Partial Card Scoring Devalues Heroes

[southwest ninja]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

There is no "partial score" for almost scoring a touchdown.

The fact is that Craig Van Ness came up with the Full Card Scoring, and he designed the game; This is the canon of Heroscape. Gencon has always used Full Card Scoring. All of the HS playtesters use Full Card Scoring when playtesting these squads and heroes.

The simple fact is that every figure ever made was playtested using FCS. By arbitrarily changing it and dumbing the game down because some people can't accept the fact that the game is what it is and was designed as such, you are literally breaking the game. If figures were playtested with the FCS and you change it, you're totally changing the nature of the figures and unbalancing the game, simple as that.

You sir, have just converted me.....

[jschild]

I think alot of peoples feelings on this comes down to 2 different goals for the tournament.

Do you want to score the most points? Or do you want to completely defeat the other team?

These sound essentially the same at first glance, but with a time limit imposed, they are not and require different play styles.

The person who wants to completely defeat another person (IE, that is there single overriding goal in a tournament) probably sees partial scoring (of some variant) as the ideal - since it more closely resembles who is most likely to win the game.

The person who wants to win the most points in any given game (IE, scoring, not total victory is their overriding goal) will see full card scoring as the ideal, as the game becomes about protecting your wounded squads to keep points while your try to eliminate wounded squads of your opponents to take their points (even if their squad is useless now to the opposing player).

I think it is that psychological viewpoint in tournaments that determines who likes what.

So are you a point scorer? or do you want total victory?

[clancampbell]

I have to disagree with you Superfly. Every tourny I've ever played in, about 16, has used fractional scoring. I've never had an issue with it and it seems right to me. Also, I've never heard of anyone at these events having a problem with the scoring method either. So to say that fractional scoring "breaks the game" is a little extreme.

Full card heroes can lead to problems. Consider a player using their hero until that hero is near death, then running and hiding so that hero can't be killed. You could have a player with a mostly hero army behind a rat screen. The heroes do what damage they can, until their all near death. Then they run and hide, and rats (or whatever) stall till time is called. Any damage dealt to those heroes means nothing.

To each their own I guess. I just prefer fractional scoring for all.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

There is no "partial score" for almost scoring a touchdown.

The fact is that Craig Van Ness came up with the Full Card Scoring, and he designed the game; This is the canon of Heroscape. Gencon has always used Full Card Scoring. All of the HS playtesters use Full Card Scoring when playtesting these squads and heroes.

The simple fact is that every figure ever made was playtested using FCS. By arbitrarily changing it and dumbing the game down because some people can't accept the fact that the game is what it is and was designed as such, you are literally breaking the game. If figures were playtested with the FCS and you change it, you're totally changing the nature of the figures and unbalancing the game, simple as that.

I don't see tournaments in the rules either, but we do it anyway.

[Harlax]

Much of the dilema is fueld by tournament play that very often results in time limit ended games. Most of my tournament games where both players have played well or where the dice have not been extreme have ended by time limit. The exception was the lightweight event at GenCon.

So, you can either add time to each round (often impractical) or reduce the number of points available. Oh, I suppose you could use a time clock like chess, but who wants that?

If more games are played to completion, then this whole question is much less important.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Harlax

If more games are played to completion, then this whole question is much less important.

True. Despite how it might seem, I dislike fractional scoring as well---it's the best of several undesirable options in a competitive tournament. The NHSD tournament I went to, and a couple of others too, used a rolling rumble structure meaning that all games went to completion and more games were played. The price for this is a decrease in competitivity.

[Hogg]

Originally Posted by jschild

Do you want to score the most points? Or do you want to completely defeat the other team?

Or just keep your opponent form scoring by keeping one EI in your start zone and hiding with Taelord once he has 4 wounds.

I think that Fractional scoring for sqauds works well, but that it does devalue heroes. If this were more like Heroclix or a game where that characters stats are affected by the number of wounds they had it would make more sense, but they are full power (or stronger - Dupuis) until the end. Raelin still makes the opponents defense a bear to break through with four wounds and I think thats worth more than the 16 points you get for a 4 wound Raelin.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Hogg

I think that Fractional scoring for sqauds works well, but that it does devalue heroes. If this were more like Heroclix or a game where that characters stats are affected by the number of wounds they had it would make more sense, but they are full power (or stronger - Dupuis) until the end. Raelin still makes the opponents defense a bear to break through with four wounds and I think thats worth more than the 16 points you get for a 4 wound Raelin.

But the question is not if 16pts is the "correct" value but whether 16pts is a better estimate than 80pts.

To rephrase the "full power" question you raise: would you be happy to start each game with each of your heroes reduced to just one life remaining? If not, then presumably you think taking wounds decreases a hero's effectiveness at least somewhat.

I'd be interested in a system that was fractional but not in direct proportion to the number of wounds on heroes or kills on squads (and using a different function for both) but I'm confident it would not be practical at all. For that matter, we could add in bonus points for holding glyphs or high ground to try and make a better estimate of who would win---again, interesting but (probably) unworkable.

[SuperflyTNT]

Ollie, football has a time limit. There is no "early"...the game is what it is.

The rules are laid out before the match/tourney, and the fact is that people play PCS because they can't hack FCS. Just admit that it's a dumbed down version and get on with your day.

Let me put this out there:

Take a squad like the 4th Mass. They are 70 points. The ENTIRE SQUAD was costed at 70 using FCS. We know that each figure using PCS is worth 70/4, or 17.5 points each. Had the playtesters used PCS, they likely would have costed it differently, knowing that it's far easier to kill one than four. You see my point? The costing was based upon the difficulty of killing an entire squad, and when you dumb that down by awarding points for individual kills, you end up changing the entire costing system.

Further, it makes you a weaker player for Gencon's sake. If you're used to PCS and show up at the real deal, you need to entirely change your mindset and strategy. Playing PCS rules simply is Heroscape Lite.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

Ollie, football has a time limit. There is no "early"...the game is what it is.

The rules are laid out before the match/tourney, and the fact is that people play PCS because they can't hack FCS. Just admit that it's a dumbed down version and get on with your day.

I know football has a time limit (I realise I'm culturally adrift in many many ways, but there are a few basic facts I can handle), that's why I phrased my point "If you had to stop a game of football early..." I don't know whether it's happened or not in (American) football but it certainly has in soccer (weather, busted floodlights,...) and, assuming sufficient time has been played, they award the win to the team that is currently winning.

In what way is it dumbed down? Last time I checked that didn't mean "better" or "more sophisticated".

The bit in your post that makes sense is "The rules are laid out before the match/tourney". As long as that is done there shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't have much bearing on deciding which rules are best to lay out though. I think the answer to that question is "whichever ones the TD and players like best". Just because fractional scoring is superior doesn't mean everyone should be forced to use it.

[jschild]

Originally Posted by Hogg

Or just keep your opponent form scoring by keeping one EI in your start zone and hiding with Taelord once he has 4 wounds.

I think that Fractional scoring for sqauds works well, but that it does devalue heroes. If this were more like Heroclix or a game where that characters stats are affected by the number of wounds they had it would make more sense, but they are full power (or stronger - Dupuis) until the end. Raelin still makes the opponents defense a bear to break through with four wounds and I think thats worth more than the 16 points you get for a 4 wound Raelin.

Which is I'd prefer the mix - I look at it from how functional that hero/squad is. A hero is fully functional until dead, a squad is not. However the scoring type alters the end game - is it about points or destroying all your opponent figures?

EDIT: I def would not call it "dumbed down", considering it is far more likely to predict the actual winner than FCS would be in most situations.

However, I do agree that it would make you less effective at FCS events like Gencon because the mindset is different. The whole situation is that one is about scoring points, while the other is about winning the full game (IE, fully defeating the opposing army).

[SuperflyTNT]

If it were superior, it'd be played at Gencon. It is dumbed down because there is FAR less strategy when playing off of PCS than FCS - you have to make the effort to take down "that hero" or "that squad" rather than simply pick off one person at a time to aggregate points. It is, without a doubt, a dumbed down version of Heroscape to play partial card.

If it's such hot snot, then why aren't fractional scores printed on the cards? The full cost is, isn't it? Always has been?

It's fine to say, "I prefer to play PCS because I don't like to lose when I had a hero 2/3 dead" but don't say, "PCS is the RIGHT WAY" because history and fact go against it.