100% Theoryscape

[Eirikr]

Originally Posted by ollie

Sorry, I know I'm a debate behind here, but I wanted to point out that the second paragraph is not the case at all northeast tournaments. All tournaments that I've run (or done the scoring for) use "500 minus opponent's points surviving" as a definition for kill points (equivalently, and probably easier to explain, shortfalls in points and any figures left off the board for start-zone reasons count as automatic kills.) An extra clause is needed that it is not allowed to go below zero to deal with mindshacklers and the like.

This is the system that makes the most sense to me by far, if you are determined to count points. The only change I would make is that I wouldn't count mindshackled figures at all. Once the figure is mindshackled it should count as dead for the origional owner (unless they mindshackled it back again) and not at all for the new controller.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by Eirikr

This is the system that makes the most sense to me by far, if you are determined to count points. The only change I would make is that I wouldn't count mindshackled figures at all. Once the figure is mindshackled it should count as dead for the origional owner (unless they mindshackled it back again) and not at all for the new controller.

The problem with that they certainly should be counted when determining the winner (assuming that you are trying to measure who is going to go on to win). Imagine you have a just a mindshackled full-health Q9 left and your opponent is down to Kyntela Gwyn. Who should win? I'd argue for the Q9 player. If you then want to take a different scoring method into the tournament structure, that's fine with me, but when determining the winner of the game I think mindshackled figures need to count for the player currently controlling them.

That distinction actually gets at what I care most about with points: I want the person with the most points under their control to win the game. If they score fewer points than their opponent as far as the tournament structure is concerned, that bothers me less (though I find it odd to use one system for deciding a winner and another for the tournament, I don't have any intrinsic objection).

[Eirikr]

I can definitely see your point. In fact I completely agree that for determining the win you should count points under each player's control. I'm still tempted to say don't count them for tournament scoring but now it has become a little more complicated and I prefer simplicity at almost all costs.
Of course I don't support tracking points for the sake of tournament standings. I prefer to see only wins and loses and Strength of schedule to break ties. Much simpler still.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by ollie

Sorry, I know I'm a debate behind here, but I wanted to point out that the second paragraph is not the case at all northeast tournaments. All tournaments that I've run (or done the scoring for) use "500 minus opponent's points surviving" as a definition for kill points (equivalently, and probably easier to explain, shortfalls in points and any figures left off the board for start-zone reasons count as automatic kills.) An extra clause is needed that it is not allowed to go below zero to deal with mindshacklers and the like.

I think I'm saying one thing while thinking another. I've always taken the point limit for the tourney and subtracted from there, so I think we're on the same page Ollie. There, how's that for confusing considering what I wrote previously.

Originally Posted by Eirikr

Of course I don't support tracking points for the sake of tournament standings. I prefer to see only wins and loses and Strength of schedule to break ties. Much simpler still.

But you still need a another tie breaker (points) IMO for when SoS results in a tie as well. Not perfect (nor is SoS as there was a somewhat heated discussion on SoS as a tie breaker after the BBV) but points is the most likely to not result in another tie.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by nyys

But you still need a another tie breaker for when SoS results in a tie as well. Not perfect (nor is SoS as there was a somewhat heated discussion on SoS as a tie breaker after the BBV) but points is the most likely to not result in another tie.

Am I the only one that would prefer to declare them to be equally placed and then roll a D20 for prize table priority?

[nyys]

Originally Posted by ollie

Am I the only one that would prefer to declare them to be equally placed and then roll a D20 for prize table priority?

Yep, because then what would we argue about?

[ollie]

Originally Posted by nyys

Yep, because then what would we argue about?

You can all stand around and grumble about how in a proper system you'd've finished higher.

Just like usual.

[Kinseth]

I'll grumble either way

[ollie]

I've just realised that we've got this far into a debate about scoring systems without me linking to either of my two alternative systems. It was an oversight rather than self-restraint, I assure you.

The second system, with some minor modifications, is going to see action this fall.

[Chimpy]

Sparedon-

A few thoughts.

I have often found that units like Zelrig and Mimring are most useful in their unique ability to make the enemy scatter. Whenever one of the dragons comes out, their opponents jump out of lines and away from bunches.... and straight into bad tactical positions. That so many A-level characters are dependent on placement to be effective (Deathreavers, 4th Mass, Romans) only makes the utility of these folks rise.

I imagine that a skilled player can circumvent this.* However, this suggests that the real problem faced by the dragons and units like them is not a dearth in competitive armies that bunch, but that there are too many players who have good armies and can manage them.

.

I do not wish to beat a dead horse by bringing this up again, but it strikes me that the points you have made here fit in quite well with the earlier discussion of seagulls and niche units. I would say there is little inherently wrong with most of the units on your list. Most of them fit a niche -- armies without special attacks, or armies with massed melee units. In a drafting situation, they would be fine. But because of the current tournament structure, these units fail in the face of the more versatile figures. The figures who play competitively are those figures who hold their own in any IF situation placed before them.


*Most of it is all in your head anyway. Take away the psychological component of losing a squad (or more) in one attack, and these type of units are not nearly as good.

[Sarpedon]

Hello, everyone.

I'm in a really good mood because I just spent an afternoon playing Heroscape with three acquaintances with whom I don't often get to play. It was good because all four of us are experienced players and we all enjoy the game. It was instructive for me to see the different reasons or motives that others have for playing Heroscape.

If someone were to ask you: "Why do you play this game?", what would your answer be? I would hope that you would respond: "For fun, of course." I would too. However, what is fun to you? In other words, what do you get out of the experience of playing Heroscape that makes it so enjoyable?

From experience, I've seen that there are (at least) three major categories of "good" players. The first is the truly casual player. This is someone who plays almost entirely for the social experience and gets great pleasure from being around friends and relatives. This type of player will never play to win, because winning or losing in Heroscape is not his real source of excitement. For excitement he does other things like going to clubs, mountain climbing, making money, etc.. This player will never think long or hard and will spend most of his time focused on the people playing the game rather than the game itself. In fact, he's willing to play any game that allows him to spend time with his friends.

The second type is what I call the puzzle-solver. This type of player is interested in examining and experimenting with the game system itself. He is intent on finding new combinations and trying out new ideas. He doesn't care if he wins or loses: he only cares about learning and discovering neat things that others may have missed. His quiet pleasure is derived from gaining a better understanding of the game and trying out novel things. He is both an explorer and a detective.

The third type (mine) is the competitive player. When he is playing, he is in the battle. He sees the banners, hears the cries, feels the splattering of the blood of his enemies as well as the horror of his own gushing wounds. While playing, he is not on earth: he is in Valhalla. Victory is everything and must be achieved by effort, sacrifice, guile, cleverness and skill. As long as it is according to the rules it is fair. Such a player will never even think of cheating because to do so would entirely jade his victory and leave him bereft of glory. Once the game is over, of course, he returns to the real world, shakes hands with his opponents, congratulates or consoles them in the true spirit of friendship and hopes his next battle will bring him even greater satisfaction.

These are the three major categories of good players I've encountered. Undoubtedly, most players are a combination of the three to greater or lesser degrees. By understanding the main motives behind our adversaries' reasons for playing the game, we can all enjoy it better together.

[1Mmirg]

I'll admit that for me there are two different HS games (maybe three, even), and that the nature of the Scape I'm playing relates closely to the kind of player I am.

There is the one that I play with my friends/family to be with them. Here I'm mostly casual, though not to the excess you describe above. The game is still a game and playing well is still part of it, though winning is not the crux--playing well and seeing some good action on the table is.

When I'm at a tourney, I'm more focused. I still enjoy the people I'm with (we have a good group here in SoFL), but I'm more focused on winning and being competitive. (After all, I don't want to let my opponent down ...)

There is also the side of me that likes to try out variants. This is part of my casual side. Trying out variants that include non-player enemy units, unique success variants, unusual terrain pieces/options, etc. make for a fun break from "traditional" Scape. We don't do these a lot, but every so often we play with the Scape universe and accepted patterns a bit. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

BTW, I'm guessing you're familiar with this thread: What Kind of 'Scaper are you? Worth linking it here, I think.