100% Theoryscape

[Toad Rocket]

Originally Posted by nyys

I don't know, no matter what you're always going to have good and bad units. Making one better (or more competitive) will make another less so. As one unit becomes a B, another drops to a C and so on... now you have Power Creep... possibly.

Actually that is a pretty good point. Though for some of the weakest units, say D and lower (maybe the C- group also) I dont see a small tweak really affecting most of the figures.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by Toad Rocket

Actually that is a pretty good point. Though for some of the weakest units, say D and lower (maybe the C- group also) I dont see a small tweak really affecting most of the figures.

Yeah, the lowest of the low getting a tweak I have no issue with, if nothing else than to make them less than dust collectors.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by nyys

I don't know, no matter what you're always going to have good and bad units. Making one better (or more competitive) will make another less so. As one unit becomes a B, another drops to a C and so on... now you have Power Creep... possibly.

I am not sure I agree with this. Some units just have fundamental design flaws. Even if you made Dund's D20 roll work on anything higher than 1, you still must throw away one of your own order markers in order to take away one of your opponents. Without a major shift - bonding + a D20 booster, I would think - Dund cannot get over this problem.

On the other hand, there are units that are fundamentally sound, but are brought down by one bad stat. A special attacks Tough for the G'nators would help the G'nators a bit, but would not severely damage the rankings of any unit I can think of. Do you seriously think such a minor adjustment would be enough to knock Kaemon Awa or Niflheim off of their high-tier perch?

EDIT: I should note that the G'nators "One bad stat" is their high cost, not the disappearance of tough once the special attacks come rolling. Still, if this was fixed, my point would stand- the G'nators and the Nakitas would get a boost, but there is not any one squad that would receive a serious hit in the rankings. Heroscape is not a zero-sums game.

[Sarpedon]

Greetings, everyone.

Over the weekend, while playing Heroscape, I had the chance to discuss the cost of units. The mainspring of the discussion was the apparent "overuse" of ranged units to the near exclusion of melee ones in competitive play. This led me to speculation, and before I knew it, I was full-blown blue-skying it gloriously over the endless fields of Theoryscape.

Ranged units, as we all know, have a far greater area of influence/threat. Thus, an Arrow Grut, has an area of influence far, far greater than that of a Blade Grut even though both have a move of 6. What is odd is that this (already daunting) advantage actually produces (at least) four others!

Firstly, it allows ranged units to pick and choose their targets. Melee units swarm a key target, but, should the target perish before all get to attack, very often two or more units are left with no opponent to strike. Ranged squad units can switch and acquire new targets as soon as the main one goes down.

Secondly, they can choose the order of targeting. If my 4th Mass. are in range of three Stingers, one of which is standing on the +1 Defense Glyph, I can first focus on the Stinger on the Glyph before moving on to the others. I can continue shooting that Stinger until all my attacks are spent. This is a great option that melee units could never even hope to match.

Thirdly, and related to the previous, Ranged units are far more efficient in terms of order markers. A melee unit must move from next to one target to next to another frequently having turns with no attack opportunities. Ranged units, once deployed, often do not need to move much, if at all, to acquire new targets and they rarely spend a turn without attacking. They, unlike melee units, do not have to worry nearly as much about crossing rivers, terrain, or obstructing each other's way to the goal because line of sight to the bull's eye is all that is required.

Finally, having to move less means that they can stay within the (defensive) auras of units such as Raelin. By not having to move into harm's way because they can shoot from afar and (as a consequence) being able to remain more protected, the survivability of these units, relative to melee, absolutely skyrockets! The best example of this is the way the Krav Maga Agents are almost always used.

It is intriguing to think how cheap melee units would have to be or how expensive ranged ones would have to become to be considered/drafted equally by tournament-goers. That the current prices are not correct in the opinion of most is made clear by the over-representation of ranged units in tournament armies. The answer may already exist: "heat of battle" tournaments. In these, players take turns placing their units anywhere on the board. This, however, may result in swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

[IAmBatman]

Um ... I think your post got cut off there.
I really don't think range > melee the way they used to. Road + Jungle Trees + LOS blockers = maps that really give melee figures an even playing field or even the advantage in a lot of cases.
If range is dominating competitive play still, it's b/c of one of two things - 1) poorly conceived maps or 2) the prevalance of meat shields to keep melee figures at bay.
So basically I'm saying it's not range that's the problem. It's Deathreavers.

[Devil's Advocate]

Ranged dominated before Deathreavers and would still dominate even if they disappeared. Deathreavers are currently overated anyways since they tie up limited start zone spaces and force people into taking more expensive heroes and squads which makes them more susceptible to a few bad rolls. The reason range will continue to dominate is that they get to attack first vs melee, they should get height since they control where the battling takes place, and in some cases canattack without fear of being engaged unless there is an initiative switch

[nyys]

For 40 points, Reavers are hardly overrated.

[Chimpy]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Um ... I think your post got cut off there.
I really don't think range > melee the way they used to. Road + Jungle Trees + LOS blockers = maps that really give melee figures an even playing field or even the advantage in a lot of cases.
If range is dominating competitive play still, it's b/c of one of two things - 1) poorly conceived maps or 2) the prevalance of meat shields to keep melee figures at bay.
So basically I'm saying it's not range that's the problem. It's Deathreavers.

I am unsure if this addresses the issues Sparedon raises.

Beyond the ability to kill someone before they can attack you, Sparedon says ranged units have four special advantages over melee types.

1. They can pick who they wish to attack.
2. They can choose what order to attack.
3. They are more OM efficient (i.e. they do not have to move around before they attack.)
4. Cheerleaders do not have to play catch up with them.

I have my reservations with each of these points (I will get to them in a minute), but your two counterpoints (bad maps & meat shields) do not seem to refute what Sparedon is saying. If every hex were to give a +1 defense bonus to all unengaged figures, all of Sparedon's statements would still be correct. The amount of defense die rolled by melee units does not change the fact that melee units have to run across the board to engage their targets. Yes, meat shields slow down the running across the board, but even they cannot explain away the difficulty cheerleader type units have supporting melee units.

Now, to address Sparedon's points:

1. Ranged units can pick who they wish to attack.

This is only true in certain circumstances. I can think of more than a few scenarios where a ranged unit cannot pick who it wishes to attack.

Imagine three Stingers, each in the middle of some Heroscape map. Each Stinger is ten spaces away from a glyph of Brandar, upon which is some enemy unit. Ten spaces in the opposite direction is another glyph, with another enemy unit.

Are the Stingers free to attack anyone they wish?

Not after they move. If you move one of your Stingers towards the first glyph (and thus in range of the unit sitting on it), you move him out of range of the unit on the second glyph. Like a melee unit with 9 movement, the Stingers remove their ability to attack one unit by choosing to threaten the first.

Thus ranged units are in the same boat as melee units. The only difference between the two is that it is generally much harder to get ranged figures into a position where they cannot make a choice between two figures to attack than it is to get melee figures into such a situation. I cannot help but noting that the difficulty of sticking a figure in such a position has an inverse relationship with the range of the said unit.

2. Ranged units can choose what order to attack.

This point is very much like the last one. In cases where ranged units can only threaten one unit, the point is moot. Similarly, the case is moot in all scenarios where one melee figure is adjacent to two enemy figures at the same time.

Like the last point, this is not something exclusive to ranged figures- it is simply easier to accomplish the higher the range of any given unit happens to be.

3. Ranged units are more OM efficient.

This is mostly true, although it is not always. If a melee unit can secure a position in which it can attack multiple enemies, then (just as in the previous points) the point is moot. Otherwise this point is spot on.


4. Cheerleaders's auras work better with ranged units.

That sounds pretty much correct, unless the cheerleader bonds with the melee squad in question.

IN SUM: I think you are onto something, although I do not think you need to use so many words to say it. ^_~

The first three points, in particular, really seem to be saying the same thing: ranged units are able to position themselves so that they can threaten many different figures without wasting order markers, while melee figures cannot do this.

Now, I poked a small hole into this line of thought, but I think the idea behind it holds true. So let me suggest a revision - Chimpy's postulate, if we must:

As a unit's range increases so does the number of figures it can possibly attack with one order marker.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by nyys

For 40 points, Reavers are hardly overrated.

I think they are overated in the following sense. Most people seem to agree that in Heroscape someone is better with more units than fewer units. There are exceptions but this generally is true. The reason is that the more units one has, the lesser the odds of losing because of a few terrible rolls. Since reavers are so cheap and tie up many start zone spaces, they significantly reduce the number of primary attack units you can have which thereby make it more likely that a few bad rolls can beat you.

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Chimpy

I am unsure if this addresses the issues Sparedon raises.

In my defense, due to his post getting cut off, he hadn't made pretty much any of those points yet when I responded. But I'll respond to them now, anyway, via your post.

Originally Posted by Chimpy

Beyond the ability to kill someone before they can attack you, Sparedon says ranged units have four special advantages over melee types.

1. They can pick who they wish to attack.

Yep, true. Until the melee units engage with them. Then, not so much, and they're usually at a statistical advantage as well, since the ranged figures pay for their range. With the amount of road tiles on maps these days and the normal size for tourney maps (see the BoV threads) ranged figures usually won't get that many turns of ranged attacks before they're caught. This, of course, depends on which figures you're referencing, but the KoW wouldn't be as competitive as they are without melee friendly maps adding road bonuses to those moves of 4 (Jandar's Dispatch, of course, also greatly helps). Melee figures also often have higher base defenses which, combined with LOS blockers and jungle trees, helps them survive until engagement when, once again, the ranged figures will no longer have their pick of targets.

Originally Posted by Chimpy

2. They can choose what order to attack.

That's also only true as long as the first one is.

Originally Posted by Chimpy

3. They are more OM efficient (i.e. they do not have to move around before they attack.)

If you're playing melee versus range and the ranged army continually gets in all of their attacks without having to move around first, then either you're not playing on a very competitive map (i.e. a map you're likely to see in a tourney; a balanced map that is at all friendly to melee figures) or the player playing the melee army is just plain not playing very well.

Originally Posted by Chimpy

4. Cheerleaders do not have to play catch up with them.

They do if the melee army actually forces the ranged army to move (which isn't that hard to do). The cheerleaders may not have to move as much, but they should still have to move.
Also, most competitive melee squads actually have the advantage here because they either bond with their cheerleaders (Knights, Heavy Gruts) or their cheerleaders don't have to be anywhere near them to offer the bonus (Capuan Gladiators and Sparty).

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

I think they are overated in the following sense. Most people seem to agree that in Heroscape someone is better with more units than fewer units. There are exceptions but this generally is true. The reason is that the more units one has, the lesser the odds of losing because of a few terrible rolls. Since reavers are so cheap and tie up many start zone spaces, they significantly reduce the number of primary attack units you can have which thereby make it more likely that a few bad rolls can beat you.

It's a shame being forced to draft an expensive hero like Q9 into your army, right?
In no way are the Deathreavers overrated. They make sooo many armies more competitive than they can be without the rats.

[Devil's Advocate]

As good as Q9 is, he is still a risk. The more points one has in a figure the greater the chance of an unlucky turn dooming the army. A more extreme example would be using an expensive Marvelscape figure vs a typical Heroscape army. Having high priced units is always fun, but whiffing 1 or 2 defense rolls and seeing them fall in 1 turn can be game ending alot more than 1 or 2 bad turns with an army whose points are alot more spread out. If my Knight of Weston whiffs with 4 defense I lose a maximum of 17. 5 points in that attack. If my Kaemon whiffs I could lose 120 points to that 1 attack.

[IAmBatman]

Every unit is a risk, though, in one way or another. How many winning tournament armies have had the Q9 risk pay off? Also, heroes having multiple lives somewhat ameliorates the risk of drafting them instead of multiple squad members. (Not to mention that Q9's defense is much higher than, for instance, the KoW). But, yes, your point that heroes can lose more in one attack is an important one. With heroes you also lose position less often, though, as a typical hero takes longer to destroy than a typical squad member.
But overall squads rule over heroes, there's no doubt in that. It just so happens that rats are one of those squads, though.