|
Competitive Armies Discussion Discuss, critique, and build ideas for tournament-caliber armies. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
I just put down rule number 16. Check it out, I think it is pretty important and a very helpful tool. Let me know if I got my point across. With Gencon coming up it will be important to find out if one's army is good enough or not.
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
I think you've said that quite well, gamjuven, and the point is certainly valid. I, personally, tend to think about it in terms of "my nightmare opponent." But, you are quite right that it is essential to see your own army's weaknesses in light of possible opponents' strengths.
<RR>
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Hey Gamjuven, Great job with the guide! What do you think of a army I created for the tournament in Dayton, Ohio. What should I change ( I should probably note that the army must be the same race)
Kaemon Awa MDG 10th Reg of foot x2 Roman Legionnares x2 Reply whenever |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
It's a good point. I'm still somewhat unsure of what to expect on Friday, which makes it hard for me to know how often I'll see my 'nightmare opponent.' There are people from all around, and I'm not sure how much more competitive people will be this year. As I look at the top armies from 2006 and 2007, and the armies in regional tournaments since, it seems like people are getting more savvy in general when making and playing their armies than they used to be.
I often talk myself out of playing dozens of good armies, simply by asking questions like, "But what will I do against X 4th Mass? Braxas? Cyprien? Q9?" It's quite a juggling act, and I'm probably making things harder than I should. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Thanks for all the great info. I'm new to the game roughly a month in, so this will come in handy.
GenCon Rocked! Welcome to Fat Burger!!! |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
great it will be helpful
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
While it may not be the foremost point in a thread for beginners, I have found that survivability is a major factor in planning an army. Cheap common squads do well because of high numbers. Q9 and the Krav are so effective because they are hard to kill. Raelin is the most valuable hero role player in the game because she helps units stay alive. The same can be said of the Reavers. If you have an army that rarely dies quickly and can chip away at your opponents, you should do just fine in a tournament.
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
excellent work! this is a great piece of information.
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Nice thread, gamjuven.
A couple of days ago, a fellow site member asked me what constituted a "tournament-worthy" unit/army. My first response would be that it would be composed of the best possible units that work in the best possible way on (most) standard tournament (ROTV) maps. In other words, a unit is tournament-worthy only if it is combined in the right way with other units to give excellent/the best possible chances of winning. One way to express it is: if your life depended on finishing in the top 4 in the tournament, what army would you draft? Is tournament-worthiness a spectrum/range rather than an absolute? I think it is. For example, Major Q9 is good on his own, but far better if combined with the Krav M.A., Raelin and a squad of Deathreavers in a 400-point army. A good army draft is more than the sum of the individual units of which it is composed and should make all units individually better through bonding, synergy, etc.. Granted, many units, such as Hatamoto Taro, at this time, seem unable to fit into a competitive draft. A second (and more inclusive) question is: what constitutes a competitive unit? Competitive, in my opinion, means that an army, all other things being equal, can, on average, win (at least) 40% of the games against the army it is facing. This is the key point: competence is relative! Thus, if we agree to choose only C+ units, then almost any reasonable C+ army will have a chance against any other reasonable C+ army. This is great for competitive play at home. Yes, at home. Competitive players play to win and are happy to do so with inferior/low-ranking units provided the opponent limits himself to the same parameters in the draft. We can have the best of both worlds at home. We can draft non-elite units and still have an equal/reasonable chance of winning. At most tournaments, however, this is NOT an option. Most competitive players will bring only A and A+ armies to tournaments and thus, if you want to have a decent chance, you must do the same. It is true that some tournaments mitigate this by setting conditions, but, even then, some units never see the light of day or enter the winners' cirlce. Last edited by Sarpedon; May 11th, 2009 at 08:10 AM. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Greetings, everyone.
In today's Heroscape (before the release of Wave 9), many players are still trying to win by landslide victories. These days, tournament players are far more experienced in all aspects of the game and therefore the games are usually close and many don't even have time to finish. Gone are the days when a good player could wipe out the entire enemy army in under 30 minutes. It brings to mind the games of Paul Morphy in chess, where he would win with brilliant combinations against opponents who did not study the openings or battle for the centre of the board. "Hypermodern" Heroscape games are won by attrition more than by bludgeoning. Slow, steady development and positioning of troops, securing of glyphs and elevations, considering enemy lines of attack and blocking them, etc., is what bears fruit. This is the key difference between Heroscape and Marvelscape. If the soon to be released Wave 9 dramatically changes the status quo, it will be because it will feature units like the Marvel Heroes who basically reduce the game to a few massive rolls where everthing is decided in 15 minutes or less. The question then becomes what army or armies will be most competitive in tournaments as they are currently run (with no more than an hour alloted to each game). We are all aware of the Vydar Pod with Raelin, so I'd rather discuss other possible 500-point builds. What should such an army look like and what should its features be. Rather than bore you with theory, let's look at what I consider a very playable 500-point tournament army. Marro Hive:...........160 4 x Marro Stingers: 240 2 x Marro Drones: +100 TOTAL..................500 (24 hexagonal spaces used) This army has the following advantages for competitive/tournament play: i) All order markers can/should (in the early and middle stages of the game) be placed on the Marro Hive. This will have two very desirable effects. The first is that the player will not need to worry about the opportunity cost of moving one unit or another: the Hive allows him to move whichever squad he pleases. This is an immense tactical advantage. It takes the order-marker guesswork completely out of the equation an allows a player instead to focus on where his opponent's order markers are/aren't. The second is that it allows the Hive to reproduce either type of squad unit each and every turn. This, in effect, means that your Stingers become far more expendable and allow you to attempt Stinger Drain without ever worrying about losing a unit or a turn (after all, even if Stinger Drain fails, the Hive still gets to attempt to reproduce). ii) The Stingers provide good, ranged, above-average squad attacks that can easily be boosted by height or securing glyphs. This will allow your Stingers to peck away at your opponent's troops, securing you a point victory (assuming he is not using a similar army, of course). Unable to reproduce, he will look on with horror as Stingers that he recently destroyed suddenly re-materialize next to your Hive! This process (of pecking away) may be slow, but, surely, a guaranteed point-victory is better than a 50-50 chance at a win/loss. iii) The Marro Drones block/attack enemy melee fliers attempting to engage the Hive. The Stingers would be too valuable for this role. The Drones too can be replaced and/or can shift over to continue blocking access should one of them be destroyed. Remember that the Hive allows you to activate the Stingers or the Drones (which have a special extra units movement ability to boot!). This ensures greater longevity for the Hive. iv) The Stingers serve both as attackers and glyph controllers. While their primary purpose is that of attack, they are sufficiently mobile/expendable (thanks to the Hive) to be used to secure glyphs. There's no need to explain how vastly improved a Stinger-centred army becomes with glyph boosts. v) The limited sight activation of the Hive is no drawback. On a third turn - so that in the next round the first order marker can be placed on the Stingers - (or at any opportune moment), the Stingers can move out of the Hive's activation range to carry out an attack. The activation range of the Hive (12) plus the movement of the Stingers (5) plus the range of the Stingers (5) means that they will easily be able dominate most areas on average tournament maps. It is best to do this toward the end game as mop up operations only. While the opponent is still powerful, it is best to keep the Stingers within activation range and simply peck away as explained before. Congratulations on having read this far. Now, with this army in mind, return to gamjuven's 17 questions at the bottom of his original post. How many of those 17 questions can be answered with a "yes" with regards to this army? All? Voila! What gamjuven is essentially proposing is a hyper-modern army that can win, as in good chess, by small, cummulative positional and/or material advantages. Last edited by Sarpedon; May 14th, 2009 at 08:50 AM. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Quote:
Quote:
And, because I haven't reposted it in over a week now, here's the data on units that win tournaments in the northeast, along with the number of wins (some special formats, but mainly straightforward kill 'em all and no non-Marvel unit bans): Code:
Winning Units Airborne Elite 4 Deathreavers 4 Isamu 4 Marro Stingers 4 Marcus 3 Charos 2 Krav Maga Agents2 Major Q10 2 Marro Warriors 2 Me-Burq-Sa 2 Ne-Gok-Sa 2 Roman Leg. 2 Venom 2 Zetacron 2 10th Foot 1 4th Mass 1 Blastatrons 1 Braxas 1 Brunak 1 Dumutef Guard 1 Gladiatrons 1 Grimnak 1 Heavy Gruts 1 Kaemon Awa 1 Kelda 1 Krug 1 Laglor 1 Major Q9 1 Marcu 1 Marrden Hounds 1 Marro Drones 1 Microcorps 1 Minions 1 Morsbane 1 Nerak 1 Raelin (RotV) 1 |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Re: The Idiot's Guide to Making a Competitive Army
Sarpedon, you once asked Nwojedi a question to which I would love to hear your personal answer:
Quote:
~Aldin, seeking proven theory He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
|
|