Not Tournament Worthy?

[Browncoat]

I see a lot of comments posted with something along the lines of, "This army totally rocked! But it's not a tournament army."

So...what's the difference?

If you put an army together, and beat several of your friends with it, wouldn't it do just as well at a tournament?

[toddrew]

The vast vast majority of my heroscape play is to jog new combinations of figures around the board and have a good time doing so, so "tournament worthy" doesn't have much impact on me, but it just means that the army should be able to handle a variety of different tactics: strong against melee and range; able to handle hordes of common squads and tough heroes; stuff like that. Usually in HS cards either favor one end or the other of the spectra of tactics, and a solid army will be comprised of a good mix of those elements.

I had a point in there somewhere. Good luck finding it

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by Browncoat

I see a lot of comments posted with something along the lines of, "This army totally rocked! But it's not a tournament army."

So...what's the difference?

If you put an army together, and beat several of your friends with it, wouldn't it do just as well at a tournament?

An army might be powerful but might not be able to take on a wide variety of opposing armies. It may have a glaring weakness to current tourney army staples. It may not fit the point limits set by the tourney.

[playa1]

Yes, a tournament army has to be well-rounded and usually under 400 points (which is very hard to do). It makes figures like Jotun, Taelord, Dund, Sudema, and the shades almost impossible to use -- where in a casual game, they become really great additions to an army.

Also, any figures that depend too much on the d20 tend to be poor in tournaments because while you will win with these (and perhaps more often than not) you will always lose with them on occasion. They become bigger risks in tournament play because you don't want to be eliminated because of a couple bad d20 rolls.