Competitive Heroscape is not dominated by A+

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rich10

If you are playing in a tournament, I have no problem with taking the best figures that you can take. It is very shortsighted, however, to think that tournament play is the only way that this game can be played.

I'd take that a step further and say that it's shortsighted to think that bringing a single prebuilt army is the only way tournaments can be played.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Maybe I have missed some results but from what I see Matthias is not a good example of using lesser builds. Knights and Heavies are 2 of the strongest armies in the game. Maybe he uses Einar Emperium and Groks and I just missed those tournament battle reports of his, but everytime I see a report by him I expect to see KOW or Heavies.

That's mostly true, but even if we set aside tournaments with special rules, Ken has won with Blade Gruts, with Mohicans, and with Dividers. (He's also won with the 4th and the 10th??? Say it ain't so...)

I do think we've reached the point where 3+ squads of knights or heavies with their best bonding heroes can't be considered anything other than an absolute top-notch build. Sure, it's melee, but five or six attacks a turn is no joke. (And those armies have dumbed-down, girly OM management, too. )

Originally Posted by Matthias Maccabeus

The thing I hate is people who just worry about winning. No offense to dok (Ok maybe a little, but in good fun ), but I could never think that winning a tourney with Q9, Raelin, and rats is really a victory. To me it's just taking whats good and proven and then just winning with it. That is the essence of boring to me in this game. I tire of seeing 4th x 100, or the 3 Rs (rats, Raelin, range). To me those people who use those units (on a consistent basis) are lame (unless they are n00bs). I'm really not trying to offend people with this so please don't take offense. I have more respect for the likes of Clarissimus and KC and even Ollie for playing lesser units and finishing 4-1 or 3-2 with them than I do with a vet playing Q9, etc and winning a tourney. To me that's just dumb. OK, I'll get off my high horse, sorry for the rant

So, no more heavies for you, then?

I don't take offense. Looking back on it, I did stick with Rae/Q9 for a little too long on the local scene (three tournaments). I could have challenged myself to try more stuff - although I had a couple amazing games at that third tournament against some really strong armies. After that I worked the TKN/Phantom Knight combo, and the firestorm, and all sorts of weird stuff at the draft tournament. I'm gonna keep expanding my roster of figures played - the draft tournaments are great for that.

I don't regret playing what I played at the GenCon main event one bit, though. I picked what I thought was the strongest possible army for the format, and I'll do the same next year, too.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by Matthias Maccabeus

Gbob, you have nothing to apologize about. HeroScape wouldn't be here (now) if it wasn't for you IMO.

As far as the tournament scene nowadays, you get what you put into it. I love today's tournament scene, but I also hate it. To me the challenge is to take a unit or units that people have disregarded as weak and then bring it to the top. I love trying to do that. It constantly challenges me.

The thing I hate is people who just worry about winning. No offense to dok (Ok maybe a little, but in good fun ), but I could never think that winning a tourney with Q9, Raelin, and rats is really a victory. To me it's just taking whats good and proven and then just winning with it. That is the essence of boring to me in this game. I tire of seeing 4th x 100, or the 3 Rs (rats, Raelin, range). To me those people who use those units (on a consistent basis) are lame (unless they are n00bs). I'm really not trying to offend people with this so please don't take offense. I have more respect for the likes of Clarissimus and KC and even Ollie for playing lesser units and finishing 4-1 or 3-2 with them than I do with a vet playing Q9, etc and winning a tourney. To me that's just dumb. OK, I'll get off my high horse, sorry for the rant

I also love the scenario type games. I love the dungeon scenarios we've been given and I love just playing a Runa army vs. a Hatamoto army. Actually I just love this game. It doesn't matter if I'm playing with my 2 year old daughter with the doggies (Werewolf Lord and WoB) or if I'm playing Spider Poison for the Gen Con championship. I love it either way.

Now about the HSB -

HSB x 5 - 375 (15)
Cutters x 2 - 475 (23)
Chain x 1 - 500 (24)

I think its a Yes and No situation. Gencon Championship is one thing, I wouldn't expect anything less than Tier 1-2 Armies. Though I don't think you can say that you play anything less than Tier 1 yourself MM at Gencon.

I don't follow what you play outside of Gencon, though dok does list his armies played and i've noticed hes very fond of Rae-Rae(Something like 12/14 events)

I can't say much difference myself, the last two tournaments i've played in I had 4th mass/Niefhelm and Greenscales/Niefhelm/Rae-Rae.

I'd like to see more tournaments that ban A units or more General War events, these offer different perspectives on how the game is played.

Perhaps we should start a thread discussing this instead of hijacking this thread?

[dok]

deleted and re-posted in the HSB thread.

[kenjib]

From what I recall, the knights were not really considered a tier 1 army until Matthias played them and advocated for them repeatedly for a very long time and with great effort. He's probably the main they became considered a tier 1 army in the first place (in the current metagame - not when they first came out), so saying that he only plays tier 1 armies seems a bit unfair to me.

[dok]

Originally Posted by kenjib

From what I recall, the knights were not really considered a tier 1 army until Matthias played them and advocated for them repeatedly for a very long time and with great effort. He's probably the main they became considered a tier 1 army in the first place (in the current metagame - not when they first came out), so saying that he only plays tier 1 armies seems a bit unfair to me.

Life's not fair.

Matthias definitely deserves the lion's share of the credit for getting the Gilbert+Knights combo established as a serious tournament threat. (Others like Menchi and matrixrenegade have shown that it's not all about Gilbert by using the finn/krav combo). But at this point, denying that it's a tier 1 build would be ludicrous. Five people played knights at the GenCon main event, and all of them went 3-2 or better.

People are more intimidated by the prospect of playing knights - there's still some people out there who think playing a primarily melee army is scary (boo! happy Halloween!). But when played well, the knights are a force.

While we're at it, Matthias also deserves a good chunk of the credit for proving the worth of the Grimnak/Heavy Grut combo, although others (most notably Mantrainchoochoo, and also Broinlaw down in Texas) also get some credit there. But again, the point is made. (Grimnak+Gruts went 9-1 on day 1. If wave 6 gets rereleased, expect those numbers to go up.)

(I also think the learning curve on playing rats well, at least against special attackers, is a bit steeper than advertised. 12 people played rats at the main event, and they averaged under 2 wins each. The only people 3-2 or better were myself, Mantrain, and damja, who only played 1 squad.)

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally Posted by kenjib

From what I recall, the knights were not really considered a tier 1 army until Matthias played them and advocated for them repeatedly for a very long time and with great effort. He's probably the main they became considered a tier 1 army in the first place (in the current metagame - not when they first came out), so saying that he only plays tier 1 armies seems a bit unfair to me.

They were not really Tier 1 until after Gilbert was released and they have received help from the addition of Shadow and Tree bonuses. It would also be interesting to track competitive map building over time to see if they have become more melee friendly which is likely the case.

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

I'd like to see more tournaments that ban A units or more General War events, these offer different perspectives on how the game is played.

Perhaps we should start a thread discussing this instead of hijacking this thread?

If this happened, I'd probably delete the rankings thread. It's not supposed to be a banned list. It's a "what's hot" list.

When I first joined the site, Arrow Gruts were flat A's, and Grimnak was a B-.

I really don't want to have that much power over what people actually play. It's more observational than anything, and designed to generate discussion.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

They were not really Tier 1 until after Gilbert was released and they have received help from the addition of Shadow and Tree bonuses. It would also be interesting to track competitive map building over time to see if they have become more melee friendly which is likely the case.

It doesn't seem right to say the knights aren't top tier without Gilbert when we've had a Finn/Krav/Knights army (without Gilbert) make the top 16 at the GenCon main event four times in the last three years. I agree that an all-melee knight army without Gilbert is in a hard way, but that's not the only way to play the knights.

That said, I don't think there's any question that the evolution in map design has helps the knights considerably. We don't really need to do a thorough analysis to recognize that the use of effective LoS blockers, roads, and more easily contestable high ground has drastically increased in the last 3 years.

Originally Posted by killercactus

I still say Rats are hard. Vipers are harder though

I think Cutters with Brutes will be even harder.

kc, I'm pretty sure your cred for playing difficult units is secure. And I'm glad, because you seem to be one of the few people who agrees with me generally about which figures are relatively easy to play well and which ones are difficult to play well.

HSBs+Cutters will definitely be hard to play. What's still unclear is how powerful they will be when played well. I think the answer is quite powerful, alhough they will have some bad matchups.

Originally Posted by Jexik

If this happened, I'd probably delete the rankings thread. It's not supposed to be a banned list. It's a "what's hot" list.

When I first joined the site, Arrow Gruts were flat A's, and Grimnak was a B-.

I really don't want to have that much power over what people actually play. It's more observational than anything, and designed to generate discussion.

Banning figures (at least, outside of a few isolated events) is the wrong solution, even assuming you think there's a problem.

The designers did not intend for figures to get banned.

The designers did intend for players to draft figures from a common pool before games.

Rather than try the non-prescribed solution, why not try the prescribed one? It works really well.

[Kinseth]

Originally Posted by dok

It doesn't seem right to say the knights aren't top tier without Gilbert when we've had a Finn/Krav/Knights army (without Gilbert) make the top 16 at the GenCon main event four times in the last three years. I agree that an all-melee knight army without Gilbert is in a hard way, but that's not the only way to play the knights.

That said, I don't think there's any question that the evolution in map design has helps the knights considerably. We don't really need to do a thorough analysis to recognize that the use of effective LoS blockers, roads, and more easily contestable high ground has drastically increased in the last 3 years.

kc, I'm pretty sure your cred for playing difficult units is secure. And I'm glad, because you seem to be one of the few people who agrees with me generally about which figures are relatively easy to play well and which ones are difficult to play well.

HSBs+Cutters will definitely be hard to play. What's still unclear is how powerful they will be when played well. I think the answer is quite powerful, alhough they will have some bad matchups.

Banning figures (at least, outside of a few isolated events) is the wrong solution, even assuming you think there's a problem.

The designers did not intend for figures to get banned.

The designers did intend for players to draft figures from a common pool before games.

Rather than try the non-prescribed solution, why not try the prescribed one? It works really well.

To say banning figures is not the right way to go, means that designers are perfect and do not make mistakes. I think it is clear that Raelin for 80 points is too powerful of a figure.

Many games have Banned pieces once they realize mistakes have been made. Its easy to take Magic the Gathering for instance, which has banned numerous cards in the past due to them being too powerful.

You can read an article here where it discusses the idea behind banning a magic card http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...com/daily/rb59

But anyways It was only a suggestion that there be more tournaments with A type figures banned to encourage other figures to be played.

[xraine69]

Banning is the reason why myself and many people I know stopped playing M:TG and Yugioh competitively. There are no mistakes in this game. There was never any official competitive rules set. This was originally a kid's game with no competitive plans in mind. As Dok, KC, myself and others have been advocating for, it is time to bring the draft to the forefront. This is the design of the game and better brings what the designers had in mind to the table.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Kinseth

You can read an article here where it discusses the idea behind banning a magic card http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...com/daily/rb59

That's an interesting perspective; thanks for the link.

My point is that, if you're concerned about lots of figures not being played and/or a few dominant figures showing up over and over again, there's many solutions available, including but not limited to:

• Banning figures from an event
• Changing the cost of the cards, either through a new set price list or through an auction format of some sort
• Changing the text of cards, like the Competitive Unit Congress is doing
• Using set armies or other scenario formats
• Pooled draft formats

Of these, I think the first is the worst solution, because all you're doing is creating a new metagame where something else is the dominant choice, and therefore worthy of being banned. While banning has a place if one figure is drastically out of scale with the others, the whack-a-mole problem I'm describing here does exist.

The second and third there are both creative solutions that can do the job, but both require a lot of work, and both mean we're ignoring the text on the cards.

The fourth and fifth solutions both work within the game system to solve the problem. Personally I really like army construction and the tournament-style 1v1 kill 'em all game, so I prefer pooled draft formats to scenarios.

[Kinseth]

1. dok 5-0 - Deathreavers x3, Fen Hydra, Major Q9, Raelin RotV
2. Tiny Timmy 5-0 - Grimnak, Heavy Gruts x4, Marro Warrors, Nerak the Glacian Swog Rider
3. Jexik 5-0 - Greenscale Warriors x4, Nilfheim, Raelin the Kyrie Warrior RotV
4. EternalThanos86 4-1 - Greenscale Warriors x4, Raelin the Kyrie Warrior RotV, Zelrig
5. Chris M 4-1 - 10th Reg x4, Airborne Elite, Marcus Decimus Gallus
6. Matthias Maccabeus 4-1 - Airborne Elite, Knights of Weston x4, Sir Gilbert
7. dragonmaster384 4-1 - Greenscale Warriors x2, Nilfheim, Zelrig, Isamu, Otonashi
8. scaper_dude 4-1 - Grimnak, Heavy Gruts x4, Raelin the Kyrie Warrior RotV
9. Pickle4192 4-1 - 4th Massachusetts Line x4, Braxas
10. Fishtako 4-1 - Major Q9, Marro Dividers x5, Raelin RotV
11. ManTrainChoochoo 4-1 - Deathreavers x2, Kaemon Awa, Major Q9, Marro Warriors, Raelin RotV
12. RoninValentina 4-1 - Fen Hydra, Finn the Viking Champion, Knights of Weston x3, Krav Maga Agents
13. killercactus 4-1 - Major Q9, Raelin the Kyrie Warrior RotV, Venoc Vipers x6
14. Menchi 3-2 - Alastair MacDirk, Finn the Viking Champioin, Knights of Weston x3, Krav Maga Agents
15. Rÿchean 3-2 - 10th Regiment of Foot x3, Roman Legos x2, Marcus, Raelin RotV
16. wdgrant 3-2 - Fen Hydra, Marro Stingers x5, Raelin RotV

9/16 armies of the top 16 gencon finishes had Raelin in them.

Ill take an example of a magic card called Skullcap, and what the designers said about it.

Skullclamp was banned in Standard, frankly, because it was everywhere. Every competitive deck either had four in the main deck, had four in the sideboard, or was built to try and defend against it. And there were a lot more successful decks in the first two categories than in the third. Such representation is completely unhealthy for the format. Your deck has to either have Skullclamps, or have Skullclamp in its crosshairs—a definitive case of a card “warping the metagame.”

Look, for example, at the Top 8 decks from Ohio Valley Regionals. Or at those from the more recent German Nationals. Combined, those 16 decks contained 58 out of a possible 64 Skullclamps. Never in my memory have I ever seen a card show up in those numbers.

This is the kind of thought process that goes in when they decide to ban a magic card, and believe that since the tournament scenes for Heroscape have been picking up. That they should monitor it the same way.

over 50% of the top 16 armies had Raelin in them, how many of them were designed to make sure they could defeat her also?

Keeping the meta-game fresh and making sure there are many different types of armies is important.

I don't know if we are there, but it is a concern of mine when you discuss Raelin.

As for what to do, don't know if we need to do anything right now, the format is getting larger and larger with each expansion. And there are many new figures introduced that could really wreak havoc on the meta-game since last years Gencon championship. Possible 2 more expansions by then?