is the magic number! :thumbsup:

[Messenger]

This may be a threadjack, but what do other games do to quicken play? There's the infamous chess clock, but I don't know what else. For some, playing quickly isn't an option.
BEGIN THREADJACK:

I hesitate to explore this thought as it introduces more 'rules', but what about the situation where I have a point advantage over my opponent and I notice that time is running down, say less than ten minutes. Now suppose I take extra time to 'calculate my next move' or 'rotate my figures' or 'take another drink of soda' or...you get my drift. What then?

60 minutes / 2 players = 30 min per player
30 min / 10 rounds = 3 minutes per player per round
This time constraint ensures ten full rounds of play but gives each player only one minute per turn(!!!). Not enough IMO.

Now consider this:

Two minutes per turn (x3 turns per round x2 players)=12 minute rounds
or five rounds per hour minimum. Is this enough rounds to complete a battle? Maybe, maybe not. (depends on how Braxas is rolling :wink: )

Here's my proposal. Imposing time limits early in the game is troublesome, because there are so many factors to consider while the battle is beginning. But to solve the 'end-game sandbag' scenario try this: at the 'twelve minute remaining' mark start the 'two-minute turn' clock. By this time there should be fewer armies left, fewer decisions to think through, etc, etc. This gives each player three turns to finish up. Thoughts?

END THREADJACK

[Tiberius]

As long as there is a time limit, I dont think the point limit matters that much. Because after a certain time, you count up points and the more points is the winner. If you have more fun with more points, but hate long games, I hope you are not a completist.

[Codeman]

This may be a threadjack, but what do other games do to quicken play?

This certainly will not fix “ slow play “ but it was my attempt to address it. At the Tree Town Open everyone got a goodie bag and one of the items in the bag was a welcome letter, within this letter I had this statement:

"Note: there is no time limit between moves, Please take the time you need, but don’t waste time or go into a delay game, do be competive , but also be courtesy and have good sportsmanship."

[Codeman]

As long as there is a time limit, I dont think the point limit matters that much. Because after a certain time, you count up points and the more points is the winner. If you have more fun with more points, but hate long games, I hope you are not a completist.

True...and that is what happens to the two or three tables that haven't finished. My point was I believe most people would like to conclude the battle than have it come down to points.

A side note: Having teams finish prior to the time limit does help the tourney run smoother as the next pairings can be put in order during this down time and then the T.D. only has to put in the last 4 or 6 card in order during the last minute prior to the next round.

[Cherubim1979]

I personally like the 'Standard/Guideline' of 500pts. As mentioned in previous posts, this allows the use of larger units and doesn't really impact the game time to much from the previous 400pt. armies.

I think that the time issue when dealing with the difference between 400 vs. 500 point armies is the players playing the armies not so much the additional points, again as mentioned in previous posts.. a slow player will remain a slow player and same with a fast player no matter how many points you choose to use.... now obviously as you go higher in points the larger the armies will become and therefore more time it will take even the fast players to complete a game so I would imagine that going over 500 points would begin to cause a time problem.

At least that my 2cents.

[Buffrat]

I think that we should goal toward 600 or 700 points.

The reason is that people are starting to build huge castle or bridge maps. It seems like the new craze, so bigger armies go on bigger maps.

[Cherubim1979]

I think that we should goal toward 600 or 700 points.

The reason is that people are starting to build huge castle or bridge maps. It seems like the new craze, so bigger armies go on bigger maps.

I agree that the bigger the map the more points are feesible, however, the standard/guideline of 500 points is more for tournaments or compititions, but for your games played outside of those, the point counts can be whatever you desire.

[Morghul]

Last day i've made a game of 550 pts...and after reflexion it was really fun...but next time it will be 600 for sure...we were 1 on 1.

[Ketch]

I think that we should goal toward 600 or 700 points.

The reason is that people are starting to build huge castle or bridge maps. It seems like the new craze, so bigger armies go on bigger maps.

I agree that the bigger the map the more points are feesible, however, the standard/guideline of 500 points is more for tournaments or compititions, but for your games played outside of those, the point counts can be whatever you desire.

This is what I like to preach as well.
During the month before the tournament all we did was 400 point army practice nights.

But as soon as it was over, we played some crazier large army, big maps etc. I love to do huge armies and pick ones that have little chance of winning, but to have a lot of fun and exploit cool combos (though they may not be the best).
But IMHO, I don't think this works in a tournament setting. I think a change from 400 -> 500 *could* be good, but I can't say because I have not been to a 500 pt tourny.

[gamjuven]

My games are usually refected upon what map we're playing on, how long we plan to play, and how many people. I would say for a tournament, 500 is probably the largest you can go. Anything more and the games would last too long. I like 500 more than 400 simply because it allwos a wider range of figures to be played for a wider range of armies. I don't want to just play an orc army or viper army all the time. I like it when someone puts in Charos or something. Plus, 500 pt armies allwos for some flag bearer options that would be there unless you did a Jandar army that can still use the flag bearer even on small pt games.

[Messenger]

I like 500 more than 400 simply because it allwos a wider range of figures to be played for a wider range of armies.
Larger armies put the heroes back in Heroscape. (and gives the ghouls more to steal :reaper: mwuahaha!!!)

[Codeman]

I think that we should goal toward 600 or 700 points.

The reason is that people are starting to build huge castle or bridge maps. It seems like the new craze, so bigger armies go on bigger maps.

I agree that the bigger the map the more points are feesible, however, the standard/guideline of 500 points is more for tournaments or compititions, but for your games played outside of those, the point counts can be whatever you desire.

Exactly..I agree... that is why I was against a Standard ( Not that I think HS would implement one ). If someone could convince me that we needed something ... I would agree with a guildlne of 500 + or - 100. This guildline would be more useful for tournament purposes on smaller maps. People who play on bigger maps can agree on an army size based on the map and time they have. All tournaments I'm aware of have posted their army size a good month or more ahead of the the tourney so I don't see an issue.