HeroScape was a transformational game in the hobby for me that helped refine how I think about the compatibility of miniatures, the creation and use of terrain, and how rules can be created to attract and introduce others to similarly-themed games. I've basically been obsessed with elements relating to the game for years now, continuing to create custom minis and terrain in a vain attempt to relive days of old. However, while I was involved in it with others that collected, played, and competed, there were some things I really hated about it too, and it has been especially unattractive for reasons I will insinuate here to get involved in the customs creations based on HeroScape rules, rather than just making minis and terrain that are compatible for something else. I would like to share my thoughts and get feedback from others that may be able to identify with these thoughts for the sake of assessing if directions I am considering for my own game system seem like they may be going in the correct direction. Basically, I will share what I consider pros and cons, but I am not sure I can communicate them without being snobby, as I am not interested in an general analysis of pros and cons, but more a breakdown from the perspective of "if you were drawn to the game for similar reasons and can see why these things are problems, please share insight."
Early HeroScape had an inspiring theme that started strong with its simple concept of heroes and warriors being summoned to Valhalla to fight in perpetual warfare. PERFECT. Don't need to worry about the logic behind named heroes, legends, characters, etc. dying and affecting lore since there is time travel, magic, and resurrecting. Lore was not pushed so much that it scared away newcomers from an intimidatingly complicated universe. But as more and more cards were released with their "personalities" and assigned generals, the game took a chaotic shape that became unappealing and disappointing because the cards were locked-in as official, assessed for competitiveness, and accumulated problems that could only be solved by a complicated system of creating a corps of errata and agreement with others on what was acceptable on a case-by-case basis. For example, numerous "official units" had themes that everyone seemed to agree should be more compatible, like matching up personalities to be compatible with thematic leadership powers. I grew to hate the Valkyrie generals and how units were assigned. I would prefer sorting my collection, whether cards or figures, by ethnos - Marro with Marro, regardless of their mounts, for example. But the card assignments led increasingly to sorting by functionality or general. Basically, the lore seemed to evolve or devolve over time, and during that same time, production was trying to align releases based somewhat on compatibility with that lore. For example, when the later Valkyrie generals were releases, there was drive to give them more units, and this led to issues like evil Soulborgs that seemed like they should be more synergistic being aligned with different generals. The epitome of an example of what I hated about this was how there was an association with Vydar being futuristic and tricky. Those concept aren't really the basis for recruiting zealots in warfare, and it strikes me (and probably many others) as being silly to have concepts like Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, Noble, Disciplined, etc. contrasted with futuristic/tricky. What the heck are theses generals fighting over and would samurai really pick (or be picked by) Einar while being neglected by Jandar? The whole alignment system just seems dumb to be frank.
Next, the idea that every unit has to have at least one special power (and usually more, with them also usually being especially wordy) strikes me as the same idea as "everybody deserves a trophy" and leads to a problem - especially when introducing new players to the game - of the ultimate database of unit rules being quite over-complicated for what was successfully executed as a simple game with easy introduction. It became more like playing Magic: The Gathering, where instead of simply understanding the basics, one had to stay on top of the cards and how the rules were worded in order to stay alert and competitive. That is not such a big deal with a limited body of official releases, but the custom creation appeal drops dramatically when the rules lawyering for each and every potential custom unit seems like it needs a court case to justify its power level and whether it would be fun to include in a game. Put another way, it really tests peoples' patience to try out custom figures when those customs can be exploited to be highly competitive by taking advantage of their synergies with other units, yet they were driven to be synergetic. I am far more drawn to the idea of building an army and the more units I have for that army, the more resources I have to bring to the table based on negotiated point values. But this focus on units' special abilities (since every unit needs to be special apparently) overshadowed the focus that could have been on bringing units to the table that fit thematically, and using basic tactics and maneuvers to compete instead of combos and meta-synergies.
One other complaint I have about the game is similar to the others raised, but relies more on examples. I thought the original Romans had abilities that would have worked better for Praetorian Guards, should have had a Pilum throw, and were just overall lacking in demonstrating how awesome Imperial Roman heavy infantry could and should be, especially with the advances after the Marian reforms. HeroScape was all about bringing the best warriors through time to fight, and instead of awesome anachronistic battles between formidable warriors that we should be able to predict based on historical traits, the quality of units depended on their cards, point values, and synergy with the metagame.
And with that, I will get in to the bigger problem I have with the game rules. How realistic is it that if I brought a squad of Romans and a squad of lighter gladiators to try to secure a bridgehead into England, that my squad of Romans wouldn't move an inch for the entire game while my squad of gladiators moves across a ford, kills multiple squads of Highland Scotsmen, pseudo-William Wallace, and multiple squads of Knights of Weston? Their fighting skills might be honed well enough to defeat those opponents, but the Romans would not just sit doing nothing for the sake of manipulating order markers to win the battle. I've played games with Cyprien Esenwein that almost all orders were on him for most of the game while other units don't move because the order marker placement is so important to stay competitive using the game rules. It's not realistic and that is frustrating. I know it is very difficult to develop a game where movement and timing for combat action works well AND is realistic, but it is not too lofty a goal and HS falls short.
HeroScape is very appealing for a lot of valid reasons, and I think those reasons are worth salvaging into a similar game system. However, the card structure, order marker system, and many basics of the rules do not seem worthy. I think a game system using similar miniatures and terrain should be able to provide a framework for creating cards for custom units that do not over-complicate battles or prompt debates about the price of units in terms of their competitiveness. I am working on a system that should work for friendly games testing such a premise as "If we were to assume that Roman legionnaires as heavy infantry had armor on par with British foot knights much later (even though they didn't), let's set up a battle of relatively even forces and see who has the better tactics to take the field." The general role of leaders, standard bearers, musicians, and auxiliaries of recognizable roles should have relatively standardized abilities - NOT a different paragraph to interpret on each card (and with such a thing as the difference between an arbitrary "tricky" or "disciplined" personality being potentially so impactful on command and control).
If you sympathize with my analysis on some level and are interested in sharing, I would love to read your assessments and especially appreciate ideas for rules systems that facilitate the best of HeroScape-like miniatures fighting over HeroScape-like terrain.
Early HeroScape had an inspiring theme that started strong with its simple concept of heroes and warriors being summoned to Valhalla to fight in perpetual warfare. PERFECT. Don't need to worry about the logic behind named heroes, legends, characters, etc. dying and affecting lore since there is time travel, magic, and resurrecting. Lore was not pushed so much that it scared away newcomers from an intimidatingly complicated universe. But as more and more cards were released with their "personalities" and assigned generals, the game took a chaotic shape that became unappealing and disappointing because the cards were locked-in as official, assessed for competitiveness, and accumulated problems that could only be solved by a complicated system of creating a corps of errata and agreement with others on what was acceptable on a case-by-case basis. For example, numerous "official units" had themes that everyone seemed to agree should be more compatible, like matching up personalities to be compatible with thematic leadership powers. I grew to hate the Valkyrie generals and how units were assigned. I would prefer sorting my collection, whether cards or figures, by ethnos - Marro with Marro, regardless of their mounts, for example. But the card assignments led increasingly to sorting by functionality or general. Basically, the lore seemed to evolve or devolve over time, and during that same time, production was trying to align releases based somewhat on compatibility with that lore. For example, when the later Valkyrie generals were releases, there was drive to give them more units, and this led to issues like evil Soulborgs that seemed like they should be more synergistic being aligned with different generals. The epitome of an example of what I hated about this was how there was an association with Vydar being futuristic and tricky. Those concept aren't really the basis for recruiting zealots in warfare, and it strikes me (and probably many others) as being silly to have concepts like Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, Noble, Disciplined, etc. contrasted with futuristic/tricky. What the heck are theses generals fighting over and would samurai really pick (or be picked by) Einar while being neglected by Jandar? The whole alignment system just seems dumb to be frank.
Next, the idea that every unit has to have at least one special power (and usually more, with them also usually being especially wordy) strikes me as the same idea as "everybody deserves a trophy" and leads to a problem - especially when introducing new players to the game - of the ultimate database of unit rules being quite over-complicated for what was successfully executed as a simple game with easy introduction. It became more like playing Magic: The Gathering, where instead of simply understanding the basics, one had to stay on top of the cards and how the rules were worded in order to stay alert and competitive. That is not such a big deal with a limited body of official releases, but the custom creation appeal drops dramatically when the rules lawyering for each and every potential custom unit seems like it needs a court case to justify its power level and whether it would be fun to include in a game. Put another way, it really tests peoples' patience to try out custom figures when those customs can be exploited to be highly competitive by taking advantage of their synergies with other units, yet they were driven to be synergetic. I am far more drawn to the idea of building an army and the more units I have for that army, the more resources I have to bring to the table based on negotiated point values. But this focus on units' special abilities (since every unit needs to be special apparently) overshadowed the focus that could have been on bringing units to the table that fit thematically, and using basic tactics and maneuvers to compete instead of combos and meta-synergies.
One other complaint I have about the game is similar to the others raised, but relies more on examples. I thought the original Romans had abilities that would have worked better for Praetorian Guards, should have had a Pilum throw, and were just overall lacking in demonstrating how awesome Imperial Roman heavy infantry could and should be, especially with the advances after the Marian reforms. HeroScape was all about bringing the best warriors through time to fight, and instead of awesome anachronistic battles between formidable warriors that we should be able to predict based on historical traits, the quality of units depended on their cards, point values, and synergy with the metagame.
And with that, I will get in to the bigger problem I have with the game rules. How realistic is it that if I brought a squad of Romans and a squad of lighter gladiators to try to secure a bridgehead into England, that my squad of Romans wouldn't move an inch for the entire game while my squad of gladiators moves across a ford, kills multiple squads of Highland Scotsmen, pseudo-William Wallace, and multiple squads of Knights of Weston? Their fighting skills might be honed well enough to defeat those opponents, but the Romans would not just sit doing nothing for the sake of manipulating order markers to win the battle. I've played games with Cyprien Esenwein that almost all orders were on him for most of the game while other units don't move because the order marker placement is so important to stay competitive using the game rules. It's not realistic and that is frustrating. I know it is very difficult to develop a game where movement and timing for combat action works well AND is realistic, but it is not too lofty a goal and HS falls short.
HeroScape is very appealing for a lot of valid reasons, and I think those reasons are worth salvaging into a similar game system. However, the card structure, order marker system, and many basics of the rules do not seem worthy. I think a game system using similar miniatures and terrain should be able to provide a framework for creating cards for custom units that do not over-complicate battles or prompt debates about the price of units in terms of their competitiveness. I am working on a system that should work for friendly games testing such a premise as "If we were to assume that Roman legionnaires as heavy infantry had armor on par with British foot knights much later (even though they didn't), let's set up a battle of relatively even forces and see who has the better tactics to take the field." The general role of leaders, standard bearers, musicians, and auxiliaries of recognizable roles should have relatively standardized abilities - NOT a different paragraph to interpret on each card (and with such a thing as the difference between an arbitrary "tricky" or "disciplined" personality being potentially so impactful on command and control).
If you sympathize with my analysis on some level and are interested in sharing, I would love to read your assessments and especially appreciate ideas for rules systems that facilitate the best of HeroScape-like miniatures fighting over HeroScape-like terrain.