ok so lets say you have to build for a 300pt game and your team comes in at 305. i know it will be up to the venue/judge but i just wanna know if theres any rule for leniency on this. i know one time i had to make a 200pt and my team came in at 201 and no one cared but i just wanna know before i bother our judge with this question. thanks

No, there is no leniency. Your team cannot be even 1 point over the build limit.

More likely everybody cared but nobody wanted to come off as being *that* guy for objecting.

I would totally be that guy. Home game with a friend? Sure, you can go over a few points.

Tournament? Nope, I want you to play by the same rules I'm playing by.

We have a house rule that you can build one point over for every 100 points of the build total. 300 points you can go up to 303, 400 up to 404, etc.

How often do people go over?
(I prefer to think of this as changing the build total - instead of saying "the build total is 300, but you can build a 303 point team if you want", it's much simpler to just say "the build total is 303 points").

well it wasnt a tournament when that happened it was just scenario night at my venue. thats when the judge says a scenario and we build for it. nothing competitive about it really

I can say from experience that on the couple of occasions where I've deferred to a group decision on something like this I have had at least one person come up after to complain.

Take a slight overbuild like this for example. At my venue the atmosphere is generally pretty laid back. At one time if a player approached me right before a tournament asking about a slight overbuild the ruthless rules lawyer in me would want to tell the person to cut something from the team, rebuild quickly, or not participate. Knowing the crowd, however, I felt that my instincts would probably not be shared by the group and therefore would open the decision up to be made by the group, specifically saying that it would need to be unanimous.

Perhaps doing this at all was the mistake, or perhaps doing it so publicly was the mistake, but what I came to learn is that there was always at least one person, if not more, who wanted to object but did not want to be that one guy spoiling the fun when everyone else seemed cool with it. In other words, in essence I was creating an environment where at least one rules-abiding player was having his fun lessened in favor of the sparing the fun for the guy who couldn't follow the rules.

Nowadays I try to just make the ruling based on the rules. If I need to DQ the kindest, sweetest female retiree you've ever met because she brings a Lord of the Rings team to a modern age event, so be it.

Dang, Harpua. You one baaad mutha-
"Watch yo mouth!"
What? I'm just talkin' 'bout Harpua!


I can see how someone could think a public group vote was a bad idea, but, yeah, like you mentioned, sociology just doesn't work that way. The best way (albeit much slower) would be to have people anonymously write their answer down on a scrap of paper and give it to you so then even the judge doesn't know who objects.
I'd like to think I would have just flat out told him he can't do that. I certainly wouldn't have the audacity to ask my judge if he's ok with me cheating.

Well, as with most such situations in this game, it is going to depend on the situation.

Like if a guy shows up and says "Hey, I know the build is 500, but I've been wanting to play this sweet team that comes to 501 points. That's ok, right?" that's really not cool.

Now the guy who sits down, takes out his team, and then says "Oh crap, she's 75 points, not 76." is making an honest mistake. That's a different ball of wax, imo.

There's also the cases like when you have a new guy show up for a modern age event with his team of all of the Wolverines he could find in the dump bin because he loves Wolverine and doesn't yet get the concept of modern vs. golden age.

Cases like those last two are the really tough ones. Quite frequently I'll offer up my team or even have a secondary team made for just such an event. Even then, though, you're taking a risk as the judge. If the person borrowing the team you built goes on to win the event it is conceivable to have someone saying (or even just thinking) "Oh, well, if the judge built my team I'd could have won."

(And yes, when I had to DQ the sweet retiree lady I mentioned above, I did offer her my team to use. Her response was something like "I really just want to play my Hobbits. Can I still play even if I'm not in the event?" Talk about a figurative shot to the pills. Of course she got to play the byes, but man it was heartbreaking.)

A big part of being a judge is ensuring a happy playing environment. In all of my years of judging, I can say that is really the hardest part of it all. When cases like these arise, someone is going to get cheesed off. Sometimes it is quite the challenge figuring out the best plan to minimize the extent of that.

The last time i played a game with a leniency, it was demonworld miniature game... and it has a 5% leniency. EVERYBODY was building as close as possible to the +5% ALWAYS
So i'm very glad Heroclix has NO leniency AT ALL.
It's a very good rule and it has been like that since the beginning. You can't go over the build total not even 1 point.

Completely agree with this.

Friendly game and your buddy says "I've got this cool idea for a team but I'm 2 points over" then yeah, go for it.

But if you come to a tournament with a team that exceeds that event's point value, then you're either:

A) Cheating
B) Lack the math skills of an average American 7 year old

Either way, I'm going to have to ask you to fix your team.


Yep. The moment you make a house rule that says you can be over by X amount, then you've essentially just made that the new points cap. No one is going to intentionally build to a disadvantage. People won't be thinking "the build is 400, but I can be over by 5 if I need it". People will instead be thinking "I have 405 points to work with."

I agree with the group. You need to be at or below the build total. You can ask the judge if its OK, but I'm betting you get a NO.

Having a team I want to play be over by a few points was one of my biggest objections to the game switching from a REV base to CUR. Back in the day, if I was over by a few points, I could just bump that character down to the E or C version and be ok, even if it wasn't an optimal dial. If the characters you're playing aren't in the Iron Man/Captain America/Batman/Superman tier of iterations, you may not have many lower point options.

And, I'm not a fan of allowing over-point builds in anything resembling a tournament.

It's true; I've seen him do it. He's a big meanie.