Only 500 points?!?!

[Strange]

(or, Challenging the Tournament Point Norm)

The HS community revolves around the 500-point standard. Tournaments from GenCon to Georgia allow 500-point builds. The overwhelming majority of proposed armies on the forums - 500 points. Why did we choose this size?

True, it's a nice round number. And it does keep games relatively short. But I believe that 500 points is quite limiting, and actually does significant harm to the overall game dynamic. I think we can do better as a community: increasing the point norm will diversify strategies and allow for more fun all around.

Clearly, the game designers are pushing us towards larger point games. New figures like Kato Katsuro exemplify this trend. In smaller games, the 200-point daimyo can barely justify himself by directing a few squads of Aishigaru and the Tagawas - but he comes into his own in command of a grand force, leading heros and squads alike in precision strikes of unprecedented flexibility. Similarly, the very existence of the flagbearers brings to mind a herald for legions of fighters. Mel Gibson would have looked pretty silly in The Patriot waving his flag with only a handful of other guys running behind him.

Sir Dupuis, too, is meant to fight alongside the Templars, but how can you even field them together when two squads of Templars and their hero total 390? There's no room to squeeze in enough other Knights, not to mention ranged units.

I could go on, because other, underused units can shine in a larger setting. Ornak needs both orcs and multiple heroes. Spartacus and his gladiator pals can enjoy ranged support. Even Taelord doesn't seem like such a poor investment when he can boost both Snipers and Minions in the same match! If that's not enough, two words: MARRO HIVE. In 500-point games, it often serves merely as target practice for ranged squads.

Conversely, increasing the total points per game decreases the IGPV of a single unit. What does this mean? It means that heroes like Major Q9 don't dominate the field as much when you can rush them or wear them down over time. Isamu can still do as much point damage as he ever could, but you can send a unit or two after him and the sacrifice relative to the rest of your army is mitigated. It would be nice to see such ubiquitous units yield to new combos, combos that were deemed too expensive for the average match.

Overall, I believe that HS capped at 500 points leaves untapped potential for variety, both in army construction and in-game strategy. I'd like to see more groups adopt a larger point standard. Please post with your thoughts and opinions on why this would or would not be a good idea, including any other aspects of gameplay that change according to army size.

[Avenger]

Nice writing. I, personally, am a fan of larger battles, but I know why tournaments usually stick with the common 500-point value. They do this because of time, space, and strategy.

Time= Obviously, battles upward of 500-points per player are going to take longer to finish, and tournaments are most often short events that cannot last more than a few hours. Thus, time must be used effectively and efficiently in order to make the most of the time given. So, 500-point armies are quite convenient from the perspective of time.

Space= Tournaments are very commonly made up of quite a few players, requiring more than one board (or at least 5). With a team of more than 500-points, larger maps would be required, putting stress on the available space at the tournament location. Plus, the available amount of building material can be limited, so small battlefields are a must.

Strategy= When players are forced to constrain their armies into a relatively small range (500-points) they must, out of common sense, pick the most cooperative and effective units for the battle, for they cannot afford to waste points. Drafting is a major part of strategy, as army size is a major part of drafting.

That's just my . Of course I would like to see, and love to participate in, epic tournaments of major battles and vast armies. It would be just... well, epic!

[Dictatorbilbo]

Well, frankly, I disagree.

I generally find that battles over 500 points, without a modified order marker system, drag on and become boring. Of course, this may just be me, being one who has never finished a game of monopoly...

And, as illustrated by the game scenarios released by hasbro, it appears that the rules were developed with a 400-500 army size in mind.

[IAmBatman]

Strange ... how much I agree with you!
That said, Avenger makes good points about the Time and Space constraints of tourneys - am I'm sure that's why things are as they are.
As for strategies, though, I'm not sure I agree. I think you're going to have different strategies at 200 or 300 or 500 or 700 or 1000 points and there are challenges to each. I'd be hard pressed to say with any degree of certainty which army size presents more of a strategy strategically. One thing I do know, though, there are certain game elements and strategies that are inacessible, ineffective, or downright implausible in armies of 500 points or less. And while it makes sense to streamline the game a bit for competitive play, I think it does remove a certain fun element inherent in bigger army showdowns.
But, hey, this from a guy who plays most of his Heroscape against himself ...

[link10020]

well here is an idea that me and a friend came up with once. in movies when huge armies colide they start with one on one side and the other at the other, but when they charg and fight theecided to have a battle inpymix up. we decieded to have a battle in progress. basicly our start zones where almost anywhere on the board except:

1. you cannot start on a glyph
2. a figure cannot be placed within 3 spaces of another figure (unless map size forces this to happen)
3. the map must be fairly populated (no putting all of your figures in castles, on hills etc. spread em out)

what do you think? the idea is that larger armies where fighting and the game starts when most soldiers are dead. (although those who are left just happen to be full health)

[Browncoat]

I agree largely with what Avenger posted. I think 500 point armies are the standard due to time constraints, space available, and keeping the strategy of the game in mind. You can generally play a 500 point affair in an hour or less, while anything more can take considerably more time.

When I play casual games, we often do 800 or even 1000 point games which take at least 2 hours to play. The maps are of course larger as well. However, my "usual" crew recently had our own mini-tournament and we scaled things down to 500 points for the sake of the reasons already posted. Even with just 6-8 people, it took most of the day to run the tourney.

[Avenger]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Strange ... how much I agree with you!
That said, Avenger makes good points about the Time and Space constraints of tourneys - am I'm sure that's why things are as they are.
As for strategies, though, I'm not sure I agree. I think you're going to have different strategies at 200 or 300 or 500 or 700 or 1000 points and there are challenges to each. I'd be hard pressed to say with any degree of certainty which army size presents more of a strategy strategically. One thing I do know, though, there are certain game elements and strategies that are inacessible, ineffective, or downright implausible in armies of 500 points or less. And while it makes sense to streamline the game a bit for competitive play, I think it does remove a certain fun element inherent in bigger army showdowns.
But, hey, this from a guy who plays most of his Heroscape against himself ...

Funny. I play most of my games against myself as well. That or against kids (10-12) who I usually crush. Oh well...

[Tiberius]

For my group and I, 500 points is just about right. Granted I would love to have higher point values but for the time given in a tournament round and the different speeds and playing styles of the players, 500 points typically comes off just about right to get a game in in 50 minutes or less, unless you are a much slower player or playing someone with a turtle group. So for me, 500 points has become a standard based on what experience has shown can fit in the time frame alotted.

[clancampbell]

I like 500 point games. For tournament reasons avenger put it best. Even at home in friendly games 500 points just feels right. I'm not a fan of massive games, nothing against those that are, it just doesn't work for me. A 500 point game of scape makes you think about your draft, you can't just go out and grab anyone. If an expensive character is what you want, better make sure its got some moxie, or you get creamed. Things like that are what makes smaller games cool. Aside from that theres the order makers, I took a whole bunch of squads one time and half of them did nothing for most of the game, because you only have 3 order markers. All in all I feel 500 points is perfect.

[rdhight]

Originally Posted by Strange

Clearly, the game designers are pushing us towards larger point games. New figures like Kato Katsuro exemplify this trend. In smaller games, the 200-point daimyo can barely justify himself by directing a few squads of Aishigaru and the Tagawas - but he comes into his own in command of a grand force, leading heros and squads alike in precision strikes of unprecedented flexibility.
...
Sir Dupuis, too, is meant to fight alongside the Templars, but how can you even field them together when two squads of Templars and their hero total 390? There's no room to squeeze in enough other Knights, not to mention ranged units.
...
If that's not enough, two words: MARRO HIVE. In 500-point games, it often serves merely as target practice for ranged squads.
...
Overall, I believe that HS capped at 500 points leaves untapped potential for variety, both in army construction and in-game strategy. I'd like to see more groups adopt a larger point standard. Please post with your thoughts and opinions on why this would or would not be a good idea, including any other aspects of gameplay that change according to army size.

I couldn't agree with you more, both about those particular units and that that there is a design priority at work seeking to make large armies both easier and more desirable. I would submit the big Marvel heroes as other figures that are meant to make large games easier-- not just because of Red Skull, but because locking up 400-600 points in two Marvel cards means the army can move fast and get the game over with in a reasonable time frame.

Likewise, the Einar Imperium, Templars, and to a certain extent Blade Gruts can move more points into play in fewer order markers, and they need range and support to do their best. Presumably, the marro cavalry will be similar. The old image of 600+ points being a marathon ordeal might have been true when you're taking two order markers to move 140 points of Knights four spaces on the ground, but when one order marker moves 140 points of Einar Imperium five spaces in the air, the pace quickens. Yes, you can build an excruciatingly slow 600- or 700-point army, but you don't have to if you don't want to.

If you're committed to the idea that 500-point games are the most important thing, I think a lot of the Marvel heroes and new big Classic units will be frustrating ones for you. Kato? An Ulginesh group? Dupuis and Templars x2? Red Skull? Good luck fitting those into a good 500-point army.

[peteparkerh]

I've really been having fun with much smaller armies on skirmish battlefields (150-200pts).

I've been trying out the bonding between different figures and you can try the same characters over and over again in a very short amount of time.

This has also forced me to try out some of the lower point figures and to really understand their abilities.

[RichardD]

Skullsgood recently organised a tournament in the UK that had different points values in different rounds. You chose a core army of 750 points, out of which you fielded 300/400 and 500 point armies for the first three rounds; the final round was played at the full 750 points. Apart from a couple of anomalies in the scoring system caused by some of the rounds' objectives, it worked well - and having the 300-point round ensured that there was time to play the 750-point games too.