Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread

[UranusPChicago]

Battlefields of Valhalla
Goal: To offer the Heroscape gaming community balanced, playtested maps for both tournament and competitive play. And to establish standards for playable, balanced, and aesthetic maps.


Battlefields of Valhalla Display Thread (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=5725)

Updated 5/23/2013

Logged Raider30 vote: NtI Rising Pressure.
Rising Pressure removed from review.


Maps pending acceptance for review:

———


Maps currently being reviewed:

THE BOROGOVES by Typhon2222 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=3908)
Yes = 0 ; NO = 0 ; PENDING = 5 (1Mmirg, Dignan, mad_wookiee, nyys, Raider30) *Typhon2222 removed as map creator

DRAUGUR by mad_wookiee (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=3572)
Yes = 0 ; NO = 0 ; PENDING = 5 (1Mmirg, Dignan, nyys, Raider30, Typhon2222) *mad_wookiee removed as map creator

[Rÿchean]

By-laws for the Battlefields of Valhalla:

SECTION 1: Submission guidelines and tips
1. Maps shall contain exactly 24 hexes of start zone for each player. Start zones must be identified in the build instructions and must accommodate the Marro Hive in some capacity.
2. Maps should be balanced for 1-on-1 competition between two (2) 400-600 point armies
3. Maps are generally not to exceed 1 MS and up to 3 terrain expansions. No more than 2 expansions of the same type may be used in a map. There are exceptions; please note the set classifications at the bottom of this section.
4. Use of the Marro Hive as a line-of-sight blocker is allowed with the SotM set. Keep in mind the fewer expansions a map includes the more likely it is to be used. Submitted maps must state what sets are needed.
5. Anyone can nominate a map for consideration, but it will not go through the judging process without a majority vote of the Council.
6. Submitted maps must include build instructions.
7. Glyphs are not required, but any number may be used to enhance a map.
(a) Maps containing symbol-side up Treasure Glyphs must state which glyphs are Treasure Glyphs, otherwise mystery glyphs will be treated as standard glyphs. (Until another means of marking Treasure Glyphs becomes available, any face-up Brandar can be designated in the build instructions as a symbol-side up Treasure Glyph.)
(b) Symbol-side up Treasure Glyphs must include a description of the trap the map uses in the build instructions. Trap design will be considered in judging the map.
8. Nominations should be in .pdf format. Special circumstances may warrant exception.
9. Maps should not heavily favor any one special ability to the point that it makes the map non-competitive if an army does not contain that ability (i.e. range, flying, etc.).
10. Do NOT slap a map together and nominate it for consideration. Nominated maps must have some games played by more than one person. Additional game play experiences and observations are encouraged.



Classification of Heroscape sets:
Master Sets. One of the following may be used as a master set:
Rise of the Valkyrie
Marvel: The Conflict Begins
Swarm of the Marro
D&D: Battle for the Underdark
Expansions: Up to three of the following may be used, with up to two copies of the same set allowed:
Road To The Forgotten Forest
Volcarren Wasteland
Thaelenk Tundra
Fortress of the Archkyrie
Ticalla Jungle
Hybrid Master Sets: One of the following may be used in place of two expansions:
Marvel: The Conflict Begins
Swarm of the Marro (Except when also used as a master set.)
D&D: Battle for the Underdark SECTION 2: How maps are judged
Maps nominated for consideration will go through the following process after a majority of acceptance votes by the judges:
1. Maps will be playtested competitively at least once by all judges, using 400-600 point armies. Candidates for approval will be playtested more than once.
2. Consideration for approved maps will be given, generally, based on the following criteria and in this order: balance, interesting play, and aesthetics.
3. Time for consideration is: as long as it takes for the judges to make an informed decision.
4. Great maps will be approved; not good ones. Don't let this discourage you.
5. Judge discussions will occur in a public and private forums on the non-official Heroscape web site: Currently www.heroscapers.com (http://www.heroscapers.com)
7. Reviews on maps will be public with status and results presented.
8. Maps that receive a super-majority of 75% (currently 5 out of a possible 6) of the Council will be formatted and given the Battlefields of Valhalla Seal of Approval. Judges may abstain from a vote on a particular map, thereby reducing the total number of votes needed for acceptance.

SECTION 3: Self-governance
1. The Council will contain six judges. The current judges are: 1Mmirg, Dignan, nyys, mad_wookie, Raider30, Typhon2222
2. Judges will maintain their position unless:
a) They are not heard from by fellow judges on the official non-official Heroscape web site for a period of 31 days, or
b) They abstain for a total of three months or for three consecutive maps under review, whichever comes later.
3. If a vacancy on the council occurs, judges will be replaced by those who:
a) show interest in serving, and
b) after consideration of the sitting judges receive 75 % vote of approval. Voting and discussion of a replacement judge may occur in private.
4. Judges will not be allowed to vote on their own maps. During the judging of their own maps their vote will be considered an abstention for the percentages needed to both playtest and approve the map. Their vote will NOT be counted as an abstention for purposes of the "three consecutive maps" criteria in Section 3-2-b.
5. These by-laws may be changed and amended at any time by a 75 % vote of sitting judges.

--
Maps that were reviewed but not approved for Battlefields of Valhalla:
:!:Links to nomination
:jandar:Links to yes votes
:utgar:Links to no votes

Link to Updated List of Reviewed Maps (thanks, UtahScott!): 2007-2009 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1341409#post1341409) | 2010-2012 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1341411#post1341411)

Old List:

Forsaken Waters by Hasbro
Ruins at Dhibah Oasis by justjohn (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=207) (Broken)
Fire and Ice by xraine69 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=486) (Broken)
Forest Trails V2.0 by Braxev (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506) (Broken)
Into the Breech by GB & Ry (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=154) (Broken)
The Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road by Kahrma (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=127) (Broken)
Ancient Ruins of Nalanda by Alastair MacDirk (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10243/Ruins_of_Nalanda.pdf) (Works)
Forgotten Wellspring by Harlord (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=611) (Broken)
Roadkill by Khanbob42 (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10142/roadkill.pdf) (Works)
RiverCheckpoint by Khanbob42 (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10142/rivercheckpoint.pdf) (Works)
Spring Thaw by Kahrma (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=282) (Broken)
Bayou Bridge by T-Bomb (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=874) (Broken)
Annihilation Alley by Codeman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=785) (Works)
Ashonqurk Fields by geosmores (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=671) (Broken)
The Desolate Watch by Satyr (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=688) (Broken)
Klomar's Training Ground - Location 7 by geosmores (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=699) (Broken)
Winter Crossing by Khanbob42 (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10142/wintercrossing.pdf) (Works)
Across the Ice River (version2) by eveningdrive (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=976) (Broken)
Spring in the Air by UranusPChicago (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=804) (Broken)
Ayrwode's Bluff by GameBear (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=945) (Broken)
Foxtrot by Nadi (http://heroscape.catalystradio.com/pdf/misc/foxtrot_te.pdf) (Server not found) (Broken)
Frozen Foothills by Messenger (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=1268) (Broken)
Alpine Shrine by CH4071Curl (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=1281) (Broken)
Ice Blossom by STAROCEAN980 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=1165) (Broken)
Ice Buffer by GameBear (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=974) (Broken)
Hot Bog by Jonathan (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=244) (Works)
Tursan Run by yagyuninja (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=274) (Works)
Little Rampart by Ch1can0 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=284) (Works)
Spiral Turrets by Mooseman (http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c364/Carryoka/SpiralTurrets2.png) (Different site/server?) (Works)
Marro Marsh by Gomolka (http://www.mediafire.com/?stylhm5av9y) (No map here) (Bad link)
Road to Nowhere by Nadious (http://heroscape.catalystradio.com/pdf/other/roadtonowhere_te.pdf) (Server not found) (Broken)
Desperation by Browncoat (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=314) (Works)
Flanking of the North Army by Soul Shackle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=422) (Works)
Sunken Temple by Mooseman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=386) (Works)
Marro Marsh by Gomolka (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=533) (Works)
East Pond by Soul Shackle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=580) (Works)
Stroll Through The Park by UranusPChicago (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=558) (Works)
Overlord by Ch1can0 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=338) (Works)
Myrkr Spring by Kahrma (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=610) (Works)
Shady Oasis by Rÿchean (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=531) (Works)
Division by Mooseman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=595) (Works)
Winter Holdout by Jexik (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=335) (Works)
Marpesia's Glory by Gamebear (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=815) (Works)
The Lowland Paths by Superflytnt (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=864) (Works)
Hot Spot by karl with a k (http://www.mediafire.com/?rz2a5jtrhwn) (No map here) (Bad link)
Husk of the Holdfast by Velenne (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=212) (Works)
Serpent Mound by Mooseman (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=903) (Works)
Icy Isle by Angear (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?lk2ihiojqxh) (Works)
A Chill in the Air by Dignan (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1563%5DSwamp%20Helix%205.0%20by%20Dok%5B/url%5D%20%28Works%29%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%5Burl=%22http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1293) (Works)
Border Disorder by Velenne (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=209) (Works)
Highways&Dieways: Swamp Edition, modified by Rÿchean (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=331) (Works)
Mole Hills: Jungle Edition, modified my Rÿchean (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=588) (Works)
Common Ground by Gamebear (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1375) (Works)
Derelict by Jexik (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1484) (Works)
Watch Towers by nyys (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1446) (Works)
Marshes and Mountains by Einar's Puppy (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1419) (Works)
A Stone's Throw by Darkmage7a (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1640) (Works)
Into the Jungle by Rednax (http://www.mediafire.com/file/mmwzennzmzh/Into%20the%20Jungle.pdf) (Works)
Kyrien Quarry by White Noise (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1809) (Works)
Rift Valley by RoninValentina (http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t83/CatchCharyou/RiftValleyBuildInstructions-1.jpg) (Works) :!: (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=951376#post951376)
Paved Paradise v3 by Sup3rs0n1c (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1904) (Works) :!: (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=929651#post929651) :utgar: (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=958436#post958436) :utgar: (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=960491#post960491)


Maps previously nominated but were not accepted for review (map balance varies wildly, please search the thread for why they didn't make it before using for competitive play):

Link to Updated List of Nominated Maps (again, thanks, UtahScott): 2007-2010 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=1341420#post1341420)

Old List:
Puddle Garden by J-bird (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=610) (Broken)
Fire Pit by Marduk (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=568) (Broken)
Gnarles Barkley by Oogie (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=244) (Broken)
Nerak's Passage by Cornpuff (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=179) (Broken)
Frost Heaves by Kahrma (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=546) (Broken)
Paragon Mountain by Homba (http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/Paragon_Mountain_-_Build_Diagram.pdf) (Good)
The Nassik River Pass by Sirpongo (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=880) (Broken)
Battle for High Ground by grizz (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=944) (Broken)
Hot Spot by pixiepop (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=955) (Broken)
Fight for the Waterfall by grizz (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=956) (Broken)
Baraxton Falls by Sirpongo (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=966) (Broken)
Frostbite by songbird (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=990) (Broken)
Speedy Trees by Goldendice (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=979) (Broken)
Scalding Pass by Goldendice (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=1093) (Broken)
Soulrazor Canyon - Browncoat Edition (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=996) (Broken)
Flooded City by Technomagus (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=1098) (Broken)
Searing Pass by Hasbro (http://www.hasbro.com/games/kid-games/heroscape/Scenarios/Searing_Pass_Master.pdf) (Official site)
Mt. Kismet by Browncoat (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=1335) (Broken)
The Crossing by Darkomen57 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=1303) (Broken)
The Ruined Road to Gotham by tyguy94920 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/?dlid=1368) (Broken)
Baraxton Falls 2.0 by Sir Pongo/Krackon_02 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=1371) (Broken)
Hopscorch by Elstree (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=917) (Broken)
Stand Ready by Soul Shackle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=175) (Good)
Conflict in the Woods by Gomolka (http://www.mediafire.com/?cc2ce1zlpme) (No map here) (Bad link)
Rough Climb Ahead by Nadi (http://heroscape.catalystradio.com/pdf/other/roughclimbahead_te.pdf) (Server not found) (Broken)
Frozen Pass by Aeston (http://www.vinehaeven.com/temp/heroscape/frozenpass.pdf) (Good)
Cross Swamp Expressway by Eckels (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=389) (Good)
Stechavan Outskirts by Soul Shackle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=353) (Good)
Death Bridge by Troubleman23 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=774) (Good)
Melee Mania by Soul Shackle (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=543) (Good)
Husk of the Holdfast by Velenne (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=212)(original version) (Good)
Forgotten Highway by Retlaw (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=795) (Good)
Burning Love by TheSparkleInYourWater (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=869) (Good)
Thormun's Wellspring (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1163) (Good)
Ancient Table of the Giants by Archkyrie11 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1186) (Good)
The Revenge of the Marr Highway by Sup3rS0n1c (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/downloads.php?do=file&id=1212) (Good)

[UranusPChicago]

Are we going to designate starting zones and glyph placement on all maps as part of the submission process?

[Eclipse]

I think there needs to be a standard starting zone size for Tournament maps. It would really suck to get to the finals and find out your army suddenly doesn't fit anymore. The most units you can have in a 400 point army is 40, but I'd guess most people would agree a smaller starting zone helps relieve the squadscape problem a bit. Someone once suggested 22-24 hexes, which seems pretty fair.

But yes, I think any glyphs or starting zones should be part of the map for submission. Nothing can unbalance a map more than a few poorly placed glyphs or starting zones that put you at a severe disadvantage. If we're going to scrutinize every single tree and wall placed on the map, we should definitely take the starting zone into consideration.

[Rÿchean]

Are we going to designate starting zones and glyph placement on all maps as part of the submission process?

Yes, I think we should.

I see your point then; we need to use forsaken waters' winter holdout as a place to start and make some decisions about glyphs and starting zones from there.

Currently the start zones off of winter holdout are 18 hexes; we can easly tack two on each side to make 20.

I always liked the Glyph spots for "A" and "G" but could see trading one or the other or both for "V" and "K".

[CornPuff]

I see your point then; we need to use forsaken waters' winter holdout as a place to start and make some decisions about glyphs and starting zones from there.
Yup, we need to get the kinks worked out of the system before we test someone else's map.

First things first, here is a link to a virtuascape file of Forsaken Waters with glyphs and start zones winter holdout style.

http://www.cornpuff.org/Heroscape/downloads/Forsaken%20Waters.hsc

Alright, here's a shot at a balance analysis:
The Glyphs of Astrid, Gerda, Valda, Kelda and Dagmar are the the same distance away from both start zones for normal, double-based, slithering and flying units with the following exceptions. A slithering unit on the Red side can step on the Glyph of Gerda in 9 move points, where it takes a slithering unit 10 move points to get to gerda from blue start. A double based figure from Red takes 11 Move Points (MP) to land on the glyph of Dagmar, while the blue side takes one less MP.

I don't see either of these as problems, but its worth pointing out the glyphs are extremely balanced.

The biggest difference between the two sides is that Red side has an 'island' that is excellent for a Raelin perch. There is no analog on blue side, as Raelin has to pick going to one of the sides, or landing on the contested central table. I would see this as a potential issue, but this map has been playtested so bloody much that we know it isn't significant.

I don't like the position of the glyph of Dagmar, as it screws up mobility on that ledge. Stop on glyph rules, IMHO, aren't that much fun, especially when its the init glyph that you don't care about that much.

If we add start spaces, I can see a way to add 3 spaces to each side without screwing up the glyph balance. Personally, I don't see much of a reason to add hexes to the start zone, as the limitation lends itself to a different type of strategy. On the other hand, sure, why not increase them. Tournament n00bs might be upset if they find they cant use 22 of their gruts, and we do have a responsibility to the tournament patrons.

I guess I'd rather keep it at 18. We might be looking at maps with fewer start zones in the future, and I'd hate to eliminate them just based on that. Let's see, 24 drones is 400 points. Should this be a metric?

Oh wait, I'm blabbering. Adding 3 hexes to each zone looks nice, should lessen tournament frustration, and doesn't damage the equality of the map. I added these hex locations this image, and highlighted them yellow.

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10016/FW_proposal.gif

Back to the glyphs.

We talked earlier about tournament maps having 2 faces. The first is the 'director's cut.' This is how the mapmaker intends the map to be played. The second is the 'standardized version.' This version will always have a spot for the "A" and "G" glyphs and no others.

My proposal is to remove the glyph of Dagmar (init), and the start zones plus three (like the image above) to make the FW Tournament Mix. The move and heal glyphs should be kept on to go with the designers original map as much as possible. For future maps, I'd of course consult the designers before accepting changes, but I don't think Rob and Craig are going to stop by and validate these changes.

For the standard A & G mix, I liked the gencon setup. It used the Valda and Astrid glyph spots. I'd also be quite happy leaving them where they are.

[Eclipse]

:poke:

How goes this project?

[Rÿchean]

:poke:

How goes this project?

We all pretty much stopped down to prepare for the tourneys we were playing in this weekend. I do believe you will see some movement now on this front.

I will be making a more concerted effort in the coming weeks to focus on this endeavor.

[Rÿchean]

Back to the glyphs.

We talked earlier about tournament maps having 2 faces. The first is the 'director's cut.' This is how the mapmaker intends the map to be played. The second is the 'standardized version.' This version will always have a spot for the "A" and "G" glyphs and no others.

My proposal is to remove the glyph of Dagmar (init), and the start zones plus three (like the image above) to make the FW Tournament Mix. The move and heal glyphs should be kept on to go with the designers original map as much as possible. For future maps, I'd of course consult the designers before accepting changes, but I don't think Rob and Craig are going to stop by and validate these changes.

For the standard A & G mix, I liked the gencon setup. It used the Valda and Astrid glyph spots. I'd also be quite happy leaving them where they are.

I don't think the glyphs are as important as the glyph locations. I see the value in maintaining the integrity of the original map design as far as glyphs ...but I also see value in having the optimal glyph spots identified for random as well. Glyph A is the best primary placement of 1 random glyph and glyph V is the second most optimal placement when using 2 random glyphs. The reasoning here is that two glyphs that close together (A&G)with no cover between will usually be controlled by the same player. Glyph spot V allows a spot with cover further away making it harder to hold both glyphs at once. This could be noted as part of the download or recommendation; basically if using 1 random glyph use this spot, if two use these two, etc...

Too much detail? Ultimately the tourney manager will decide what they want to do but I think it is important to have 1-2 random glyph locations pre-identified.

[UranusPChicago]

I second Rychean on glyph location. I recommend that we just use the "?" glyph when identifying the glyph locations. I tend to think of "scenario" maps using specific glyphs.

Yes, there are some of the glyphs that IMHO have no business being in a tournament setting, but I will leave that for the tournament directors to decide on.

[CornPuff]

Wow, a lot has happened in the other thread since I made that big post. We can ignore all of my past rhetoric about the 'directors cut,' as i think that has all been resolved.

Since it is our duty to present the best version of the map to tourney organizers, I think we should use the map in the image above, without random glphs, instead with all 4 pre-placed glyphs. I've played the 'winter holdout' scenario several times, and always thought it was a blast, I think the Kelda glyph is a fine addition to this map, even though it may increase gametimes.

I really think specific glyphs are great for many maps, as where a glyph is changes the dynamic of the map a lot. Say you have a glyph of lodin randomly placed in the V or K spot. Well then that sucks, because now no one really has any incentive to go over there. Randomness should be left for casual play IMO, while people should have more knowledge ahead of time for competitive play.

Then again, if you know what glyphs are going to be on a map, and then randomize their locations, then that is a different story

[Hendal]

I think all boards should have a 24 starting zone, just add more tiles on the back side ( what I did in Canton was for the boards that didn't have 24 starting spaces, you could only add extra spaces if you needed them ). We used random glyphs in the canton Tourney and I think it worked out better then knowing what was where. In the Central Ohio tourney you had people wanting one side or the other because they wanted to be closer to the attack glyph verses the defense glyph. When they are random ( unknown ) you don't have this problem.

I also made a house rule where the curse only affectst he team that picks it up, it cost me the tourneyment but I really like that rule.

Truth was at both of these tourneys, maybe ask him what he thinks.

[Riggler]

Heroscape Maps Approved for Competitive and Tournament Play

By-laws

Goal: To offer the Heroscape gaming community balanced, playtested maps for both tournament and competitive play. And to establish standards for playable, balanced, and aesthetic maps.

SECTION 1: Submission guidelines and tips
1. Maps shall contain 24 start zones.
2. Maps should be balanced for 1-on-1 competition between two (2) 500 point armies.
3. Maps shall be limited to 1 MS and up to 3 terrain expansions, no two of which can be the same, with the exception that 2 Road to the Forgotten Forests are allowed. Keep in mind the fewer expansions a map includes the more likely it is to be used. If the map makes use of a few wave expansion tiles, that will be acceptable. Submitted maps must state what expansions are needed.
4. Anyone can nominate a map for consideration, but it will not go through the judging process without a majority vote of the Council.
5. Submitted maps must include build instructions.
6. Glyphs are not required, but any number may be used to enhance a map.
7. Maps should not heavily favor any one special ability to the point that it makes the map non-competitive if an army does not contain that ability (i.e. flying, lava resistance, etc.).
8. Do NOT slap a map together and nominate it for consideration. Playtest your submitted map AT LEAST once, or judges will be likely to hunt you down and flog you with wet noodles.

SECTION 2: How maps are judged
1. Maps nominated for consideration will go through the following process after a majority vote of the judges.
2. Maps will be playtested competitively at least once by all judges, using 500 point armies. Candidates for approval will be playtested more than once.
3. Consideration for approved maps will be given, generally, based on the following criteria and in this order: balance, interesting play, and aesthetics.
4. Time for consideration is: as long as it takes for the judges to make an informed decision.
5. Great maps will be approved; not good ones. Don't let this discourage you.
6. Judge discussions will occur in a public forum on the official non-official Heroscape web site: Currently www.heroscapers.com
7. Voting on maps will occur in private, but vote totals will be presented publicly.
8. Maps that receive a super-majority of 75% of the Council will be formatted and given the Battlefields of Valhalla Seal of Approval. Judges may abstain from a vote on a particular map, thereby reducing the total number of votes needed for acceptance.

SECTION 3: Self-governance
1. The Council will contain six judges. The first judges are: CornPuff, Eclipse, Revdyer, Riggler, Rychean and UranusPChicago.
2. Judges will maintain their position unless a) They are not heard from by fellow judges on the official non-official Heroscape web site for a period of 31 days, or b) They abstain for a total of three months or for three consecutive maps under consideration, whichever comes later.
3. If a vacancy on the council occurs, judges will be replaced by those who a) show interest in serving, and b) after consideration of the sitting judges receive 75 % vote of approval. Voting and discussion of a replacement judge may occur in private.
4. Judges will not be allowed to vote on their own maps. During the judging of their own maps their vote will be considered an abstention for the percentages needed to both playtest and approve the map. Their vote will NOT be counted as an abstention for purposes of the "three consecutive maps" criteria in Section 3-2-b.
5. These by-laws may be changed and amended at any time by a 75 % vote of sitting judges.

[Grungebob]

I think all boards should have a 24 starting zone, just add more tiles on the back side ( what I did in Canton was for the boards that didn't have 24 starting spaces, you could only add extra spaces if you needed them ). We used random glyphs in the canton Tourney and I think it worked out better then knowing what was where. In the Central Ohio tourney you had people wanting one side or the other because they wanted to be closer to the attack glyph verses the defense glyph. When they are random ( unknown ) you don't have this problem.

I also made a house rule where the curse only affectst he team that picks it up, it cost me the tourneyment but I really like that rule.

Truth was at both of these tourneys, maybe ask him what he thinks.You have to be careful not to exceed the single master set limitation when adding anything to an official map. At Gencon we had exactly one master set per map to work with and ran short on hexes by trying to add to deployment zones.

[Riggler]

Hey fellow judges, are we ready to do the process on Forsaken Waters?

Almost seems like a trial run, but probably one we need to do. New thread? Hov MAP: Forsake Water?

[UranusPChicago]

Let's just throw down in this thread. We need a guinea pig map to work with and what better map to work with than Forsaken Waters. I think the only real decisions to be made are on glyphs and starting zones.

Let's get this thing rolling...

Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!

[CornPuff]

Well, FW uses exactly one MS. Hasbro gave us 18 hex start zones. My proposed start zones are 21 hexes large, we will need to increase them somehow. We would have to increase it to 24 hexes without upsetting the glyph balance. Maybe we could add some expansion tiles to the back of each side?

Also, I vote for the Kelda, Valda, Astrid and Gerda glyphs to be present as they are in winter holdout. I vote for the removal of the glyph of dagmar, as I always hated that glyph placement because is causes movement over glyph confusion.

This is a good start. Add three more hexes to the start zones in an intelligent way and we can call this one done.

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10016/FW_proposal.gif

[Riggler]

Well, FW uses exactly one MS. Hasbro gave us 18 hex start zones. My proposed start zones are 21 hexes large, we will need to increase them somehow. We would have to increase it to 24 hexes without upsetting the glyph balance. Maybe we could add some expansion tiles to the back of each side?

Also, I vote for the Kelda, Valda, Astrid and Gerda glyphs to be present as they are in winter holdout. I vote for the removal of the glyph of dagmar, as I always hated that glyph placement because is causes movement over glyph confusion.

This is a good start. Add three more hexes to the start zones in an intelligent way and we can call this one done.

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10016/FW_proposal.gif

We actually played this with 500 point armies when I ran the flagbears out the other night. we left the existing start zones and filled in the back side of the starting zones with 3 two-hex pieces on each side to bring the total up. That way you don't have to worry about upsetting the glyph or terrain distances. And the only reason most people would use starting spaces farther back is if they had to.

I've never had a problem with the Dagmar glyph on this map. Its a powerful glyph in my opinion, but it is right out there in the middle of the action most of the time. So there is ample opportunity to take it. I give it up quite often. I'm not concerned with my opponent having it until turn 2 hits and I'm not concerned with holding it myself until turn 3 of a round.

Sum up: I don't see a problem with all the glyphs in Winter Holdout. As for start spaces, why not add them to the back side of the start zones. My suggestion from the bottom up on the left side and fill in the middle on the right (to keep it behind existing start zones.)

[CornPuff]

I'll clarify my issue with dagmar (and its not that big of an issue). In my plays of this map, the 'stop on glyph' rule and the placement of the glyph of dagmar caused some frustration. Often times you would want to run over that space to attack, but would be forced to stop.

I like the glyph of dagmar, I just don't like the placement. I'd accept the glyphs on this map either way (with or wothout D), but my preference is to leave dagmar off.

[Hendal]

Grungebob, that is a good point, I just have over 30 MS so extra tiles is not a big issue for me. Of course my tourneyment was one of the smallest, maybe the smallest with 9 people, I had 8 boards set up, so I had lots of extra tiels to use, and then some.

CornP - I would say add an extra 2 tile beside the dagmar so you could go around it? just an idea - of course this is using more tiles which may not always be feesable if you are limited on tiles.

FW has always been my favorite board from the MS.

[Grungebob]

Grungebob, that is a good point, I just have over 30 MS so extra tiles is not a big issue for me. Of course my tourneyment was one of the smallest, maybe the smallest with 9 people, I had 8 boards set up, so I had lots of extra tiels to use, and then some.
Well when you go out of town to host a tournament like at Gencon, there are limitations to what can be accomplished. The one master set per map is a necessary limitation and should be adhered to strictly.

[Riggler]

I really expected judges to chime in faster than this. Were my expectations higher than they should have been?

[UranusPChicago]

Riggler, I hate to disappoint, but I not going to be posting on a daily basis. Heroscape happens to be me favorite game to play, but falls short in priority to many things in my real life.

Have patience, grasshopper.

On to the map judging...

I am not a fan of of naming specific glyphs to a map, I am more of a fan of picking random glyphs from a glyph pool and placing them on a predetermined hex. I have no reasoning to say one way is better than the other, I just wanted to explain where I am coming from.

I agree with GrungeBob that we need to try to limit any "extra" hexes from appearing on tournament maps. Onesy and twosy extra hexes may not seem like a big deal to us, but that is because I am betting that we have most of everything that Hasbro has released and in multiples at that. I believe that we should limit maps to just whole Master Sets, none of the Wave figure expansions.

That being said, in able for Forsaken waters to reach the 24 hex starting zone and not mess up the balance of the map against the glyphs, it might be easier to stretch the starting zones back. Without changing the lay of the map too much, I think we can get away with moving the 2 three-hex grass pieces that appear toward the bottom of the map to behind the 21 hex starting zones that CornPuff suggested. What do you guys think about that idea?

[Rÿchean]

I think those 3 hex grass tiles need to remain where they are at. I have seen both of those 3 hex pieces factor into games on FW; they should not be moved.

The additional 3 hexes are attainable like so:
http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10028/FW_proposal_a.gif
the new black spots will work fine to accommodate the larger start zone of 24 hexes.

I feel strongly that the terrain already in place on FW needs to remain intact.

I have already stated my opinion that glyphs should be set for random; I am in agreement with UPC on that point.

[CornPuff]

First order of business: I agree with Rychean about his new 24-hex proposed start zones. I agree that we should avoid using 'Booster Terrain' like the plague.

Second order: glyphs.
I have already stated my opinion that glyphs should be set for random; I am in agreement with UPC on that point.

Well, I think random isn't as good as fixed. Random will produce a pretty crappy board sometimes, and fixed will always produce the same good board. Random glyphs adds a heavier luck element to the board, making it less strategic. I haven't seen much argument other than 'gut feeling' as to why random glyphs are good, and I would love to hear some reasons. I don't think random glyphs are the spawn of satan, I just think fixed glyphs are the best option for tournament play.

But if I'm outvoted, I might as well be constructive.

So, are we going to mandate how random glyphs work? Are they revealed before order marker placement? Are the revealed when you step on them? If we are going to use Kelda on random glyph tournament maps, we have to reveal glyphs before first round order markers. I strongly urge that we advocate this method of play if we are judging random glyph maps.

Which glyphs go randomly into which spots? We need to define the "Glyph Pool" from which we select glyphs and the "Glyph Locations" of where we put them.

I think [KAVG] should be our glyph pool, and the [KAVG] hexes should be our glyph locations. I am open to the idea of including the [D] glyph to the pool and locations.

[Hendal]

I vote for random glyphs that are not known till they are stepped on. At truth's tourney people wanted the side closer to the attack verses the defense. If this gives an edge, then one side has an advantage over the other. When they are random there is no advantage and anything can happen, like losing the finals to a curse. But IMO the glyph are magic so I like the idea of random and not knowing. When you have a big army and there is a cursed glyph you kinda feel like, is it worth opeing a glyph and risking the the curse. Of course at my tourney I housed ruled the curse only affects the team that opens it, which I feel works way better.
If you know where the glyphs are making the board even gets harder, IMO, then when they are random.

[Grungebob]

All glyphs should be revealed before game play starts. Random just means that when you are building your army you don't have prior knowledge of glyphs. There is nothing about it that reduces strategy at all.

[Kahrma]

This may be just me, but I have to disagree with mandating 24 hex starting zones. Keep in mind we're talking about maps consisting of a single master set with one or two terrain-based expansions. The 18 hex starting zone of VW fits very well with the 4-500 point limit, and encourages the use of heroes, as opposed to squad-heavy armies.

If anything, I'd say 24 hexes should be a maximum size for starting zones for this size map. The more space devoted to starting zones, the less space available for interesting terrain.

Dead-set rules about individual map features force compromises in other areas.

[UranusPChicago]

Rychean and CornPuff, I agree with your accessment of not moving the hexes on the map to adjust the starting zone. I really didn't care for the idea myself, I was just trying to throw some ideas out there.

CornPuff, it is OK that we agree to disagree on the glyphs. Does that mean I will never vote for a map with predetermined glyphs? No, it just means that my personal preference for tournament maps is using a glyph pool. However, as I have stated earlier, I do think that there are glyphs that have no business being in a tournament setting. I think we can leave the glyph pool determination to the tournament directors.

One thing that I like about random glyphs is that it does make for slightly different maps each time. If I get stuck playing a map more than once in a tournament, it is a nice challenge to alter my play accordingly because of the different glyphs each time. Plus, as stated by Hendal, when players start vying for a side before a game even starts because of static glyph placement (which actually is more a map design issue), it raises a few eyebrows.

Again, I am not asking you to join the "glyph pool" team, just explaining that it is OK to think differently on some things. :wink: We need that on this team.

[Eclipse]

Perhaps tourny maps weren't the easiest place to start after all. I think the problem we're having comes from a lack of standard tournament rules. Part of that problem seems to simply come from the fact that each of us have our own preferences and experiences on the matter.

I also personally have to vote no on Forsaken Waters at the moment. I know everyone likes the map, and thinks it's a good candidate, but I think right now people agree that's it's an excellent map that needs some tweaking to actually be worthy. It's not our place to tweak it until it fits into Battlefields, it's our job to turn it away until someone submits a worthy version.

I'd rather say it's time to open a thread for nominations and let someone enter their own map. We almost need something flawed to turn away rather than something we want to accept before we've taken a hard look at it.

On another topic, I think it's a good thing that we don't agree on things like glyph placement and the like. I'd rather have a diverse set of viewpoints on a map than a system where people build maps that conform to an elitist view of what makes a "good" map. I'm interested in what the map designers come up with in terms of glyphs (be they random or preset) and the like. I have my prejudices when it comes to map features. If someone can make a map that goes against my vision of what makes a good map and still impresses me, THEN we've got a good contender for the Battlefields.

[Rÿchean]

Random glyph order of events:

1.) Choose random glyphs, place face down on predetermined glyph locations.
2.) Both players armies are deployed in the starting zones
3.) Glyphs are revealed prior to turn markers and pre-turn marker activity (AE drop)

This way the deployment of your army isn't slanted with glyph knowledge.

Eclipse makes a good point about FW that it isn't our thing to tweak for tourney, however, I think FW is the exception. We are trying to work through what we will accept and what is a valid candidate. Future nominations will not be augmented to fit into our tournament map guidelines; they will need to already be meeting that criteria or the nomination will be rejected.

I have a nomination I want to make but would really like to see us work the kinks out with FW first.

[CornPuff]

Eclipse makes a good point about FW that it isn't our thing to tweak for tourney, however, I think FW is the exception. We are trying to work through what we will accept and what is a valid candidate. Future nominations will not be augmented to fit into our tournament map guidelines; they will need to already be meeting that criteria or the nomination will be rejected.

I agree with this statement. We are still working out lots of kinks in the process, so when we deal with someone elses map we can focus on the map, not the process.

This may be just me, but I have to disagree with mandating 24 hex starting zones. <snip>

Thanks for vocalising your concern! As you may know, I agree with you, but we're pushing forward with 24 hex start zones to get this thing off the ground. We can always change it a few maps down the road *fingers crossed, heh*.

Again, I am not asking you to join the "glyph pool" team, just explaining that it is OK to think differently on some things. Wink We need that on this team.

Heh, its a little tiring when you don't see eye to eye, but I recognize the need to push forward. I'll keep trying to explain my ideas as clearly as I can. Its good to know a little dissent is welcome.

All glyphs should be revealed before game play starts. Random just means that when you are building your army you don't have prior knowledge of glyphs.
Sure, I can go for this.
There is nothing about it that reduces strategy at all.

I disagree with this statement. A lot.

Random glyphs DO reduce strategy by reducing sensible army options.

Attack glyph benefits low atk squads, double attackers and deadly strikers.
Defense glyphs benefit high life heroes, low def squads, defensive special power people.
Kelda benefits high cost heroes.
Move benefits low move common squads.
Init benefits slow melee squads that are trying for a double move (going last one round, then first the next)

Basically, glyphs favor squadscape. You know who doesn't benefit from glyphs? Q9. He's better off special attacking (even with a +2 bonus) so Astrid doesn't help, and he's high def low life so gerda doesn't do much. And he's one figure, which means he has a lot of trouble claiming glyphs.

Common, cheap squads get tremendous benefits from most glyphs, so they will win if glyphs are present. Common cheap figures also have better map control, so they will have the glyphs that make them more powerful.

So, if glyphs are random, big heroes don't win. This reduces strategy tremendously, as it narrows the scope of feasible armies. If you know that the heal glyph is on a map, this changes things tremendously. If you know there will be a 1 in 8 chance your event organizer will put kelda on your board, and you only play 6 games at your tourney, then Kelda doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Grungebob]

The point is not to build an army to the glyphs, it is to build an army to fight other armies. The glyphs provide a variation in the way a map plays. so if you have a small map pool you can keep things interesting and unpredictable through the use of random glyphs. I would think that having static glyphs would have players developing armies based upon glyph choice and that is not something I would want to see... I'm surprised anybody would want that.

[CornPuff]

The point is not to build an army to the glyphs, it is to build an army to fight other armies. The glyphs provide a variation in the way a map plays. so if you have a small map pool you can keep things interesting and unpredictable through the use of random glyphs. I would think that having static glyphs would have players developing armies based upon glyph choice and that is not something I would want to see... I'm surprised anybody would want that.
You build your army to the glyphs and the terrain so that you can defeat your opponent. If I thought for a second that drafting for the map was unimportant, I would have never have started this map-judging project, much less helped with it.

I agree that random glyphs can make a a small map pool more interesting by adding variety. Glyphs are as big an influence to army composition as the terrain itself. If all maps use random glyphs, then all maps, from an army composition point of view, are 50% identical.

If we are using random glyphs on approved maps, I heavily encourage event organizers to use very limited glyph pools when they hold events (and to use a different pool every time). One tourney could be "Kelda, Gerda and Valda" and the next tourney could be "Lodin, Dagmar and Astrid". The success of GrungeBob's own Ne-Gok-Sa Mindshackle tournament proves that limiting the selection of glyphs can provide highly entertaining results.

[Grungebob]

That is why Rychean is pushing for glyph PLACEMENT over which glyphs to use. The most important thing is having glyph placement be even. If an organizer wants static glyphs to ease in setup, then at least he knows exactly where they go.

[Eclipse]

That is why Rychean is pushing for glyph PLACEMENT over which glyphs to use. The most important thing is having glyph placement be even. If an organizer wants static glyphs to ease in setup, then at least he knows exactly where they go.

Of course, Glyph placement with random glyphs can be very difficult. For example, having a DEF or Atk glyph on a higher position is a huge deal compared to having something like the Initiative or even Move glyph. Giving the Initiative glyph highground makes it more appealing and easier to defend, randomly finding the Astrid in that same spot can leave you with a Sniper who suddenly found himself with 3 attack.

Personally I'd rather have a wider variety of solid/balanced maps in a tournament. It's not like you really have the option of drafting for the map in a tournament situation. Random glyphs just lead to bad situations from my experience. Certain glyphs need to be placed in disadvantagous positions on the map, while others are often best placed in more advantageous/harder to reach sections of the map.

[Hendal]

I am for the random glyphs, but can also see some boards having set glyphs.

For me when I say random, I mean random, you don't get to see the glyph till you land on it, then you turn it over. I just like this style. Also if you have 4 glyphs in the pool and only use 2, your not sure what they are till you land on it ( and not sure what is not there also ). If you use curse, then turning it over before the game starts kinda defeats the purpose of it.

Lots of good points being thrown out IMO.

I was planning for my next tourney, that I would have the people in the play-offs roll a 20 and the highest roll then rolls a numbered dice to see what board they use ( if 4 boards then a 4 sided, if 6 then a 6 ) - jut an idea I had to make it more random for next time.

If your using random glyphs then you build your army more around the boards then around the glyphs, since you can't count on a set glyph or a glyph in a certain spot ( I need MBS, for the move 8 to get to this glyph first, or something like that )

[Rÿchean]

That is why Rychean is pushing for glyph PLACEMENT over which glyphs to use. The most important thing is having glyph placement be even. If an organizer wants static glyphs to ease in setup, then at least he knows exactly where they go.Thanks GB for clarifying my point more clearly.

Yes, IMO, identifying and/or verifying the placement hex for the glyphs are more important than the glyphs themselves. I feel it is about providing a service to the event coordinator to have the maps reviewed and tourney play recommendations made. Maybe that is beyond the scope but I do feel it is important to take into account the varying styles and numbers of glyphs that can or might be used for a any map we want to recommend. We cant very well say yes this map is worthy but we only recommend it without glyphs or just one glyph or only with a healer on it. We need to be able to recommend a map with the expectation that it is flexible for a number of different styles of tourney play.

On Forsaken Waters for example, if only one glyph was to be used, the hex where the glyph of Astrid resides is the most optimal single glyph placement spot.

I feel like this issue will be ongoing. We need to either broaden our scope to concern ourselves with these things or we need to back off it and say that we will only review and test a map in its presented form. If the map designer has the glyphs in a jacked up spot but the map otherwise would be balanced, maybe we just have to say nope the glyphs/glyph placement jacked up an otherwise good map, so it is not worthy.

BTW, Cornpuff makes a great point about glyphs favoring squads but glyphs are a reality of Heroscape and most tournaments. We need to honor that game mechanic and provide an all encompassing service when recommending maps.

[Grungebob]

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

[Jormi_Boced]

I alsways place glyphs in at least a semi vulnerable spot, but more often than not, they are in the most vulnerable spots on the map.

[Grungebob]

I alsways place glyphs in at least a semi vulnerable spot, but more often than not, they are in the most vulnerable spots on the map.Exactly!! I do the same.

[Jormi_Boced]

I alsways place glyphs in at least a semi vulnerable spot, but more often than not, they are in the most vulnerable spots on the map.Exactly!! I do the same.

Well except for at Gen Con:) At least on Soulrazor they were in a very defendable position, and on WSR they were on height at least.

[Grungebob]

I alsways place glyphs in at least a semi vulnerable spot, but more often than not, they are in the most vulnerable spots on the map.Exactly!! I do the same.

Well except for at Gen Con:) At least on Soulrazor they were in a very defendable position, and on WSR they were on height at least. I was refering to maps I have personally designed, not official maps :roll:

[UranusPChicago]

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

To move forward out of this bog, I recommend that glyph placement on a map be just that, glyph placement. Bottom line, it should do nothing more than identify where the map maker wants the glyphs to go on the map. If he/she wants to "hard code" particular glyphs, more power to him/her. If they would rather mark them with the "?" glyph marker, then so be it.

When the map is used later within a tournament setting, it will be up to the tournament director to decide what glyphs will or wil not be used.

[bunjee]

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

To move forward out of this bog, I recommend that glyph placement on a map be just that, glyph placement. Bottom line, it should do nothing more than identify where the map maker wants the glyphs to go on the map. If he/she wants to "hard code" particular glyphs, more power to him/her. If they would rather mark them with the "?" glyph marker, then so be it.

When the map is used later within a tournament setting, it will be up to the tournament director to decide what glyphs will or wil not be used.This is how I would use virtually any map. When you have hard coded glyphs, it is more of a scenario than a map.

Mark suggested glyph locations on the map with the ? symbol, and leave it at that.


As for the 24 hex requirement, I like it, sort of, but perhaps allow a range of 18-24. This would allow people to select maps that they want to use that have the correct number of starting zones for their needs, but not eliminate an otherwise very good map.

I can't believe I hadn't read this thread sooner.

[UranusPChicago]

As for the 24 hex requirement, I like it, sort of, but perhaps allow a range of 18-24. This would allow people to select maps that they want to use that have the correct number of starting zones for their needs, but not eliminate an otherwise very good map.

Again, the whole purpose of setting a 24 hex starting zone standard at this point is to ease the map selection process for tournament managers. Any 24 hex starting zone can handle smaller zones, however, smaller starting zones ( 18 ) maps will not be used in tournaments that require larger starting zones.

We are trying to generalize at first, then specialize later. A 24 hex starting zone should be able to handle anything from a 400-700 point army. I see a trend for army sizes to start growing larger rather than shrinking. If, at a later date, there starts to be a push for "micro" maps (200-400) then we can adjust accordingly and begin to specialize the tournament maps.

Yes, some very good maps will be overlooked because they cannot be modified to have 24 hex starting zones, but I don't see why that is a problem. We are going to vote in very good maps with 24 hex starting zones. Does that lessen the value of the less than 24 starting zone maps?

We are establishing a service to the community, albeit very slowly currently :wink: , and we need to keep it simple at first. If the community does deem this map selection process as a very valuable tool and begins to demand specialization then of course we will ablige.

[Jormi_Boced]

But, a TD could always add acouple hexes to the back of an 18 to make it a 20 like at the TTO. Or, they could add a couple more to the 20 to get it up to 22 or 23 or 24 or 40. Whatever they want.

[UranusPChicago]

Well when you go out of town to host a tournament like at Gencon, there are limitations to what can be accomplished. The one master set per map is a necessary limitation and should be adhered to strictly.

I agree.

[Jormi_Boced]

Even when hosting a tourney in your area, it can be rough getting 20 master sets together and prebuilt especially with the expansion sets. I only own 3, so I have to do a lot of legwork to get up to 20.

[Rÿchean]

Mark suggested glyph locations on the map with the ? symbol, and leave it at that.
Mark? who is Mark ??? :-) :-D

[Riggler]

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

Ditto Grungebob!!

Sorry I've been absent a few days. I was moving all my possessions 425 miles away and closing on a house. BTW, I've got a kid and Halloween was in there. Needless to say I've been busy.

Glyphs: I can't believe there was a 2 page debate on this. Thought it was settled. Maps will be accepted regardless of whether someone puts glyphs on it or not. Maps will be accpeted for nomination whether glyphs are revealed or not. We decided that before we started. Go look at the bylaws.

Now, when we get to voting ... I suggest we vote for how the map is set up considering glyphs and vote yes or no. If we can offer suggestions that the glyphs are the only problem with balance we can say so as we decline it. Then they can resubmitt it with new glyphs.

Whether we as judges of maps like exposed glyphs, hidden glyphs, no glyphs. Doesn't really matter. Play the map as designed. Does it meet the criteria for acceptence in your opinon? If so, vote yes. End of story.

Is Forsaken Waters balanced? Yes. My vote is yes exactly as its written in the scenerio book by Hasbro.

Now the only problem I see is starting spaces. Looks like the solution to that was decided by adding additional spot spaces already on the board. Good enough.

My vote for Forsaken Waters is yes. I've played it dozens of times. Its balanced. Don't have a problem with the glyphs. In case its a week or so before you hear from me again. That's my vote.

[Rÿchean]

All future use of the word "mark" shall be replaced by "egoist" :fencing:

silly me! :oops:

[bunjee]

Mark suggested glyph locations on the map with the ? symbol, and leave it at that.
Mark? who is Mark ??? :-) :-D:lol:

Ok ok, Indicate suggested glyph locations on the map, etc.

All future use of the word "mark" shall be replaced by "egoist" :fencing:


Seriously though, thanks to everyone putting time into this project, it is a huge venture.

[CornPuff]

Glyphs: I can't believe there was a 2 page debate on this. Thought it was settled. Maps will be accepted regardless of whether someone puts glyphs on it or not. Maps will be accpeted for nomination whether glyphs are revealed or not. We decided that before we started. Go look at the bylaws.

The glyph debate shouldn't have happened here, although I'm glad it did. I know I added some fuel to the fire :).It was maybe the most serious discussion of glyph pros and cons seen on this site. Anyway, its irrelevant on all future maps, as we will judge them as submitted, no questions asked, no glyph rearranged.

From now on, I say we don't change a thing on any submitted map. This has been a nightmare.

We are trying to generalize at first, then specialize later. A 24 hex starting zone should be able to handle anything from a 400-700 point army. I see a trend for army sizes to start growing larger rather than shrinking. If, at a later date, there starts to be a push for "micro" maps (200-400) then we can adjust accordingly and begin to specialize the tournament maps.

Fixed zone size seems pretty specialized to me... anyway, I thought we did it so participants could count on 24 spaces at any tourney they went to, so they didn't have figures get ripped off their army as they go from map to map. Oh well. To Bunjee: there should be enough good 24 hex maps that we won't run low for a while. When we do, I'm sure we will lax the req to 18+.
Argh, I just can't let a start zone post slip by :oops:

That is why Rychean is pushing for glyph PLACEMENT over which glyphs to use. The most important thing is having glyph placement be even. If an organizer wants static glyphs to ease in setup, then at least he knows exactly where they go.Thanks GB for clarifying my point more clearly.

Yes, IMO, identifying and/or verifying the placement hex for the glyphs are more important than the glyphs themselves. I feel it is about providing a service to the event coordinator to have the maps reviewed and tourney play recommendations made. Maybe that is beyond the scope but I do feel it is important to take into account the varying styles and numbers of glyphs that can or might be used for a any map we want to recommend. We cant very well say yes this map is worthy but we only recommend it without glyphs or just one glyph or only with a healer on it. We need to be able to recommend a map with the expectation that it is flexible for a number of different styles of tourney play.

I disagree. We can't say 'this map is worthy, and any variation of it is worthy as well.' This kills the integrity of this project. All of a sudden, it looks like we approve of every crappy variant of FW ever made. I can't speak for variants I haven't seen, so I will only recommend variants that I have seen.

I think this is a core issue. It's why I wanted multiple "start zone and glyph" layers. It's why I don't like random glyphs, or if they are random, to specify the glyph pool that is used to populate the random glyphs. I want to provide event organizers with specific play experiences. Rychean, it seems you want to provide event organizers with a map prototype, something they can change and mod for their event.

I'm not comfortable judging map prototypes. I want to help tournament participants directly by judging maps they will use. I thought I had a good idea by eventually creating a directory of good tournament maps that event organizers can pick from and provide as is to the participants. Of course they have the final say, but we could make it so easy that they would have no reason to muck around with glyphs or start zones. We would do that for them.

There are a lot of event organizers out there, and if they feel they have to change the maps we judge to enhance their ease of setup or player's enjoyment then we fail. The participants are playing versions of maps that we didn't approve so why did we bother approving them in the first place. There are a lot of versions of maps that suck, and a lot of versions that suck subtly. Event organizers can't always detect maps the suck subtly, especially when they are modifications of good maps. We need to provide event organizers enough good maps that they will not go around changing the ones we've approved.

I feel like this issue will be ongoing. We need to either broaden our scope to concern ourselves with these things or we need to back off it and say that we will only review and test a map in its presented form. If the map designer has the glyphs in a jacked up spot but the map otherwise would be balanced, maybe we just have to say nope the glyphs/glyph placement jacked up an otherwise good map, so it is not worthy.

I also personally have to vote no on Forsaken Waters at the moment. I know everyone likes the map, and thinks it's a good candidate, but I think right now people agree that's it's an excellent map that needs some tweaking to actually be worthy. It's not our place to tweak it until it fits into Battlefields, it's our job to turn it away until someone submits a worthy version.
It is for this reason I reject FW. Its start zones didn't meet our specs, and the glyphs split the judges. If a forum member wants to resubmit FW with specific glyphs and start zones, I would welcome it. Specific Glyphs of course could mean specifically random :-D, or even my favorite, random from a list of glyphs :-P)

I don't regret going through this process with FW. It helped flesh out a lot of different aspects of this project. I do think we need to move on, as trying to collectively design this map is killing us.

I'm totally confused by this thread. I thought it was about map designing but it seems as if it keeps going off track into the realm of event hosting. I think that if this project is going to be of ANY value the focus needs to stay on good map design as a resource for event coordinators. Build good maps and let the event hosts decide how best to use them.

These maps are judged so that they can be enjoyed at hosted tournaments. Losing sight of that is folly.

This thread will stay focused on good map design, as stated in our bylaws because that is the HOW. We will also focus on event hosting, because that is the WHY. These maps are judged specifically so that people will have even more fun at tournaments. These maps are judged to increase the Tournament Participant's experience. To be a resource to event coordinators, we have to talk about event hosting.

In order to be of ANY value we need to encourage event coordinators to use the maps we judge. If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.

[Grungebob]

I disagree. We can't say 'this map is worthy, and any variation of it is worthy as well.' This kills the integrity of this project. All of a sudden, it looks like we approve of every crappy variant of FW ever made. I can't speak for variants I haven't seen, so I will only recommend variants that I have seen.

I think this is a core issue. It's why I wanted multiple "start zone and glyph" layers. It's why I don't like random glyphs, or if they are random, to specify the glyph pool that is used to populate the random glyphs. I want to provide event organizers with specific play experiences. Rychean, it seems you want to provide event organizers with a map prototype, something they can change and mod for their event.

I'm not comfortable judging map prototypes. I want to help tournament participants directly by judging maps they will use. I thought I had a good idea by eventually creating a directory of good tournament maps that event organizers can pick from and provide as is to the participants. Of course they have the final say, but we could make it so easy that they would have no reason to muck around with glyphs or start zones. We would do that for them.

There are a lot of event organizers out there, and if they feel they have to change the maps we judge to enhance their ease of setup or player's enjoyment then we fail. The participants are playing versions of maps that we didn't approve so why did we bother approving them in the first place. There are a lot of versions of maps that suck, and a lot of versions that suck subtly. Event organizers can't always detect maps the suck subtly, especially when they are modifications of good maps. We need to provide event organizers enough good maps that they will not go around changing the ones we've approved. I don't know if you are just being dramatic for affect or what, but building a map with optimal glyph positions and allowing event hosts to choose whether on not to use glyphs and how to use glyphs does not equal a prototype situation as you are insinuating. This isn't about having a different version at all. It is simply about optimal glyph placement. If I'm running an event and am using random glyphs (which has been described earlier but I can do it again if necessary) all I need to know is where is the best place to put them. If I am using specific glyphs.... All I need to know is where to put them!! If I am using some variation such as glyph bidding etc... All I need to know is where to place them!!! How does this equate prototype or variation to you? :shrug:


These maps are judged so that they can be enjoyed at hosted tournaments. Losing sight of that is folly.Folly? Nobody uses the word folly. :wink:

If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.It is simply about scope here. You are not accomplishing anything by dictating to folks, how to run a tourney in a thread devoted to competitive map design. Nobody is talking about any kind of manipulating at all. If a host has a tournament and looks to this effort as a resource, chooses from some maps here, decides on glyphs for his own reasons, and then has an awesome event, then this effort has paid off. You seem so stuck on, and adamant about certain things and frankly you could be blocking forward progress here. You do make excellent points that are intelegent, articulated well etc, but I am not sure you are looking at the big picture.

[Grungebob]

Also on a side note I don't think any of these maps should include more than one copy of any given expansion. If a person is hosting an event the supplies to reproduce the maps needs to be kept to a bare minimum.

[Rÿchean]

It is for this reason I reject FW. Its start zones didn't meet our specs, and the glyphs split the judges. If a forum member wants to resubmit FW with specific glyphs and start zones, I would welcome it. Specific Glyphs of course could mean specifically random :-D, or even my favorite, random from a list of glyphs :-P)

I'll take the other side, I approve FW with these specifics that we have all contributed. FW is the most balanced tourney worthy map that Hasbro has put out.

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10028/FW_proposal_a.gif
the new black spots will work fine to accommodate the larger start zone of 24 hexes. Glyph A is the best primary placement of 1 random glyph and glyph V is the second most optimal placement when using 2 random glyphs. The reasoning here is that two glyphs that close together (A&G)with no cover between will usually be controlled by the same player. Glyph spot V allows a spot with cover further away making it harder to hold both glyphs at once. This could be noted as part of the download or recommendation; basically if using 1 random glyph use this spot, if two use these two, etc...

I vote FW in with the above modifications and would gladly supply a PDF with the above.

The others judges need to chime in on FW as I don't see any further value in debating it's worthiness. We do need to move on.

[Riggler]

I thought the discussion about whether we are going to be map editors or map judges had already been decided. I thought we decided we were going to be map judges, and NOT map editors.

It was understood the first map we would review was the Forsaken Water with the Winter Holdout setup. It was a trial run. From the looks of it, we are no longer looking to review this particular map and setup. We are now, it appears, looking at a modified version of this map.

If so, it looks to me like its a modification. And this may not be needed, but should be pointed out for future reference. Ordinarily, if the required number of us don't agree that the submitted map passes our scrutiny, then we would vote to reject. If that map was modified by somone in the community and resubmitted, it would then have to get a vote for nomination (WHICH, does NOT require it to have been played by judges).

For a map to be voted on by the judges, it is, by our bylaws, to have been played by the judges. I have yet to play the modified FW map presented above and so am not ready to vote on that version until I do.

The way I understand it the follow votes were cast for FW: Winter Holdout, unmodified:
Me-- For
Cornpuff -- Against
Eclipse -- Against
Rychan -- Against

I don't have time to see if Rev and UPC chimmed in above. But that pretty much seems to settle it if I understand correctly how these judges have voted on the published version of this map.

So, I do think it would be appropriate to ask for a vote of judges on a NOMINATION of the modified FW map posted by Rychean if that's what judges want to consider. It says nothing in our bylaws about editing a map (there was a discussion about this).

If this is the route we want to take, then I would vote yes on its nomination.

On a personal note to Cornpuff, I see evertime someone chimes in with "I don't agree with 24 start spaces" that you chime in with basically , "Yeah, I told that. I think one day they'll listen." At least that's how it comes across to me. We all know your position on this. It doesn't really help anything to revisit it and it only serves to frustrate me (maybe others). Its not like this is the ONLY thing you've chimed in about .. such as multiple layers of maps. All I'm trying to say is if you get outvoted, let it go. Accept the decision and move on like its your own. I got outvoted on the unmodified version of FW: Winter Holdout. Ok, cool. Let's move on and decide what we do next and how we do it. No problem. I guess, I'm just saying, be cool man.

[Grungebob]

Hey, if you all are waiting on nominations I would like to nominate this one:

Mole Hill (Jonathan map) link (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=208).


I played on this map at our last tourney. I was decimated by an army I thought would never have a chance against my army. The map had nothing to do with it. I actually think my army might have had an acheles heel or maybe I was too confident in DED.

[Rÿchean]

I have played this map (Jonathan's Mole Hill) well over 10 times but I will wait for others to have a chance to review before I post my opinions and vote.

Judges, please use this link (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=208).

The map was modified for tourney play with Glyphs and Ruins added; start zones are the 24 hex rock tiles on each end.

[Grungebob]

Good job Ry. I updated my link.

[CornPuff]

I don't know if you are just being dramatic for affect or what, but building a map with optimal glyph positions and allowing event hosts to choose whether on not to use glyphs and how to use glyphs does not equal a prototype situation as you are insinuating. This isn't about having a different version at all. It is simply about optimal glyph placement. If I'm running an event and am using random glyphs (which has been described earlier but I can do it again if necessary) all I need to know is where is the best place to put them. If I am using specific glyphs.... All I need to know is where to put them!! If I am using some variation such as glyph bidding etc... All I need to know is where to place them!!! How does this equate prototype or variation to you? :shrug:
The prototype remark was in response to Rychean's comment:

Maybe that is beyond the scope but I do feel it is important to take into account the varying styles and numbers of glyphs that can or might be used for a any map we want to recommend. We cant very well say yes this map is worthy but we only recommend it without glyphs or just one glyph or only with a healer on it. We need to be able to recommend a map with the expectation that it is flexible for a number of different styles of tourney play.
I feel that we aren't suggesting flexible designs. I considered these flexible maps 'map prototypes.' Some maps can be modified, for sure, but that shouldn't enter our perception as judges.

If even hosts 'decide how to best use them', then why the hell are we spending our time approving the best version of maps? Why did we spend the time deciding on the perfect 24 hex start zone for FW? We are deciding how to best use them. If event organizers want to take what we've done and manipulate it, they are not presenting the optimal map that we spent dozens of hours judging.It is simply about scope here. You are not accomplishing anything by dictating to folks, how to run a tourney in a thread devoted to competitive map design. Nobody is talking about any kind of manipulating at all. If a host has a tournament and looks to this effort as a resource, chooses from some maps here, decides on glyphs for his own reasons, and then has an awesome event, then this effort has paid off. You seem so stuck on, and adamant about certain things and frankly you could be blocking forward progress here. You do make excellent points that are intelegent, articulated well etc, but I am not sure you are looking at the big picture.

About scope, I started my thread in the competitive army forum for a reason, not the map design forum. I realize its evolved a bit since then, but maybe I haven't. I mean, I do want this group to dictate a very small part of running a tournament: the maps. The problem is that manipulating maps will likely happen because it seems innocent. Its my opinion that randomizing the 5 glyphs on FW won't work. So I also believe that if a tourney organizer randomized them it would decrease fun of that map. Whether I'm right about FW is irrelevant, I just want people to realize that minor, innocent changes can have significant repercussions on the playability of a map. Event organizers should know that a couple maps that are not excellent don't kill an event, but more awesome maps make awesome events even more excellent.

Yeah, I realize that I'm slowing things down a bit. Sorry to be s stick in the mud, it just takes me a while to adjust from my vision to the group vision.

Well, we are still moving forward. I'm gonna take Mole Hills for a run as soon as I can.

[UranusPChicago]

Just to catch up on things...

FW (unmodified) - Against (I realize it is moot at this point as it already received 3 "nay" votes, but I voted for principle.

FW (CornPuff, Rychean modified) - For.

Mole Hill is a good map, I had an opportunity to play on it at our last tournament. I would like to get a few more games before I cast a vote.

I hope to get in some games this Thursday, so hopefully I will get a vote in by the weekend.

[reapersaurus]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Mole_Hills_Ruins.jpg
That looks incredibly boring. :boring:

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical? :shrug:

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence..... :confused:

[CornPuff]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:
That looks incredibly boring. :boring:

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical? :shrug:

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence..... :confused:
Hah, I think it looks interesting! There aren't many maps that offer mole hills. Continuously varying terrain should make for some interesting melees, and the spread out high points are also fairly different than other maps. I don't mind the ruins.

Noteworthy of excellence? Idunno, haven't played it. But it does look to give a solid play experience which is what counts in my book.

We ought to start a separate nomination thread for all future nominations. That way Reaper can offer his alternatives :poke: :twisted:

One note: Start Zones aren't labelled on the PDF. I assume them to be the 24 hex rock tiles, but it would be nice if I didn't have to assume.

[Grungebob]

I'm saying this without playing Mole Hill, but:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Mole_Hills_Ruins.jpg
That looks incredibly boring. :boring:

It looks like the ruins could be made more symmetrical? :shrug:

What did you guys see in this map that isn;t provided by many other maps?
I'm curious as to why you thought it was note-worthy in its excellence..... :confused:If YOU were putting together a tournament, and you decided not to use this map because you thought it was boring just by looking at it, then that is your perogative. It does have its benefits though, and these should be noted. It is easy to set up and take down. It does not take up much space. It provides a nice focussed battle that almost always finishes before time runs out. In a tournament it is good to have simple maps that provide a balanced game. And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

[Hendal]

Mole hill, looks interesting, I personally don't like the ruins in the starting zone. Just outside the starting zone is better, IMO. Not that big of a deal either way though.

I know you want to be able to make the boards from 1 MS, but if you doing this for a tourneyment, I would think about making both ruins the same, to make it an even board ( that way someone doesn't want one side more then the other to have extra cover ). My thinking here is at a tourneyment there should be enough MS to allow this, choose another board for the tourney that uses 2 large or 2 small glyphs.
Might be somethitng to consider for designers, make 2 boards, one with 2 large ruins, and 1 with 2 small ruins???

I have a board I designed for my tourney, is it time to summit a board yet?

[Eclipse]

And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

That's a horrible reason to consider the map "best of the best" though :P As far as the map itself is concerned, I'll withhold a vote until I get some time to play it. I'm actually out of town most of this week and away from my collection. If a vote must be made before I get back, consider me abstained I suppose.

Just from a first impression, I'll agree the map does look a little vanilla (then again, most 1 MS maps do). My actual fear is that it has the same shooting gallery style of play that meatgrinder does, making for some very boring Krav dominant battles. Again, that's just a first impression based on what I can see. The tight quarters might lead to a more interesting battle than you'd guess at first glance.

[Grungebob]

And it is a new map so players will not have played it into the dirt.

That's a horrible reason to consider the map "best of the best" though :P As far as the map itself is concerned, I'll withhold a vote until I get some time to play it. I'm actually out of town most of this week and away from my collection. If a vote must be made before I get back, consider me abstained I suppose.

Just from a first impression, I'll agree the map does look a little vanilla (then again, most 1 MS maps do). My actual fear is that it has the same shooting gallery style of play that meatgrinder does, making for some very boring Krav dominant battles. Again, that's just a first impression based on what I can see. The tight quarters might lead to a more interesting battle than you'd guess at first glance.

From the first page of this thread: The Bylaws

Goal: To offer the Heroscape gaming community balanced, playtested maps for both tournament and competitive play. And to establish standards for playable, balanced, and aesthetic maps.Now tell me how this does not fit Molehill. If we do not want any new maps that have not been overused then this endeavor is useless. How is wanting fresh new maps that have been tested, considered a horrible reason to put effort into this area. Molehill has been extensively played by two of the judges already. Seems like a very good choice to cut your teeth on to me. Certainly not "horrible"

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

Hi everyone. Long time, no post.

Just wanted to chime in on Mole Hill. I like the idea of Mole Hill. Fairly symetrical, lots of little level changes but not to high, good stuff.

My concern is that the map will promote Ranged battle after Ranged battle (maybe the vipers or Microcorps could counter). Most people will pick high ground and shoot away. Your opponents would have to cross the lake, or go the long way around taking fire as they move foward and over uneven ground.

I think a few minor tweaks would help make this a truely great map.

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Mole_Hills_Ruins.jpg

I would suggest closing the gap in the middle of the lake and make two smaller lakes with a land passage up the middle (lowest even ground possible). This will encourage melee to run the gauntlet.

Second open up some fast lanes (no high ground to cross) on either side of the new twin lakes. Again this will stimulate the use of melee troops. (I just noticed they are using trees but no roads/bridges. I would highly encourage road/bridge use).

Lastly, and this is not really a biggie, but I would do it. Switch the ruins and the trees. The ruins up front would provide more cover and some tress in the back (side by side) would still give a little cover in the starting zones.

Just my :2cents: ,

:odb:

[Eclipse]

Note I cut out the "balanced" and "testsed" parts of the line and added the :P

I was just joking as I read the "it's a new map" line out of context and it sounded funny. I suppose horrible is a bad word to use in that context, sorry. As far as whether or not it's actually worthy, I didn't say no, I said I haven't played it yet. I gave a few first glance impressions and concerns, but there's no way I'll vote on it either way until I've tried it out myself.

[Grungebob]

I'm not even saying it should make the cut either. What I am saying is that it deserves to be looked at. It was enjoyed at our last tourney. I had a ranged army that lost to an all melee army on this map.

[Oogie_Da_Bruce]

I had a ranged army that lost to an all melee army on this map.

This is where playtesting in invaluable. Taking a second look I can see how an all melee army could just keep moving forward (as it is a smaller sized map).

Would this be the norm? not sure, only playtesting would tell.

And since 2 people have played it and liked it, I would be inclined to try it out myself.

[Riggler]

I'll be happy to give Mole Hill a shot. I've never played it. My only first impression concern is it might make life difficult for double-spaced non-flying figures. But that is an at-a-glance first impression.

It could take me a few weeks to get in a few games on this one.

[Hendal]

On mole hill, when you guys say 2 random glyphs, what is the random pile from? Are the glyphs from the MS ( all of them )? And what way are you playing the glyphs, random selection ( and they are then shown ), or random till you land on them and turn them over?

I got in a couple of games last night on the board ( mole hill ) , I like it. I think it favors range, but almost all boards do.

It is intersting for me to play on boards that are not symetrical, because I always make my boards symetrical so you are playing on even sides. But Hasbro is yet to make a board symetrical. I think mole hill works in a lot of ways. and is a fun board. Really fast to set up.

I have some game time with Kenntak tomorrow and was going to see about using mole hill and get his opionion on the board.

[Grungebob]

On mole hill, when you guys say 2 random glyphs, what is the random pile from? Are the glyphs from the MS ( all of them )? And what way are you playing the glyphs, random selection ( and they are then shown ), or random till you land on them and turn them over?

I got in a couple of games last night on the board ( mole hill ) , I like it. I think it favors range, but almost all boards do.

It is intersting for me to play on boards that are not symetrical, because I always make my boards symetrical so you are playing on even sides. But Hasbro is yet to make a board symetrical. I think mole hill works in a lot of ways. and is a fun board. Really fast to set up.

I have some game time with Kenntak tomorrow and was going to see about using mole hill and get his opionion on the board.Hendal, I think what is meant by random glyphs is that you make a pool of glyphs usually about 6. You lay them face down, mix em up and then choose two randomly and place them face down on the glyph spots. Flip them over before the game begins and they act as focal points that encourage players to move toward the center of the map for the reward gained by the glyphs. Keeping them random encourages players to build adaptable armies that are not glyph-centric.

[Hendal]

I guess you could use a curse in the glyph pool and if one guy was down on guys and the other guy had a lot it would be worth stepping on the curse.
I prefer playing where the curse glyph only affectst eh team that steps on it, but that is a house rule of ours.

[Grungebob]

I guess you could use a curse in the glyph pool and if one guy was down on guys and the other guy had a lot it would be worth stepping on the curse.That is the exact reason for having it. But we do not use any glyphs in our tourneys that have a negative effect. We use them as incentive to move and reward. We do not want to have them penalize players.

[Hendal]

Thanks GB.
I have played Mole hill a few more times and still think it is a good board.

[UranusPChicago]

My feelings of Mole Hill...

I had a chance to get a few games in on the Mole Hill map again. It is a really nice map. I think it does a good job with the space limitations of a single Master Set. Though it may not be the prettiest map :lol: , I feel that it is tournament worthy. It is well balanced and easy to construct. I didn't feel that any terrain was lacking or was needlessly used.

I believe that Mole Hill is worthy of entering the Halls. I vote yes.

[Rÿchean]

I originally recommended Mole Hill for the Dallas tourney.

The map itself seems to favor range but really it is small enough to allow melee to close around the lake. It is a balanced map.

As UPC said, it is a quick, easy set up; a small map that dictates quick action. On these points it was a great tourney map.

It does lack aesthetically and that bothers me a bit. I was hoping the first inductee would be a prettier map but that isn't what this is about.

Based on our criteria, I also vote yes for Mole Hill.

[CornPuff]

Hey guys. My schedule has been pretty busy lately, so i haven't had time to play any HS. I've looked at the map and think it looks great, but until I playtest it once or twice, I can't give it my vote.

So, I'll probably get to it early next week. In the meantime, should we start a nomination thread so that we have the next one ready to go in a couple weeks when this one is out the door?

[Riggler]

I got a game in on Mole Hill. The fight was a lot lopsided, but I don't think the map had as much to do with that as very lucky roles by me and very unlucky by my opponent. I've never seen someone whiff on Marro Hounds max movement so many times.

I'd like to get another game in. Thus far I'm impressed and am leaning towards an OK.

[funrun]

I played on Arctic Divide in the NC tourney with Heavy Snow and Normal Ice, and I thought it was the best map I've played on in a tourney (out of 7 maps.) The map doesn't favor ranged units and melee is slowed by the Heavy Snow. With Slippery Ice it would take forever to get anywhere on this map, so that is why I do not nominate it the way it is written. Now I am using this map for my tourney in Cincy, and I am surprised to see no one has nominated it here. I think it is time to nominate Arctic Divide by UPC (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=161)

[UranusPChicago]

Wow, funrun, I think you killed out thread... :wink:

Thank you for the nomination for perusal and a personal thank you for thinking that one of my maps is worthy enough to be nominated. I will respectfully bow out of any discussions involving Arctic Divide. I will add, however, that Heavy Snow and/or Heavy Ice is not determined on the map itself. My personal preference was for both to be Heavy, but the Heavy/Light factor is ultimately left up to the user of the map. Tundra, so far, is the only terrain whose effects can change upon the decision of the map user.

Now, back to the task at hand. I was able to get in a couple more games last night on Mole Hill. Again, I feel it is a tournament worthy map. I love the ease of the set up, literally 5 minutes was all it took to set up.

We played a 1v1 (500 per) and a 2v2 (300 per) (I am trying to bring 2 more people to the dark side; new Heroscapers) and the games flowed fairly well.

[Eclipse]

I got in a little bit of both maps this weekend so I thought I'd post my thoughts:

Mole Hill -
Honestly, I'm a bit on the fence with this one. It's not particularly pretty and it tends to create shooting gallery matches over the pond in the middle. There are a lot of neat tactical options though and the space is used really well. Honestly, as long as it's already using a RTTFF expansion for the trees, it might be nice to have some road put in to help melee units get around the lake faster.

I do love the single water space in the middle that makes for some interesting diving options for melee units to cross the water in the center. I did notice the left side has a bit of an advantage on this, as it's much easier to defend and harder to climb up the other side there. That said, we had a lot of fun on it, I'm just not sure if that was because I liked the map or because I simply like Heroscape though. I could use a few more runs on it before I can say whether it's worthy of being "best of the best".

Arctic Divide -
If I was choosing between this and Mole Hill, this would win hands down. When I first built it I was a bit afraid of the same shooting gallery concept across the snow, but the glacier's do a fantastic job of blocking LOS for the most part. Rather, it creates a ying-yang effect, where people move in a swirl motion to get LOS. In order to move into this position, ranged units really need to get close enough where the can't kite over the snow very well. This combined with the fact that there aren't a lot of perches really helps to balance the advantage snow gives to ranged units.

My one complaint with the map is that it makes it nearly impossible to use non-flying double spaced units. On one side there's a drop and raise portion that takes too many movement points to cross in a single turn. The only option is to take a few winding paths that simply take too long for them to get in on any of the action. It's not too breaking for most of the double spaced units, but there are a couple who really struggle with it. An interesting map making note I learned is that it requires a minimum move of 7 for a double spaced figure to cross a single hex drop in snow terrain.

Glyph placement proved quite good. They look somewhat lopsided, but for the most part they proved to be hotly contested areas and nothing more. All in all I really liked this map, definitely better than Mole Hill in my opinion. It should also be made clear on what kind of snow and ice you're using on it. We used both heavy snow and slippery ice when we played.

[Rÿchean]

Arctic Divide:

The moment I built this map a few months ago I immediately appreciated the design that went into making it. It is an extremely balanced map and an excellent representation of Tundra set in a tourney map. I find the game play to be excellent and often the entire map to be used in a game. I have played close to 10 games on this map and I give it an EMPHATIC YES!!!!

----------

Ok update......

Mole Hills: YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4

Arctic Divide: YES = 1 ; NO = 0; Pending = 4 (UPC is excluded from voting his own creation)

[funrun]

I got "stuck" played on Arctic Divide at my own tourney three times in a row. It is by far the most challenging map I have played on. Of the 4 maps in my tourney I think this one got played on for 60 min. more than any other map. The reason why it is so challenging is because each hex movement needs to be carefully considered. I can't think of any other map where people spend so much time having to consider all the different not-so-ideal places they can move in one turn. Visually, this is a great map too because there is no visible ugly brown tiles under the white snow.

[Riggler]

This is in replay to UPC's private message to all of us. I'll quote here for reference.

CornPuff, Eclipse, Revdyer, Riggler, and Rychean,

I am beginning to have some concerns about whether we should even move forward with this. We spent weeks bantering back and forth about rules minutia and have fallen completely on our collective faces when it came to doing what we spent weeks defining what it was we were accomplishing to do.

How should we proceed? Any momentum that we had weeks ago is gone. I am confident that we are completely off of anyone's radar as not a single person has posted on the thread about the hold up.

I would really like to move forward. I have wanted to provide this service to the community ever since Logrey brought us his gem of an app in LandScape.

So I ask you, with no hard feelings held against any of you one way or another, do you desire to move forward or do we need to search out new help? Or, do you honestly feel that a Hall of Valhalla simply won't work? Is it simply a pipe dream on my part?

Please be honest with your answers.

I do understand the business of the Thanksgiving/Christmas season, but I have seen most of you involved in other parts of the HS site. Its not like you haven't had time to simply post a "still testing" message on our thread.

UPC

Let me give you the lowdown on my slowdown. At the beginning of November I moved to a different city and am trying to find a job. That doesn't mean I haven't got time for an occasional game of HS and can occassionally post. What I can't do is be on the net as often as I was before November. I was one of the cheerleaders who finally got us some guidelines going if you remember. I'm still as much a fan and cheerleader of this ideas as anyone. I don't yet have "at-home" Internet service so am having to use the public library to post.

Also, I'm having to form a new network of Heroscapers. In other words, spread to HS love to the uninitiated. Part of that means not playing the same map too often.

I want one more competative game on Mole Hills before I give it the OK.

As for Artic Divide, I'm getting the Tundra set for X-mas, which means it will be then before I can do a test.

When we began this, we said that testing a map would "take as long as it takes." Its in the guidelines even. We said we wanted to be sure and not be hasty. I appologize for not giving a more full update sooner.

I am curious as to why some members of the HoV board have not posted in some time. The way I read the guidelines they could be bordering on replacement.

We'll consider this post the one week notice for those who haven't posted in this thread in the last month, as per the guidelines.

After I get employment and after the holidays are over (probably Feburary or March timeframe) I'll be able to be much more active in my Scaping and my posting.

Thanks for the wake-up call UPC.

[Kahrma]

I am confident that we are completely off of anyone's radar as not a single person has posted on the thread about the hold up.


Just thought I'd let you know that I, for one, check this thread whenever there are new posts. I'm sure there must be other "lurkers" out there who do the same.

I'm not surprised at the speed of judging/reviewing/posting - coordinating decisions and discussions online between 4-5 separate parties can be cumbersome, but I believe the result will be worth it. I'd rather see in-depth discussion and playtesting of each of the reviewed maps, than hasty voting and loads of "rubber stamped" battlefields.

Carry on, we'll be patient.

[UranusPChicago]

Kahrma, your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated. :)

[Supergeek]

Just thought I'd let you know that I, for one, check this thread whenever there are new posts. I'm sure there must be other "lurkers" out there who do the same.

I'm not surprised at the speed of judging/reviewing/posting - coordinating decisions and discussions online between 4-5 separate parties can be cumbersome, but I believe the result will be worth it. I'd rather see in-depth discussion and playtesting of each of the reviewed maps, than hasty voting and loads of "rubber stamped" battlefields.

Carry on, we'll be patient.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Satyr]

In the past I went through all of the HQ 1 MS maps looking for ones that could be used for tournament play ... based on observation only. Yours is a useful service. Play testing takes time.

I've linked to the thread in a coupla places and have requested all of the maps for the NorCal January tournament follow the Battlefields of Valhalla guidelines. Hell, I've even been making 1 MS maps again.

Keep at it.

On a side note. I think Mole Hills needs a bit of tweaking. Too many single hex perches and not enough balance. :2cents:

[UranusPChicago]

Wow, I get all ***** and now the floodgates are opening... :)

Supergeek, thank you for the support.

Satyr, keep the feedback coming. This service will only be as valuable as the community makes it.

[Khanbob42]

I too have been watching this thread for a while now waiting in anticipation of the great things that will come of this.

Yours is definitely a good idea. One that I think would greatly strengthen the tournament side of heroscape. Having tried and true playtested maps will certainly help in my gaming group. There have been many a time when a game felt it was won more due to inbalance in a map than in actual tactics.

Thank you for your work so far. I may be able to lend some assistance as needed as well in terms of playtesting ect. I have a large (4-8 player) group that plays at least once a week. We have 4ms, 4Rtff, 2TT, 2 Lava, and 3 Castle sets so we can build most any map.

Don't give up on this!! It's a great idea!!!

[Eclipse]

Good to see people are still interested in this. I had a string of travelling that kept me away from playing for a while, but I was rather sad to see nobody replied after my posts on the maps that have been considered so far and had my worries.

I mentioned this to UPC already, but I really think we need to have a tournament or something as a kick start event. Something to open the floodgates and formally start the deluge of maps that people want to tested. It's really just a question of whether or not we're ready for any kind of real event for the project.

[CornPuff]

I'm still here too! I've played HS only twice since molehill was recommended, so i just haven't had the playtime to get a timely vote in.

I just played my second game of molehill tonight, and am going over the results in my head. Both games were very decisive, and decided by range superiority. Especially with the pond being 2 hexes wide in most parts, melee isn't given much of a chance. That said, the map is very interesting from a gameplay perspective; lots of good movement choices. I agree with eclipses concerns over Molehills, and will think it over before I vote.

UPC, I'm glad you got ***** :-). I don't want this thing to die either.

[Elstree]

Hi guys, just wanted to add my voice to those expressing support for this effort. I remember wading through map after map on HQ with no good way of separating the wheat from the chaff. This is a much needed and long overdue project. Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this effort. I'm just sorry I wasn't around to get in on the ground floor.

All that said, it seems like the approval process is taking longer than people originally expected or intended. Without any disrespect intended to the current judges, I have a suggestion for a different approval mechanism that could potentially move a map from nomination to approval (or rejection) in a period of three weeks.

The process is called "Peer Review" and is used in academic publishing. It has the advantage of drawing more broadly on the talents of the community and speeds the approval process by allowing people to contribute time when they have time available.

If people are interested in this idea then I'll be happy to provide more details about how it works. However, it certainly isn't my intention to undermine the position of the current panel if they feel the current system can be made to work. I'd just like to see this effort get off the ground again.

[Riggler]

I see two panel members have concern about the range superiority of Mole Hills. I hope to get a second game in on Mole Hills this weekend to be able to cast my vote.

I want to point out that b/c most of the water on Mole Hills is two hexes wide it actually gives a RARE advantage from a map standpoint to DOUBLE-HEX figures. That's because they are able to cross the pond by stopping only once for water. Most maps penalize double hex figures, so that's a unique advantaqe for this map.

The game I played on this map I won, and domination by ranged units was what I used to do it. But I question whether strategy of my opponent (who did not use two squads of double-spaced figures to his advantage) played into the dominance.

Hopefully within 2 weeks I'll be able to cast my vote.

[Satyr]

Riggler, your comments resonate with some feed back I received about Mole Hills (I have proposed Mole Hills for our NorCal Tourney in Jan.)

Wow! Tried Mole Hill today - what a map! Deceptively simple with each level of height worth it's weight in gold. Not a fun time for double spaced figs - especially the non-fliers.

Not sure if this helps or biases, but I operate on the assumption more information is better ...

[Riggler]

Riggler, your comments resonate with some feed back I received about Mole Hills (I have proposed Mole Hills for our NorCal Tourney in Jan.)

Wow! Tried Mole Hill today - what a map! Deceptively simple with each level of height worth it's weight in gold. Not a fun time for double spaced figs - especially the non-fliers.

Not sure if this helps or biases, but I operate on the assumption more information is better ...

More information is always better and when we set this up, anticipated additional input from those playing the maps who were not on the panel.

For some you really have to think about how Mole Hills impact double-space figures. At first glance it looks like they would be disadvantaged. And they are if their route takes them around the pond. Opponents that might not realize this advange could be surprised when they just shoot across it.

[Riggler]

I played a second competative game on Mole Hills. The first game I played a month or so ago I dominated. This game, we switched sides and I got dominated. But I don't think it was as much a side of the battlefield as makeups of armies and rolling.

I rolled horribly, and the times I did get lucky rolls, my opponent got luckier. The cherry on top was when my opponent blocked three skulls by rolling three shields on three dice.

The map isn't pretty. But that's not what we're judging. And any map can be dominated by range units. I don't think that this map makes that much more prominent than any other map. SO does it favor ranged. Yes. Don't all maps favor ranged? 99% of the time. Does this shift a great favor towards range? No. Fliers are helpful, but not as much so as a map with higher levels. Units with summoning or carry ability are also helpful as are two sided. And what about our slow melee brethren? The trees provide ample cover for some of these units early in the game.

The map is balanced and competative. I vote yes. Approved.

Now that I have the Tundra set, I'll put Artic Divide on my calender to test.

[Revdyer]

With a reminder from Riggler and UPC, just checking in and saying that I'm still alive and in the process. Been a bit busy during Advent and all.

[Rÿchean]

Thanks Riggler!

Thanks for the Update Rev.

--

Here is an update with Riggler's recent vote:

Mole Hills: YES = 3 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3

Arctic Divide: YES = 1 ; NO = 0; Pending = 4 (UPC is excluded from voting his own creation)

[Rÿchean]

Revdyer sent me this PM:

Finally have had enough time to play the maps and test them out.

YES to Artic Divide; YES to Mole Hill.

Why not just post that here Rev?

so....

Mole Hills: YES = 4 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 2

Arctic Divide: YES = 2 ; NO = 0; Pending = 3 (UPC is excluded from voting his own creation)

That vote pretty much puts Mole Hill in.....

[Revdyer]

Sorry, wasn't sure of the protocol for posting my votes.

[Riggler]

so....

Mole Hills: YES = 4 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 2

Arctic Divide: YES = 2 ; NO = 0; Pending = 3 (UPC is excluded from voting his own creation)

That vote pretty much puts Mole Hill in.....

Actually, our bylaws require a 75% approval by the board. That makes 66.6. So we need 1 of the 2 pending votes to approve Mole Hills.

[deadeyedan42]

I thought this would be like the best of custom maps, kinda like the halls. I'm going to make one now!

[Eclipse]

so....

Mole Hills: YES = 4 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 2

Arctic Divide: YES = 2 ; NO = 0; Pending = 3 (UPC is excluded from voting his own creation)

That vote pretty much puts Mole Hill in.....

Actually, our bylaws require a 75% approval by the board. That makes 66.6. So we need 1 of the 2 pending votes to approve Mole Hills.

Well, rather than continue to waver on the issue indefinitely, I'll throw in my vote. I have to say no to Mole Hill. It's a fine map but I don't love it, certainly not enough to make it the first "best of" map. Arctic Divide gets a yes from me. Braxas might be a little too powerful on it, but other than that it's a good map that has all kinds of subtle tricks that make it fun to play. I'd like it better if it wasn't so hard on Grimnak/Q9/Krug and a few others, but it's still an excellent map.

[CornPuff]

I played Mole Hills, I liked it. Its asymmetry makes it interesting. I think it is a bit of a rangefest, but one or 2 melee units could still come in and make a difference. The map also seemed to favor combat instead of turtling.

Even with range domination, this Mole Hills is a map that would make a great addition to a tournament. I vote 'Yes' for mole hills.

[UranusPChicago]

Alright!!!

We have our first inductee. Mole Hills becomes our first Battlefield of Valhalla. What a great way to start off the new year.

Hopefully we can really get rolling here and get some more maps tested.

This evening I will create the Battlefield display thread.

BTW, not to take away from the current map being voted on (Arctic Divide), but I am unclear if the modified (by Rychean) Forsaken Waters map was completely voted on. I know that the unmodified version was rejected.

[Eclipse]

It was voted down it wasn't clearly nominated. We got off track trying to fix it amongst ourselves and eventually decided we didn't like it. Someone needs to nominate a version of it themselves for consideration.

[mrbistro]

If you guys have a problem with a map I suggest you go to the original designer for changes. While I love this project, as a map designer I would not care to see other people "fix" my maps.

[Eclipse]

If you guys have a problem with a map I suggest you go to the original designer for changes. While I love this project, as a map designer I would not care to see other people "fix" my maps.

If there's a problem with a map it's just voted no. We do not "fix" maps. The problem with the Forsaken Waters map was that we were trying to "create" a Battlefields worthy map as a starting point and got caught trying to force it to fit when it didn't. No submitted maps will be changed before being inducted.

[Revdyer]

Absolutely agreed. We are not, at this point, in the map "fixing" business.

[mrbistro]

You're right Eclipse! I read it as changing Arctic Divide instead of Forsaken Waters. My bad.

[Eclipse]

:poke:

So... does anyone have any new maps or thoughts on Artic Divide?

:boring:

[UranusPChicago]

I have some thoughts on Arctic Divide, but I am not allowed to share them... :lol:

[Grungebob]

:poke:

So... does anyone have any new maps or thoughts on Artic Divide?

:boring:I would call Arctic divide an expert level map, that would be good at tourneys that are competitive. It puts your skills to the test.

[Riggler]

I have some thoughts on Arctic Divide, but I am not allowed to share them... :lol:

UPC, I don't think our intention was to ever say a map designer couldn't chime in. You just can't vote on whether it goes to the Halls. I'm sure you could give it an unbiased view since if we approve a bad map it kinda kicks the whole process in the shin.

Anyhow, I played 1 and a half games on Arctic Divide. My favorite part of the map is the positioning of the start zones to the way the glaciers are arranged. This does greatly cut down on range dominance that cripple the design of other maps.

The first game was played with hvy snow and normal ice. This seems to me the best configuration. If you'll rememember I agreed to be part of the panel NOT because I was looking for "tournament" maps, but for really good maps. This map IS a really good map. But...

In a tournament, using heavy snow (or worse adding slippery ice) you might never see a fight finished on it before the round is out. But *I* don't cast my vote based on tournaments, I cast it based on being an interesting, balanced, great design.

Now for a little critisism about the map. There is some wasted space, but not too much. This could be corrected with glyphs placed in the corners of the map where starting locations are not. VERY easy fix, but any self-respecting tournment host can figure that out.

If I came onto Heroscapers.com and was looking to download a cool map to play with friends (which is why I'm doing this project in the first place) This is a map I'd want to be pointed to.

I vote yes. When I play it from now on, I'll be adding two additional glyphs in the far corners away from starting locations.

My vote: Yes, its in.

[UranusPChicago]

Actually my thinking when I created the "unused" corners is that they could be used for ranged defense if the enemy was trying a flank attack down the side.

One of the things that I consciously make an effort to do when creating a map is to make sure that there is not wasted space or hexes for the sake of hexes. I agree that the corners will not always be used, but there was a method behind the madness. :lol:


On to other matters...
I see that I have successfully forgotten to create a display thread for the maps inducted into the Halls. Perhaps I should follow through and actually do what I said I was going to do...

Map Makers and Map Fans! We need some submissions to look at. Please feel free to nominate some maps that you believe to be the best of the best. We need your support.

[Riggler]

Actually my thinking when I created the "unused" corners is that they could be used for ranged defense if the enemy was trying a flank attack down the side.

One of the things that I consciously make an effort to do when creating a map is to make sure that there is not wasted space or hexes for the sake of hexes. I agree that the corners will not always be used, but there was a method behind the madness. :lol:

Perhaps this is an example of how people from different regions play the game differently. People I've played with would likely see using those corners as "wasted move" to keep them from getting to the enemy.

On to other matters...
I see that I have successfully forgotten to create a display thread for the maps inducted into the Halls. Perhaps I should follow through and actually do what I said I was going to do...

Map Makers and Map Fans! We need some submissions to look at. Please feel free to nominate some maps that you believe to be the best of the best. We need your support.

BTW, we only need one more vote for Arctic Divide to be inducted. Hopefully we can get the word out if AD gets inducted that we have two maps approved. And that can stir some interest.

UPC and other admis, would it be possible to have a Halls download category in the maps section?

[ricksta2232]

Well guys, I wanted to chime in and say how awesome I think it is that a battlefields hall of fame has been created, for those of us without painting skills. It just tickles my fancy, and hopefully one of my small but tournament worthy maps will eventually make it. If there's ever another judge needed, I would be honored to do so.

I saw Jonathan in person today to let him know about Mole Hill, and that it was the first map inducted into the halls. He was CLUELESS! NO ONE told him!

It was a pleasant surprise for him, and I was glad to see a fellow Houstonian get the honor.

Keep up the good work!

[Rÿchean]

Well, can we nominate our own?

From page 1 of this thread:

SECTION 1: Submission guidelines and tips
1. Maps shall contain 24 start zones.
2. Maps should be balanced for 1-on-1 competition between two (2) 500 point armies.
3. Maps shall be limited to 1 MS and up to 3 terrain expansions, no two of which can be the same, with the exception that 2 Road to the Forgotten Forests are allowed. Keep in mind the fewer expansions a map includes the more likely it is to be used. If the map makes use of a few wave expansion tiles, that will be acceptable. Submitted maps must state what expansions are needed.
4. Anyone can nominate a map for consideration, but it will not go through the judging process without a majority vote of the Council.
5. Submitted maps must include build instructions.
6. Glyphs are not required, but any number may be used to enhance a map.
7. Maps should not heavily favor any one special ability to the point that it makes the map non-competitive if an army does not contain that ability (i.e. flying, lava resistance, etc.).
8. Do NOT slap a map together and nominate it for consideration. Playtest your submitted map AT LEAST once, or judges will be likely to hunt you down and flog you with wet noodles.

[ricksta2232]

I understand that, and I read the rules, but it doesn't specifically say whether a map nominated can be one's own...

[Rÿchean]

4. Anyone can nominate a map for consideration, but it will not go through the judging process without a majority vote of the Council.

8. Do NOT slap a map together and nominate it for consideration. Playtest your submitted map AT LEAST once, or judges will be likely to hunt you down and flog you with wet noodles.

It says anyone can nominate a map. If you have one of your own creations that you feel is worthy, nominate it but please reference item 8 as well.

So nominate or if you feel funny nominating your own, have Jonathon do it. I would love to have another map to judge! :D

[ricksta2232]

Okay, Okay!

(no worries, all of my maps are playtested... recently we've messed with one of my meta maps on a game day, but it uses the water from two master sets... oh well...)

Please don't flog me with wet noodles!

[Rÿchean]

Ricksta, sorry if i came off snooty...not me intent

Nominations are welcomed and encouraged.

[Revdyer]

Watch out, ricksta! Rychean really is snooty! Snooty, snooty, snooty! <laughing and ducking and hiding all at once>

[Sea_Wolf64]

I'm new to the game and this forum. I have to say thank you to this project. As a future map designer/tournament host its very helpful to review this thread and the maps you review. Hopefully I will have some maps in the future for your consideration.

[Jonathan]

Hmm. No more nominations. Where should we look first for hall-of-valhalla maps?

On another note, I'm really glad you guys liked Mole Hills (and thanks for the nom, GB)!

[Ch1can0]

If the display thread is planned like a kind of showcase...

http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/heroscape/Mole_Hills_Ruins.jpg

...a better rendered sreenie should be used imo.
http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/heroscape/Mole_Hills_Ruins_3.gif

Perhaps also with title and author.
http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/heroscape/Mole_Hills_Ruins_4.jpg

And with more entries the thread will become a nice gallery of the best tournament maps.

Start zones should be clear but i would have marked them (red/blue for example) in the pdf, as a standard for all maps.

Nice map btw, good use of tiles! http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/smilies/jo.gif

Ch1can0.

[UranusPChicago]

Thank you, Ch1can0, for the much better rendered IMG. I replaced the image in the display thread with your pic, I hope you don't mind. :wink:

CornPuff and Ref, we are waiting on votes from you guys on Arctic Divide. Man, that looks like a great map... :lol:

Map makers, map fans, and map lurkers, we need your help. We need your map nominations. Hopefully, when we build up a list of nominations, we can start going through these a few at a time.

[Jonathan]

How about Ruins at Dhibah Oasis? It's a justjohn map that was used at the September DFW tourney. For some reason the link doesn't seem to be working for me, though :(

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=ED10A3C41CDB3DD3

Oh, and Ch1can0, your skills are soon to become legendary, I'm thinking. Awesome work!

[Ch1can0]

upc: no problem :)

Jonathan: thx, but that wasn´t much... just a little update to make a good map look good. :wink:

[Revdyer]

Thank you, Ch1can0, for the much better rendered IMG. I replaced the image in the display thread with your pic, I hope you don't mind. :wink:

CornPuff and Ref, we are waiting on votes from you guys on Arctic Divide. Man, that looks like a great map... :lol:

Map makers, map fans, and map lurkers, we need your help. We need your map nominations. Hopefully, when we build up a list of nominations, we can start going through these a few at a time.
If you meant me, UPC, I already voted YES on AD.

[UranusPChicago]

Well, I guess I am still new at this "reading" thing... :oops: Sorry Rev!

After more indepth reading, it appears as though Arctic Divide has been approved as well. Kudos to the creator of that map! :lol:

I will update the Display thread with the newest induction. I will also add to the thread the final voting results.

Mole Hill: 5 yes, 1 no
Arctic Divide 4 yes, 1 pending, 1 abstained (creator of map)

Ch1can0, can you hook me up with a better pic of Arctic Divide with the name and stuff like you did with Mole Hills?

[Rÿchean]

How about Ruins at Dhibah Oasis? It's a justjohn map that was used at the September DFW tourney. For some reason the link doesn't seem to be working for me, though :(

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=ED10A3C41CDB3DD3

Oh, and Ch1can0, your skills are soon to become legendary, I'm thinking. Awesome work!

So I take that as an offical nomination for justjohn's Ruins at Dhibah Oasis?

The justjohn map was reworked for the Dallas tourney to only use one Road set and One master set.

It is available for download here:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=207

[Revdyer]

We'll play on that this Thursday, d.v.

[Ch1can0]

Hi UPC,

here is the image for Artic Divide, i fixed the floating startzones

http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/heroscape/arctic_divide.jpg

Next time please send me the *.hsc, thx. :)

Bye, Ch1can0.

[Jonathan]

Hmm, doesn't look quite mean enough :wink:

[Elstree]

Hi UPC,

here is the image for Artic Divide, i fixed the floating startzones

http://home.arcor.de/fellechner/heroscape/arctic_divide.jpg

Next time please send me the *.hsc, thx. :)

Bye, Ch1can0.

I think I'd prefer the start zones not be included in the showcase image. It keeps me from getting a good idea of what the map will look like on the table. I can get the start zone info from the construction instructions.

Does anyone else feel this way?

[Revdyer]

Startzones or no startzones -- makes no nevermind to me; I like the pictures either way. Just don't go putting too many words on 'em. <grin>

[Rÿchean]

The glyph spots aren't represented on the Arctic Divide image...

Oh well :-D

[Ch1can0]

fixed. :)

[Revdyer]

lonewolf and I played on justjohn's Ruins at Dhibah Oasis map last night. I was, again, great to play on. lonewolf used Ornak on the first turn to activate Brunak who carried Runa almost halfway across the map, then activated Runa for the second part of the Ornak turn and got where she could use her special on a whole bunch of my people. Some 18 rolls of the d20 produced two 20s and instant death for my guys. The later part of the game (and it came down to my Grimnak and his Ornak at the end) centered on the glyphs and riverbank. It was also my first game to play against zombies. They're sure pesky devils. We had a good time with the map.

I vote YES. It is quick, varied, and provides a place for solid play.

By the way, we had a neat game night of it last evening. The ltfighters were here, along with lonewolf in from Phoenix, and a couple of other friends, and the LongHeroscapers(Dr. and Mrs.). We played UPC's two team castle map, a three person map I threw together, and jj's Ruins map. I cleaned up and took down things this morning, but left the Ruins map up to play on again...that ought to tell you something about the value of the map in my opinion.

[xraine69]

I am working on maps specifically for tournament play. I have 4 so far that I will submit sometime this week. Arctic divide is an excellent map, I've played it in 2 tournaments. Mole hills is too simple. I like a map as challenging as my opponent. The maps are created with 1 master of course and I try to incorporate at least 2 expansions. More info later.

[xraine69]

I have uploaded my maps into the download section and would like to submit them to the judges. They are titled Tournament Series. Hope they meet or exceed your expectations.

[Rÿchean]

I have uploaded my maps into the download section and would like to submit them to the judges. They are titled Tournament Series. Hope they meet or exceed your expectations.

Xraine69, please refer to these bylaws, especially section 1:

Heroscape Maps Approved for Competitive and Tournament Play

By-laws

Goal: To offer the Heroscape gaming community balanced, playtested maps for both tournament and competitive play. And to establish standards for playable, balanced, and aesthetic maps.

SECTION 1: Submission guidelines and tips
1. Maps shall contain 24 start zones.
2. Maps should be balanced for 1-on-1 competition between two (2) 500 point armies.
3. Maps shall be limited to 1 MS and up to 3 terrain expansions, no two of which can be the same, with the exception that 2 Road to the Forgotten Forests are allowed. Keep in mind the fewer expansions a map includes the more likely it is to be used. If the map makes use of a few wave expansion tiles, that will be acceptable. Submitted maps must state what expansions are needed.
4. Anyone can nominate a map for consideration, but it will not go through the judging process without a majority vote of the Council.
5. Submitted maps must include build instructions.
6. Glyphs are not required, but any number may be used to enhance a map.
7. Maps should not heavily favor any one special ability to the point that it makes the map non-competitive if an army does not contain that ability (i.e. flying, lava resistance, etc.).
8. Do NOT slap a map together and nominate it for consideration. Playtest your submitted map AT LEAST once, or judges will be likely to hunt you down and flog you with wet noodles.

SECTION 2: How maps are judged
1. Maps nominated for consideration will go through the following process after a majority vote of the judges.
2. Maps will be playtested competitively at least once by all judges, using 500 point armies. Candidates for approval will be playtested more than once.
3. Consideration for approved maps will be given, generally, based on the following criteria and in this order: balance, interesting play, and aesthetics.
4. Time for consideration is: as long as it takes for the judges to make an informed decision.
5. Great maps will be approved; not good ones. Don't let this discourage you.
6. Judge discussions will occur in a public forum on the official non-official Heroscape web site: Currently www.heroscapers.com
7. Voting on maps will occur in private, but vote totals will be presented publicly.
8. Maps that receive a super-majority of 75% of the Council will be formatted and given the Battlefields of Valhalla Seal of Approval. Judges may abstain from a vote on a particular map, thereby reducing the total number of votes needed for acceptance.

SECTION 3: Self-governance
1. The Council will contain six judges. The first judges are: CornPuff, Eclipse, Revdyer, Riggler, Rychean and UranusPChicago.
2. Judges will maintain their position unless a) They are not heard from by fellow judges on the official non-official Heroscape web site for a period of 31 days, or b) They abstain for a total of three months or for three consecutive maps under consideration, whichever comes later.
3. If a vacancy on the council occurs, judges will be replaced by those who a) show interest in serving, and b) after consideration of the sitting judges receive 75 % vote of approval. Voting and discussion of a replacement judge may occur in private.
4. Judges will not be allowed to vote on their own maps. During the judging of their own maps their vote will be considered an abstention for the percentages needed to both playtest and approve the map. Their vote will NOT be counted as an abstention for purposes of the "three consecutive maps" criteria in Section 3-2-b.
5. These by-laws may be changed and amended at any time by a 75 % vote of sitting judges.

First, submitting a body of work isn't a manageable situation for us. Please nominate one map at a time.

Second, present the nomination formally as if you are genuinely interested in taking the time to present a map that you know from game experience is a great map for tourney play. Specify some reasons and experiences associated with why you are making the nomination.

Previous nomination example:

I played on Arctic Divide in the NC tourney with Heavy Snow and Normal Ice, and I thought it was the best map I've played on in a tourney (out of 7 maps.) The map doesn't favor ranged units and melee is slowed by the Heavy Snow. With Slippery Ice it would take forever to get anywhere on this map, so that is why I do not nominate it the way it is written. Now I am using this map for my tourney in Cincy, and I am surprised to see no one has nominated it here. I think it is time to nominate Arctic Divide by UPC (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=161)

We want nominations for sure.

Please make a more concerted, focused nomination and we will make the effort to judge it. At the present, I wouldn't consider any of your maps to be nominated because I see no pics, no links, no reasons why it would make a good tourney map.

Thank you for your interest and please reply with a focused nomiation about a specific map.

[Revdyer]

Xraine69, I have to "amen" what Rychean has said. We are eager for good maps, but have to constrain the pathway for their submission to the judging process. Thank you.

[xraine69]

My official apologies. Pics should be up by tomorrow. As far as build parameters, I have met them, except on a new map called Molten Pass, it does use 2 VW, but that expansion is pretty small. So, for my first submission, I would like to submit Fire and Ice(1 Master,1 TT and 1VW). It has been playtested in a mini-tournament and everyone loved it.(Goobertown,NC) If you play with slippery ice it slows movement around the outside of the map. Limited line of sight, so it reduces range and creates a more balanced play between melee and range. Thank you for your consideration.http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=486

[Cavalier]

My official apologies. Pics should be up by tomorrow. As far as build parameters, I have met them, except on a new map called Molten Pass, it does use 2 VW, but that expansion is pretty small. So, for my first submission, I would like to submit Fire and Ice(1 Master,1 TT and 1VW). It has been playtested in a mini-tournament and everyone loved it.(Goobertown,NC) If you play with slippery ice it slows movement around the outside of the map. Limited line of sight, so it reduces range and creates a more balanced play between melee and range. Thank you for your consideration.link?

[Revdyer]

My official apologies. Pics should be up by tomorrow. As far as build parameters, I have met them, except on a new map called Molten Pass, it does use 2 VW, but that expansion is pretty small. So, for my first submission, I would like to submit Fire and Ice(1 Master,1 TT and 1VW). It has been playtested in a mini-tournament and everyone loved it.(Goobertown,NC) If you play with slippery ice it slows movement around the outside of the map. Limited line of sight, so it reduces range and creates a more balanced play between melee and range. Thank you for your consideration.http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=486

Thanks, xraine69. I've downloaded the files, will build the map, and our Central Arkansas group will play our hearts out on it.

[xraine69]

Thank you. Hope you enjoy.

[Revdyer]

I hope we will too. The picture will help to make sure we have the glaciers right.

[Rÿchean]

Recap of current business:

justjohn's Ruins at Dhibah Oasis is up for judging; no votes as of yet

download HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=207)

xraine69's Fire and Ice is up for judging; no votes as of yet

download HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=486)

Peace out

[Revdyer]

Recap of current business:

justjohn's Ruins at Dhibah Oasis is up for judging; no votes as of yet

download HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=207)

xraine69's Fire and Ice is up for judging; no votes as of yet

download HERE (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=486)

Peace out
Man, talk about getting no respect. Here I vote YES on jj's Dhibah map and even give reasons, and it makes no impression around here at all. <huff>

By the way, I've built xraine69's map but snow and sleet wiped out the game for tonight.

[Rÿchean]

I'm sorry Rev...I guess I should take you off ignore ;-)

Updating then:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5

Fire and Ice: YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6


silly me try to do something good and just F it all to H

[Revdyer]

It's okay, Rychaen; we love/respect/honor (take your pick) you anyway!

[Rÿchean]

I am voting NO to jj's Ruins at Dhibah Oasis. Now this is a bit odd for me since I modified the present form of this map heavily to make it use one master and one road set. (maybe I shouldn't even be allowed a vote considering my involvement???)

I am voting NO mainly because the map overly favors range and doesn't make good use of the expansion. There is no blocking terrain of any sort and high ground is pretty much given right out of the box. The game quickly becomes a shooting match across the little river.

The set up isn't all that quick for being a small map and the overall game play is just adequate.

In all fairness, the original map by jj used sand tiles from 3 Masters and two road sets. His original offering might have faired better, but the modified version that we ended up using in the Oct Dallas tourney is lacking.

I will leave another to decide if my vote should even count on this map.

I have Fire and Ice set up on my table and have played 1 game on it so far; I should have a vote ready on that one in a week or less.

[Revdyer]

I think you're allowed to vote on the Ruins one, Rychaen.

I've been playing with Fire and Ice and will also have a decision within the week, I think.

[Revdyer]

I really hate to do this, but I have to vote NO on the current configuration of xraine69's Fire and Ice map.

It is a great map for a game night, but won't work so well for a tournament. The paths are limited to the sides and passing over the glyph hexes which cannot be accessed by two hex figures, therefore preventing them from moving onto the enemy half of the map. With the large lava center (and we played Brunak and the Obsidian Guards in one of our games) the map is really restricted. It is clever and fun to play, but not a fair tournament layout. Especially it handicaps ground units, favoring fliers and ranged units. I'm all for making life difficult for squads, but this map makes it almost impossible for them.

I'm not sure how to say this, but here's my best try: This is a fun map. It is not a tournament map, in my opinion. Another way for squads to move toward each other would help.

On a more personal note, and this didn't really figure into my vote, I like all the hexes to rest on other hexes unless there is an intentional and usable overhang being created.

I'm sorry, xraine69, this is good, but needs some more work. (Why am I feeling like Paula Abdul?)

[Braxev]

Recently in the Heroscape Club we've been working on a 1 MS map for this Valhalla design. One of the members has 2 RtFF sets, and we made note of the fact up to 2 of them were allowed, so we got together and attempted to make "Le Perfect Valhalla Map." (We are not quite there, in my opinion, but we're deadlocked on progressing, so I'm submitting what we have.)

We've played with Forest Trails for some time. The map is a bit intricate and messy, with a lot of Line of Sight being blocked. This maps ranged units have a hard time on this map, but for the most part it evens up the use of melee and ranged unit squads. Two-hex figures are capable of manuevering around the map, and getting onto the bridge. The map is well balanced and yet somewhat interesting- sometimes when we playtest it we just end up having melee fights in the forest or shoot outs on the bridge. It's never failed to be fun yet, though. For this reason I nominate Forest Trails (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=492) on behalf of the Association of Heroscapers Community. (AHC!)
You could say it passed our bar.. the AHC Bar. ;)

[Revdyer]

Braxev, I've got the map downloaded and printed out. I should be able to build it tomorrow and we may get a chance to play on it a couple of times this week, although it may well be into next week before that can happen.

Thanks for submitting it here.

[Rÿchean]

Thank you for nominating a map, Braxev!

Update:

Updating then:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 4

Fire and Ice: YES = 0; NO = 1; Pending = 5

Forest Trails YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6


CornPuff? Riggler? Eclipse?

[UranusPChicago]

Just checking in...

I will get some testing in this week.

[Rÿchean]

I am also voting NO to Fire and Ice for a lot of the same reasons Revdyer gave. The map has potential but the pathways are far too dictated. The map also has some teetering points where terrain can easily be tipped, not good for tourney play.

The 2nd No on Fire and Ice makes the best possible vote YES percentage to be 66%; lower than the required 75%.

--

Update:

Updating then:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 4

Fire and Ice: YES = 0; NO = 2; Pending = 4

Forest Trails YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6

--

I am also moving on to Forest Trails

[Eclipse]

Just poking my nose in. I probably won't get much testing in this week. Going to Vegas and all....

[Revdyer]

Just poking my nose in. I probably won't get much testing in this week. Going to Vegas and all....Your nose is important here...but, I guess it is okay if you have a good trip. <grin>

[CornPuff]

Hey scapers,
Long time no see. I think I'll have to abstain judging for the next little while. I've been putting in some serious hours at work recently (80 hours last week :-/), and just haven't found time to make it to the site, let alone play Heroscape. It is my intention to resume judging before that time period specified in section 3-2-b :-P in the bylaws (hopefully it wont be that long).

Don't read into this too much :). I'm not leaving the forums, or quitting heroscape or anything, I just am just taking a break.

Have fun map judging! The sticky display thread looks awesome. Congrats to Molehills and Arctic Divide!

(btw, even though I'm not stopping by the site much, PMs still reach me through the wonders of email)

Ciao

[xraine69]

Revdyr wrote[/quote]On a more personal note, and this didn't really figure into my vote, I like all the hexes to rest on other hexes unless there is an intentional and usable overhang being created.[/quote]


Thank you for your critique. As for the overhangs, they were intentional, to slow down attackers if you were pushed back to your starting zone.

[Rÿchean]

Understood cornpuff, life happens!

Updating:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

Forest Trails YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)

(due to the 2 NO votes, Fire and Ice has been removed from the judging list since the maximum vote percentage it can receive is 60%)

[Revdyer]

Revdyr wroteOn a more personal note, and this didn't really figure into my vote, I like all the hexes to rest on other hexes unless there is an intentional and usable overhang being created.[/quote]


Thank you for your critique. As for the overhangs, they were intentional, to slow down attackers if you were pushed back to your starting zone.[/quote]

They do do that! We played again on your map last night (I did say it was fun) and I found myself standing in water and not able to climb air to get out the direction I wanted to go. Glad to know it was intentional. If the sides were just one hex wider and the glyph slid to the inside of the glaciers (next to the lava) I'd have to take another long and hard look at the map.

[Rÿchean]

I am not sure what you guys are referring to....but in the absence of a side hex to count, you still count as if there was one there....A one or two hex empty space under an overhang does not prevent a figure form counting the blank spots to move up. Empty space or air under a overhang doesnt stop the move up.

Maybe I am misunderstanding. :shrug:

EDIT - Refer to Page 12 of 2nd Edition rules top of page, Moving up onto low overhangs: you count the nearby tiles to represent the one that isn't there. The overhangs on this map do nothing within the rules of this game.

[Revdyer]

Thanks, Ry. We play so very seldom with low overhangs, that I had not digested that side move method.

[Riggler]

Thank you for nominating a map, Braxev!

Update:

Updating then:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 4

Fire and Ice: YES = 0; NO = 1; Pending = 5

Forest Trails YES = 0; NO = 0; Pending = 6


CornPuff? Riggler? Eclipse?

I've not had a chance to do any playtesting since these three have been nominated. I noticed Fire and Ice has failed the vote. I didn't get to play it. I don't have much time to play these days, as I'm still trying to find gainful employment. (I feel a little guilty playtesting Scape and not searchign for a job). And I have even less time to be online. Nonetheless I will get to playtesting the other two if they don't get voted down.

Can someone point me to a link on Forest Trails?

[Braxev]

Certainly. Forest Trails (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=492)

[ricksta2232]

Is there a way I could serve as a temporary judge on the panel while the other judge is on temporary hiatus?

(Not only would it give me an excuse to play heroscape more, I think map judging is awesome)

Also, I was wondering why it was limited to 6 judges, and not more like a supremely number of 9, or something like that...

[Rÿchean]

Is there a way I could serve as a temporary judge on the panel while the other judge is on temporary hiatus?

(Not only would it give me an excuse to play heroscape more, I think map judging is awesome)

Also, I was wondering why it was limited to 6 judges, and not more like a supremely number of 9, or something like that...
Our by-laws are specific in this realm. We have no provisions for fill in or temporary judges. If we deem that the hiatus of a judge is hampering the process, we have the ability to remove them from the judging committee based on lack of involvement.

With a 75% vote of the sitting judges we could make amendment to the by-laws to allow for fill-in judges. However, I don't currently see a need for this amendment to be made and/or voted on. We have had some deviation from the by-laws already and I am of the mindset that we try to make them work and adhere to them as they are now before we start changing them.

Your interest is encouraging but I don't feel another judge or fill in judge is necessary for the success of this effort.

As far as why we went with 6 judges, we deliberated at somewhat great length in another thread before we arrived at that number. You are welcome to read up if you feel so inclined to do so. LINK (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=2822&start=0)

Again, thank you for showing interest in this effort.

[UranusPChicago]

Is there a way I could serve as a temporary judge on the panel while the other judge is on temporary hiatus?

(Not only would it give me an excuse to play heroscape more, I think map judging is awesome)

Also, I was wondering why it was limited to 6 judges, and not more like a supremely number of 9, or something like that...
Our by-laws are specific in this realm. We have no provisions for fill in or temporary judges. If we deem that the hiatus of a judge is hampering the process, we have the ability to remove them from the judging committee based on lack of involvement.

With a 75% vote of the sitting judges we could make amendment to the by-laws to allow for fill-in judges. However, I don't currently see a need for this amendment to be made and/or voted on. We have had some deviation from the by-laws already and I am of the mindset that we try to make them work and adhere to them as they are now before we start changing them.

Your interest is encouraging but I don't feel another judge or fill in judge is necessary for the success of this effort.

As far as why we went with 6 judges, we deliberated at somewhat great length in another thread before we arrived at that number. You are welcome to read up if you feel so inclined to do so. LINK (http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=2822&start=0)

Again, thank you for showing interest in this effort.

I would also say to go ahead and post your own critiques of the maps here anyway. While it may not count toward final counts for the Hall, it certainly will give us an idea for future nominations to the judging panel if the need should arise.

Plus, it is always a good thing to get other perspectives in the mix.

[ricksta2232]

Well guys, thanks for valuing my input, I'll keep an eye out for maps!

[xraine69]

Revdyr wrote: They do do that! We played again on your map last night (I did say it was fun) and I found myself standing in water and not able to climb air to get out the direction I wanted to go. Glad to know it was intentional. If the sides were just one hex wider and the glyph slid to the inside of the glaciers (next to the lava) I'd have to take another long and hard look at the map.


I am modding the map with those two specifics in mind.

[xraine69]

Rychean wrote: I am not sure what you guys are referring to....but in the absence of a side hex to count, you still count as if there was one there....A one or two hex empty space under an overhang does not prevent a figure form counting the blank spots to move up. Empty space or air under a overhang doesnt stop the move up.



If you don't have a support tile, you can not climb it. I'll check with Hasbro, but my thinking is, that if you were right, they would not mention support tiles.

[deadeyedan42]

hey buddy, there is a reason we have a quote feature, it saves time. :)

enter his/her text here

or you can use the quote button in the top rght corner of a persons post.

[Rÿchean]

If you don't have a support tile, you can not climb it. That statement is flat out wrong. I'll check with Hasbro, but my thinking is, that if you were right, they would not mention support tiles. Why would you check with Hasbro? Have you read the manual?
I reiterate: Page 12 of the 2nd edition rules; there is even an Example Pic. Example 12

Xraine69, I am not going to get into a rules debate in this thread. If you see any reason to further this discussion or get other input, please take it to the rules discussion forum. In fact, I encourage you to do so. You will find that you are incorrect on this matter.

[Rÿchean]

Judges, we need to refocus on this part of the bylaws:

SECTION 2: How maps are judged
1. Maps nominated for consideration will go through the following process after a majority vote of the judges.

To me, this means that the maps would be pre-screened before the actual play testing is to be done.

I say, going forward, we each review the nominated map and .pdf file, then vote whether or not the map should be allowed to go through the judging process. (this is the bylaw transgression I referred to in a previous post.) Just because a map is nominated, doesn't mean we have to accept it for judging.

[ricksta2232]

Alright, I have a serious nomination to make.

Once upon a time, I had just bought my master set, and went looking online for a community of people who played, found Heroscapers.com, and in turn, found the Houston group.

On a journey to Valhalla (Or Jonathan's House) I went, and lo and behold, an incredible collection of figures is on his countertop, and on his dining room table is a map.

We sit down to play the map, and for the first time ever, I faced Braxas. Not something a brand new scaper wants to face.

Well, on this said map, after braxas annihilated most of my squads, I took her down, and battle ensued... if a few lucky rolls went my way, I would have one my first competitive game against Jonathan. (I have yet to defeat him individually or in team play to this day).

It's the closest to a symmetrical map, without actually being so, that I've seen him set up to this day.

I later found out, when I went to look for the instructions to it today, that Rychean made the map, and it's called Into the Breech.


http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Into_the_Breech.jpg

It can be downloaded here...
http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=154

I hereby formally set my nomination for Into the Breech by Rychean and Grungebob.

[Rÿchean]

I got a few games in on Forest Trails this weekend. The map was a blast to play, blocking terrain was good, and it was aesthetically pleasing; over all it is a good map. However, I am going to vote NO to recommending it for the Battlefields of Valhalla.

The map isn't balanced: One side has a start zone that jettisons too far out compared to the other allowing the edges of the map to protect units at the back of the start zone. The main bridge and "short" side of the map is where most of the action takes place. The far road path was never stepped upon during the 3 games that we played. It is too far off the beaten path. That side of the map is a dead zone compared to the hot spot in the middle. Lastly, the map itself uses more terrain than one master set; several additional 2 hex rocks are needed to make this map. The additional materials are not specified as required in the by laws. The map is great fun for game-night play but it isn't a balanced map for tourney play.

Braxev, I encourage your group to submit more entries because this one has the aesthetic value and game play that we are wanting to see. It just has dead areas, uses terrain unspecified, and doesn't achieve a close enough balance between the two start zones. Thank you very much for the submission. I enjoyed judging this map.
---
CURRENT BUSINESS:

Maps currently being judged:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

Forest Trails YES = 0; NO = 1; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus)

---
NEW BUSINESS:

Into the Breech has been nominated. (thank you Ricksta!) As stated in previous post, per by laws, we must accept the nomination. As co-creator I can accept the nomination but I can not judge it for the Battlefields of Valhalla. I think Into the Breech should go through the judging process. It meets the requirements and offers balance, interesting game play and aesthetic value.

Maps pending recommendation for judging process:

Into the Breech: YES = 1 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus)

[Revdyer]

Having played Into the Breech, I agree it should be added to the judging list. This is not a vote on the map, just on entering it into consideration.

[Braxev]

Actually, Rychean, it uses exactly one master set. I am confused as to how you ended up with several additional 2-hex rock tiles, because I even verified it in VirtualScape that it is EXACTLY 1 master set and 2 RtFF. There are no excess tiles or empty spaces requiring hexes, so I'm a little confused as to how you ended up with several addition hexes. It was not my intent to violate that bylaw.

As well, we've actually changed the map since, since we discovered that a slight modification to the map made the entire map open for play and made the road tiles on the dead zone of the map played much more often- usually by ranged units trying to rush the enemy or by melee units trying to hide. Although it does favor Mimring a bit- I once had an entire squad of Vikings toasted on that back-alley path.. :(

I understand I may not modify the map while it's under judging- at least, I can't find any by-law allowing me to do so, and I'd assume it would be wonky to try. But if I am allowed, since no one has yet voted other then Rychean (Who somehow ended up with more pieces of my puzzle then I gave him, strangely) I'd like to withdraw Forest Trails and enter.. Forest Trails, V 2.0!

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u110/Braxev/ForestTrails21.jpg
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u110/Braxev/ForestTrails22.jpg

Again, I understand if that's grossly not-allowed and I missed the bylaw that smacks people who try, but we made this modification on our own, so I'm unsure how it works. I'm perfectly fine with waiting for the current one to flump so Forest Trails V 2.0 can be considered for nomination.

We'll be working on making other maps in the meantime. Thanks and hope you like the V 2.0 better, Rychean! (And I hope your strange hexes dissapear!)

(Edit from Bunjee to add a link to the new version Forest Trails 2.0 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506))

[Rÿchean]

I see my mistake Braxev; the back row I was seeing as Rock, when it is actually road on your build. My bad.

However, the Version 2 appears to be a much better offering. It looks sweet! Give us the download link!!

Based on what I know about original and what I can tell from the images of Version 2, I am voting that this version go through the judging process and we pull the original version. (power going to my head)

-----
updates as follows:

CURRENT BUSINESS:

Maps currently being judged:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

Forest Trails: removed for Version 2.0
---
NEW BUSINESS:

New Version of Forest Trails V2.0 to screen through before judging; I vote that we should judge this map. It looks even better and more balanced.

Maps pending recommendation for judging process:

Into the Breech: YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)
somebody, somwhere should have told me I spelt breach wrong!!

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 1 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus)

[UranusPChicago]

Catch-up post...

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: Fun map, absolutely! However, it does favor ranged units. The river splitting the two sides punishes melee who decide to cross against ranged attacks.

It is a quick and easy map to set up for a fun night of Heroscaping with friends, unfortunately it is too ranged biased for tournament play in my opinion.

I vote no.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I vote yes recommendations for both Into the Breech and Forest Trails 2

[Rÿchean]

UPC's NO Vote eliminates Ruins at the Dhibah Oasis because the maximum percentage of YES votes it can now receive is 60%; 75% is required.

Into the Breech has received a majority recommendation from the judges and is moved into the currently being judged category.

Updates:

Maps currently being judged:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 2 ; Pending = 2 (JUDGING IS OVER)

Into the Breech: YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)

---

Maps pending recommendation for judging process:

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

[Revdyer]

I'm fine for judging Forest Trails V2.0.

[Rÿchean]

Forest Trails V2.0 has received a majority recommendation from the judges and is moved into the currently being judged category.

Updates:

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus; Rychean co-creator - unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)
---

Maps pending recommendation for judging process:

NONE

[bunjee]

I see my mistake Braxev; the back row I was seeing as Rock, when it is actually road on your build. My bad.

However, the Version 2 appears to be a much better offering. It looks sweet! Give us the download link!!

Based on what I know about original and what I can tell from the images of Version 2, I am voting that this version go through the judging process and we pull the original version. (power going to my head)

-----
updates as follows:

CURRENT BUSINESS:

Maps currently being judged:

Ruins at Dhibah Oasis: YES = 1 ; NO = 1 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

Forest Trails: removed for Version 2.0
---
NEW BUSINESS:

New Version of Forest Trails V2.0 to screen through before judging; I vote that we should judge this map. It looks even better and more balanced.

Maps pending recommendation for judging process:

Into the Breech: YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)
somebody, somwhere should have told me I spelt breach wrong!!

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 1 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus)

Since I had to paw around to find the V2 of Forest Trails, I edited Braxev's post to include a link, and I'm including a link here:
Forest Trails 2.0 (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506)

It looks good, and even though I'm not involved with the judging, I'm gonna play it and toss my opinions out there!

[Rÿchean]

Please do!!!!

afterall we got some judges draggin azz 'round 'ere

:twisted:

[Velenne]

I'd like to submit Marr Highway. This was used in the October DFW tourney and I've heard in other tourneys as well now.


http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Marr_Highway___Wide.jpg
DOWNLOAD! (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=149)

[Revdyer]

I'd like to submit Marr Highway. This was used in the October DFW tourney and I've heard in other tourneys as well now.


http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//Marr_Highway___Wide.jpg
DOWNLOAD! (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=149)The first game in Dallas in October (the first game of my first tournament) was on this map. I was so nervous that I played somewhat like an idiot. (And I lost to UPC.) We both had AEs and both dropped on the initial round...amazing game, but I'll have to look more seriously at the map. I'd vote to consider, though.

[Rÿchean]

another self nomination??? :shock:

kidding ;) ..though I probably am a bit harsher (silly me) on self nominations, but we aren't geting much else!! Oddly enough, I was considering nominating Marr highway myself so I guess that means I approve it for the the judging process.

Update:

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus; Rychean co-creator - unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)
---

Maps pending approval for judging process:

Marr Highway YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

[Braxev]

Wow, am I seriously the only non-Rychean map up for judging? 8)

[Rÿchean]

Wow, am I seriously the only non-Rychean map up for judging? 8)

I will be setting up Forest Trails v2.0 tomorrow at a mini game-day here in Dallas; It looks sweet, I might even push to get it in the team tourney we are having.



I will be posting my comments on Into the Breech even though I can't vote.

[Braxev]

oh, wow! I feel flattered now, on behalf of the Association of Heroscapers' Community. ^_^;

Now, is that an -official- tournament, or just a local one? :twisted:

[Braxev]

I suppose I should post my own comments on Forest Trails V2.0, even though I'm not a judge- although you could consider me the creator, since it was my map that got modified the shizzy out.. I wonder if that's ego-stroking or just "Wow, they made my map so much better. :("

Forest Trails, in my mind, is a great map. Not the best map I've ever seen, but a great map nonetheless. The starting areas are well-balanced in V.20, unequal but offering essentially equal opportunities to get into the area. One side has much more open access to the "forest" area at the beginning, and the rock face allows quick height, but suffers a lag in getting to the "simple" area with the ruin. It's also awkward to get to the bridge from that area. The other side has easy and equal access to bridge, forest, and "walk-around" area. So the starting areas are uneven, in my mind- but overall, it doesn't matter, since combat never occurs based on starting areas for this map.

The walkaround has always ended up being used somehow when we play on it. The height it offers is more then the bridge and it offers more of a view then the bridge or the "railed" area does. On the other hand, the ruins and tree are placed such that small and medium units can "Creep up" on units sniping in this area without much trouble. It also looks very nice.

The bridge blocks the water, which was always a nitpick of mine, but one of the members of my club has convinced me it's a good thing. It prevents either side from using slithering units to abuse the lake, but still allows water-using units like the marro areas to sit in. And it just plain looks good, really. The bridge is pretty high but not high enough to make an obscene different, being able to "climbed" onto by anywhere on the map, really, with entrances on both ends and in the forest. It offers a nice view but the forest blocks quite a bit of it. The one problem I've seen with it is that melee units have a hard time "catching up" to ranged units on the bridge, since they can't "jump" onto the bridge from the water or nearby earth areas and usually can't move fast enough to engage the ranged units without taking a shot or two. I've often been able to sit the 4th line on the bridge and just laugh. At least, until a 2-space unit waddles up and begins to eliminate them.

The forest itself is pretty thick and dense. I've sometimes seen a problem with Mimring being unable to get through it very easily- I suppose it favors small and medium sized units. It's pretty fun as heck, though, so I can't complain about the fact big units don't get to play. >)

The last part of the map is the large rise of the road tiles. This is used sparsely, since it's higher then the bridge, but melee units can very easily duck under the rise's wall until they can get to an edge and dash after ranged units on top. The road space behind it allows size 4 units to run along the edge of the map without being seen.

Overall, this map heavily favors small/medium sized units, and evenly balances out the matter of ranged vs. melee. Forest battles are always fun!

I love this map. :)

[Rÿchean]

oh, wow! I feel flattered now, on behalf of the Association of Heroscapers' Community. ^_^;

Now, is that an -official- tournament, or just a local one? :twisted:

This a team tournament in which we would probably add a couple of hexes to each start zone and a couple of glyphs to the map depending on how it plays tomorrow. It looks like a great play.

[bunjee]

Ok, my rough feedback on Forest Roads V2:

I really like this map, I'll be building it and playing it again. It is a lot of fun to play. It felt kind of big for a tournament. I wanted to run it against some other maps that I have played in tournaments before, but I don't think I get much time to do that very soon.

But a really great map.

[Rÿchean]

Forest Trails is not going to be selected for a team tourney map, but I am still reviewing it.

JUST FYI TO OTHER JUDGES…I am in the process of moving and will not have my new internet service turned on at my new place until 3/3 so after I move out (this weekend) I will be without internet service. Basically, don't expect much out of me for the next 10 days.

[UranusPChicago]

Just an FYI...

I am in full blown "tournament mode" until the North Texas Team Heroscape tournament on March 10th.

I will be resuming my Hall duties soon thereafter...

[Braxev]

Has it really been a week without progress?

Have you all fled the scene? :unsure:

[yagyuninja]

Has it really been a week without progress?

Have you all fled the scene? :unsure:

Did you read the two posts above yours?

[Braxev]

Yeah, but there's more then 2 judges.

[Revdyer]

Sorry, this judge is getting ready to take off work and go to Texas for the tournament too.

[Eclipse]

I'm back (finally) but extremely busy. Getting married later this month and the planning has eaten up all my time. I'm hoping to get some scape in soon, so hopefully I can make some progress. Could someone post a summary of what needs to be tested? Thanks!

[Revdyer]

I'm back (finally) but extremely busy. Getting married later this month and the planning has eaten up all my time. I'm hoping to get some scape in soon, so hopefully I can make some progress. Could someone post a summary of what needs to be tested? Thanks!

I think this is the latest status:

Update:

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus; Rychean co-creator - unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)
---

Maps pending approval for judging process:

Marr Highway YES = 2 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (1 judge on hiatus)

[Rÿchean]

Thanks for the update Rev! I am officially back in business (got my internet now)

though.....I am gearing up for the same tournament.

Hey UPC! we need only one more recommendation for Marr Highway to move into the judging category.

Braxev, an update to Forest Trails v2: I have only got the two games played on the new version but both games were won by the player starting in the pink/purple zone. That player has an easier up to the bridge road (highest ground on the map)then has a centralized location on the map, dicatating the other players movements. I want to get some more games in on it before I pass final judgment but as of now I perceive some imbalances in the map that favor one side enough to cause it to be questionable for tourney play. I will continue to evaluate.

[Eclipse]

I got a couple games on Into the Breech the other day. Here's a few thoughts on it:

It's definitely a solid, well built map, but it is rather easy to dominate with range. I really love the choke point in the middle, clogging it up turns out to be rather important as it gives you time to get your ranged units to the walls without much trouble. It does sorta lead to this situation where its best to just take a single squad of sturdy melee troops (WoA or KoW seem like good choices) to tie up the center, then get some units on the walls to start sniping.

My biggest fear with this map is actually the glyphs. Their placement, while being a solid choice for keeping the glyph holder exposed and on the low ground, the choke point can make it somewhat of a permanent boost for each side. If one side has a significantly better glyph, it may prove unbalancing. One thing I really like about the glyph, however, is how difficult it is to protect if you want to be the first to the top of the walls.

I'm sorta on the fence about this one. On one hand, it does what its designed to do VERY well, its well balanced, provides some interesting tradeoffs tactically, and makes use of vertical movement in a way that's not particularly common in one MS maps. On the other hand, it feels incredibly biased towards the already dominant ranged units and I worry that it will lead to some rather one sided games once people get into the proper position. I ran a team of Gilbert/Knights/4th Mass and found it pretty hard to beat. I simply clogged the center and got the 4th to the wall. From their they just tore apart anything that came their way.

One thing about this map is that I keep thinking of variants of it I'd like to try. Putting a single ladder on the opposite wall could prove interesting and might lead to some fun wall clashes, as could bridging the gap between the walls. A few more road tiles could also make getting to the enemy wall a little more practical, which would make defending the choke point even more important. Right now the Road Bonus never really had much use, even with the Knights on my team. In any case, I really do like this map. I'll probably try to get a few more games on it before I make my decision, though I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say. Right now, the only thing keeping me from an enthusiastic thumbs up is the nagging feeling it could be even better :)

[Revdyer]

I wish someone would vote on whether to judge Marr Highway or not. I'm ready to vote on it if voting is approved.

[Eclipse]

I wish someone would vote on whether to judge Marr Highway or not. I'm ready to vote on it if voting is approved.

I'd be willing to look at it, but it reminds me a bit of Wolf Swamp Road without the interesting flanking options. I'd vote to consider it though, as I've had some very fun games on similar style maps before. I'm just not sure if it will ultimately prove too repetitive overall.

[Revdyer]

I take it, Eclipse, then, that at this point you are not voting to consider Marr Highway (which is cool). But you are also not voting not to consider it.

[Marduk]

Have any of you yet looked at my thread on range-melee bias in maps? http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=7251

You may find it useful, and comments from people who have been spending effort judging maps would undoubtedly add a lot of value to the thread.

[Revdyer]

That's an interesting conversation, Marduk.

[deadeyedan42]

hey guys, have you ever considerd the "breeched" map that Braxev built?

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=498

[Revdyer]

hey guys, have you ever considerd the "breeched" map that Braxev built?

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=498

No one has nominated that map for consideration, as far as I know. You can nominate it to be considered for judging (that doesn't mean we will judge it, only that we will consider whether we will judge it or not...sounds bossy, I know, but that's the way it is).

[Eclipse]

hey guys, have you ever considerd the "breeched" map that Braxev built?

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=498

I'd need to build it and really look at it, but I'm guess there's no way it can be considered for "official" play. I'm pretty certain this screenshot is illegal in an official game:

http://www.heroscapers.com/download/downloads//BreachMiddle2.JPG

[deadeyedan42]

darn it! :shock:

[Eclipse]

I take it, Eclipse, then, that at this point you are not voting to consider Marr Highway (which is cool). But you are also not voting not to consider it.

Actually, I'll vote to consider it at the very least. It looks like some good simple fun and might really surprise me with the little platforms along the road acting as ambush points.

On a side note, something I'd really like to see along with the nominations is some personal reflections on why they're nominating the map. Usually I see "I saw it in a tourny once", but that's not a very convincing argument. Personally, I'd like to hear (preferrably from the author) at least a few of their thoughts on what makes it a superior design, or at least how they envision the map playing out. I don't want a longwinded advertisement, but it'd be nice if people sounded like they have a little more faith in the map. I think Artic Divide was the only one so far that has gotten "rave" reviews, both during the nomination and voting process, and personally, I'd like to see that kind of exciting behind every map that's accept into the Battlefields.

[Rÿchean]

Thanks Eclipse!

That moves Marr Highway into a being judged status.

Update:

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (1 judge on hiatus; Rychean co-creator - unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0 YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)

Marr Highway YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (1 judge on hiatus)

---

Maps pending approval for judging process:

none

[Revdyer]

This is the first of a double post with a purpose.

Those submitting maps for possible judging need to make sure that the basic criteria for such maps are met. If you don't meet the criteria, we have no need to look at your wonderful creations.

Please check out that the maps you want us to look at meet the basic criteria listed at the start of the thread.

Thanks.

[Revdyer]

Second post:

The Marr Highway map drives me crazy. I played it in Dallas in October against UPC and lost on it. I played it again and won. It is long! It is simple! It drives double hexed figures crazy. That road is the key factor. I love playing on it.

It only has 21 starting hexes. This may be a plus or a minus. For single player tournament maps, it is a plus. For single or team, a quick add-on of five hexes at a ballooning base would be very, very easy.

So, I Officially Vote: YES.

[UranusPChicago]

I have had forest Trails v.2 set up all weekend and managed to get a couple games in on it.

I really, really like the map; it is a cosmetically pretty map and is a fun to play.

I am unfortunately hung up on whether it is a tournament worthy map. I don't even have a complete reason yet, just hesitation for some reason.

I plan on getting some more games in this week some time to continue testing.

Also, were there any glyph locations specified for the map. Either I am completely blind and have missed them on the print out or they are not there. (Or it has been mentioned earlier in the thread and I have just missed it.)

[deadeyedan42]

Well, since breec hed is out for the count, I found on that is A fun to play on, B very balanced, and C dosn't require a million master sets to make.

I nominate The key holes at Wolf swamp road (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=127)
by Kahrma

[Eclipse]

That looks interesting. I'll 4th it... I guess...

[Riggler]

I've played a few games on Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road. It makes for some interesting and quick game play. I'll vote to put it up for judging.

[Revdyer]

I've played a few games on Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road. It makes for some interesting and quick game play. I'll vote to put it up for judging.

I'll vote for this one going up for judging too, but think we need to work on the ones that are currently under consideration first.

[Rÿchean]

I will also accept the nomination of Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road for judging.

I also have my votes on two of the maps:

Forest Trails V2.0 - I am going to vote NO to Forest Trails. The map has been fun to play, I have enjoyed every game. The trees are well placed and the bridge design aesthetically pleasing. However, every game I have played on the map has been won by the player with the pink starting zone. IMO, that zone is able to seize the high ground / bridge easier and more consistently than the other start zone. The road along the edge of the map has only proven necessary when a glyph is placed in that area. Overall I think it is a great and fun map to play, but I don't feel it is balanced enough to put it in the Battlefields of Valhalla.

Marr Highway - I have played countless games on this map. I have enjoyed all of them. The map's obvious straight forward design focuses on the very basic elements of the game. I have found it to be an excellent map for making the game about how each player played their army. It has a simple but efficient design in game play and aesthetics. I vote YES for this map. I feel it is a map that achieves a consistent balance for tournament play. I do offer it that I am voting yes for it as it is, with no glyphs. On a map this straight forward, glyphs don't add much.
--
Update:

Cornpuff is recognized as on hiatus since 2/7/07.

**I am moving Key Holes right to the being judged category based on the 80% acceptance so far.

Maps pending approval for judging process:

none

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=154) YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer - Rychean co-creator unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506) YES = 0 ; NO = 1(Rychean) ; Pending = 4 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer)

Marr Highway: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=149) YES = 2(Revdyer,Rychean) ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC)

Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=127) YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer, Rychean)

---

[Kahrma]

First off, many thanks to deadeyedan42 for nominating "Keyholes". I'm glad you've had a great time with this map! I know I did! I'm honored that you thought enough of "Keyholes" to nominate it here.

This map was created as my entry for Nether's meta-map contest. Within the size constraints of Nether's contest, I strove to make "Keyholes" balanced, aesthetically pleasing, and strategically interesting. I limited myself to 1MS and 1RttFF on my own accord, to make my entry easy to set up and more accessible for all. The central road makes credible the threat of a melee-rush attack. Access to glyphs is equal (if I remember correctly) and should help draw armies to the flanks of the map. I tried to limit single-hex landings to provide better support for double-spaced figures. Height should take some committment of movement and turns to obtain, and there is ample cover for melee troops - if ranged figures "camp" on elevation, melee troops can "camp" behind their hill, or in the "keyholes".

While I would love to see "Keyholes" be added to the "Battlefields of Valhalla", I thought I should point out a couple of things before evaluations and voting get started.

First, the starting zones are 20 spaces. For a map this size, this seemed to be adequate - Forsaken Waters, after all, only uses 18. At the time, the Battlefields of Valhalla had not yet came to be - therefore there was no 24 hex starting zone minimum to consider.

Second, during playtesting I would suggest that you play several games using Braxas or Nilfheim. With their combination of flying and ranged specials, I found these two to be particularly deadly on this map. Otherwise, I found that most well-balanced tournament-worthy armies have a fair shake against another if shrewdly played. Please let me know what you find during playtesting!

Once again, thank you for the nomination. I hope all of you find "Keyholes" a fun and interesting map, and have a blast playtesting!

[Rÿchean]

Into the Breech (Breach? :()

My two cents even though it doesn't count:

This map started as a throw together map that Grungebob and I worked up; sort of a castle map that wasn't a castle. The concept is essentially Grungebob's. The original map we played didn't use the corner pieces; it used the straight wall pieces. In that first test game we had a heck of a time getting line of sight from wall to wall even with the battlements. We decided to make it a jagged wall. I took the task of working it up as single master set build.

The jagged design ended up making the map much playable. After further testing we decided to drop the battlements where the walls meet making it all that much easier to shoot wall to wall. We wanted to make a map where getting to your wall and up it was not a given. The glyph placement on this map is purely about exposure so they are not easy to hold. The water/tree set up on each side is to hamper the movement towards the ladders and glyph.

We wanted to make a map that didn't overly favor range, but still had the wall walks in play. I feel we came close to doing that. We ended up using it in the Greater Southwest Heroscape Tourney in Oct 06. I don't recall much feedback; probably a good thing ;-). I have also seen it used in other tournaments.

I think the map is an interesting play. In my experience it plays quick and competitively. The double spaced non-flyers do have a disadvantage; the map's design tries to off set that a little.
--

I have KeyHoles set up and it looks like an interesting play as well.

----

Update:

Cornpuff is recognized as on hiatus since 2/7/07.

Maps pending approval for judging process:

none

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=154) YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer - Rychean co-creator unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506) YES = 0 ; NO = 1(Rychean) ; Pending = 4 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer)

Marr Highway: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=149) YES = 2(Revdyer,Rychean) ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC)

Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=127) YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer, Rychean)

[UranusPChicago]

...Forest Trails V2.0 - I am going to vote NO to Forest Trails. The map has been fun to play, I have enjoyed every game. The trees are well placed and the bridge design aesthetically pleasing. However, every game I have played on the map has been won by the player with the pink starting zone. IMO, that zone is able to seize the high ground / bridge easier and more consistently than the other start zone. The road along the edge of the map has only proven necessary when a glyph is placed in that area. Overall I think it is a great and fun map to play, but I don't feel it is balanced enough to put it in the Battlefields of Valhalla...

Rychean, you described my "hesitation" perfectly. As I stated earlier, I really like this map and plan on adding it to my roster of game maps that I use. :wink: Unfortunately, it is not balanced for tournament use.

The hard part with bridge or elevated road type maps, especially without glyphs, is that the bridge or elevated road becomes the only focal point of the map; if you are ranged you are up there to shoot with height, if you are melee you are up there to kill the ranged units shooting from height. There needs to a definite and positive reason for taking the low road or using the rest of the map.

I played the map with and without glyphs and enjoyed every game. However, we are looking for tournament worthy maps.

Good, fun map; yes. Tournament worthy, no.

My vote is no.

I will move on to Breech this week.

[Rÿchean]

Thanks UPC for the vote. Sorry Braxev. It was a strong candidate.

The 2 NO votes effectively eliminates Forest Trails V2.0 from further judging as the best approval percentage it can receive is 66%. Entering the Battlefields of Valhalla requires a 75% approval rating.
----

Update:

Cornpuff is recognized as on hiatus since 2/7/07.

Maps pending approval for judging process:

none

Maps currently being judged:

Into the Breech: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=154) YES = 0; NO = 0 ; Pending = 4 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer - Rychean co-creator unable to judge)

Forest Trails V2.0: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=506) YES = 0 ; NO = 2(Rychean, UPC) ; Pending = 3 (Riggler, Eclipse, Revdyer)
MAX possible approval percentage is now 66%; Forest Trails will be removed from judging process.

Marr Highway: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=149) YES = 2(Revdyer,Rychean) ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 3 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC)

Key Holes at Wolf Swamp Road: (http://www.heroscapers.com/download/index.php?dlid=127) YES = 0 ; NO = 0 ; Pending = 5 (Riggler, Eclipse, UPC, Revdyer, Rychean)

[Revdyer]

Shoot...I just got Forest Trails set up and started messing with it today. But I know exactly what Ry and UPC are saying. I'd add a couple of other critiques, just from the setup and some small play with it: the foot-print, for a tournament map, seems a bit large. That's not critical, but it is a factor for me. The other thing is that there was no "Wow!" factor. It's a fine map, but there is nothing, when you get it up and look at it, that really challenges or startles. I want that in our maps. I want them to present a problem or some new vision of the combat play. I want, in my mind, the immediate thought, "Now, what am I going to do with this?" That was why Marr Highway got a YES from me, for example. This one didn't do it; at least, not right off the bat.

[Alastair MacDirk]

I am not sure how to get one of my own maps nominated without doing it myself. I usually prefer a more humble approach. I do consider mself a fair map builder and have some others that have been used in tourneys outside of Norcal as well. But my latest is kinda fun and uses some castle terrain. I originally created it for a tourney we are having with all the battles (maps and armies) preset. The players test themselves against all the other folks that played the same side of whichever battle (there are 4). We wanted to make intersting battles that used figures that rarley see the light of day in tourney armies. This one was created for a battle between Major X-17, 2x Glad, 2x Blast, Dund vs. 3x Monks, Syvarris, Kaemon Awa. The backstory being that the Monks guard the Ancient Ruins of Nalanda ( a ruined monastery in the real world). The sacred grounds are defiled when the monks detect an alien presence not to mention their filthy pet.... Dund. Anyhow when I made it I made sure it would be a good map for other battles as well... it's nearly symetrical. You'd have to decide where the best spots for glyphs are (near the center???)
http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10243/normal_Ruins_of_Nalanda-_pic.JPG
build instruction- http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10243/Ruins_of_Nalanda.pdf
Uses 1ms, 1rtff, a castle set

[Alastair MacDirk]

I checked "keyholes at wolf swamp". Nobody asking my opinion, but.... its too small for a tourney map. You draft Mimring or even Nilf and fry the other guy in his starting zone with your first turn marker. I would be mighty peeved if I came to a tourney and faced an army that did this to me. You should add something to the criteria with a minimum distance between the starting zones.

[Marduk]

I checked "keyholes at wolf swamp". Nobody asking my opinion, but.... its too small for a tourney map. You draft Mimring or even Nilf and fry the other guy in his starting zone with your first turn marker. I would be mighty peeved if I came to a tourney and faced an army that did this to me. You should add something to the criteria with a minimum distance between the starting zones.
Mimring has a range of 14 hexes (six hexes of flying, plus eight for the breath weapon), it is hard to account for things like that. Runa can reach 16 hexes outside your start zone with her aura, using the Ornak/Brunak combo; assuming flat normal ground for Brunak to run on, and no road bonus. Deadeye Dan has a range of 15 hexes when you include moving, and if you use two turn markers and carry him with a speed-boosted Theracus that increases to 26. And what about the Airborne Elite, the terror of tightly-packed start zones everywhere? Frenzy units, for that matter, have a potentially unlimited reach.

It is a nice thought, but very hard to quantify a minimum that still allows for a good-looking 1MS map. At least Mimring can only arrange to get at most a few figures in his initial breath weapon... and then he is in range of any ranged figures you have, likely your fliers as well.

[Revdyer]

At the Dallas Team Tournament, Max (IMax's teammate and son) killed six of our figures with the AE's grenades before we even got to move. That's just one of the things that happens in this game.

[Alastair MacDirk]

I checked "keyholes at wolf swamp". Nobody asking my opinion, but.... its too small for a tourney map. You draft Mimring or even Nilf and fry the other guy in his starting zone with your first turn marker. I would be mighty peeved if I came to a tourney and faced an army that did this to me. You should add something to the criteria with a minimum distance between the starting zones.
Mimring has a range of 14 hexes (six hexes of flying, plus eight for the breath weapon), it is hard to account for things like that. Runa can reach 16 hexes outside your start zone with her aura, using the Ornak/Brunak combo; assuming flat normal ground for Brunak to run on, and no road bonus. Deadeye Dan has a range of 15 hexes when you include moving, and if you use two turn markers and carry him with a speed-boosted Theracus that increases to 26. And what about the Airborne Elite, the terror of tightly-packed start zones everywhere? Frenzy units, for that matter, have a potentially unlimited reach.

It is a nice thought, but very hard to quantify a minimum that still allows for a good-looking 1MS map. At least Mimring can only arrange to get at most a few figures in his initial breath weapon... and then he is in range of any ranged figures you have, likely your fliers as well.

I can see a place where Mimring can hit 4 targets on the first breath. Your argument seems to support my point that small maps (less than 15 hexes between the starting zones) are bad for tourney play. Of your examples.... Deadeye Dan can only hit one figure if he moves and will do minimal damage. The Runa/ Brunak/ Ornak combo will rarely if ever be used by a good player in a serious tourney. Even if they could use it on me in round one... they still have a weak/ luck dependant army that can easily be overcome. Airborne elite.... knew someone would bring them up... have no bearing in this discussion because they represent the same threat to starting zones regardless of the map size. Now, back to my point.... Mimring and Nilfheim get used alot in tourney play and have a huge advantage on this map and most other maps that have 9 hexes between the starting zones (like this one).

Nobody invited me to voice an opinion in this thread. I feel a flame against me posting in here, so discretion being the better part of valor......... I will refrain from any more comments.
Aloha!

[deadeyedan42]

First off, many thanks to deadeyedan42 for nominating "Keyholes". I'm glad you've had a great time with this map! I know I did! I'm honored that you thought enough of "Keyholes" to nominate it here.

This map was created as my entry for Nether's meta-map contest. Within the size constraints of Nether's contest, I strove to make "Keyholes" balanced, aesthetically pleasing, and strategically interesting. I limited myself to 1MS and 1RttFF on my own accord, to make my entry easy to set up and more accessible for all. The central road makes credible the threat of a melee-rush attack. Access to glyphs is equal (if I remember correctly) and should help draw armies to the flanks of the map. I tried to limit single-hex landings to provide better support for double-spaced figures. Height should take some committment of movement and turns to obtain, and there is ample cover for melee troops - if ranged figures "camp" on elevation, melee troops can "camp" behind their hill, or in the "keyholes".



How could I not nominate it!? It was so.... balanced and beautifull....[jeeze, I AM obsess with this game!] And have you ever had that feeling in the heat of battle where you kind of panic? That feeling over came me when iplayed against Jotun and the Kravs. But your "keyholes" kept my units safe to set up a ambush and win the game![ all thanks to Kaemon Awa, single handedly...not even joking.]

[UranusPChicago]

Alastair MacDirk, I don't see a flame being started against you, I just see two people who are adding to your discussion. They may not agree with your assessment, but both sides of the discussion are necessary. I encourage you to continue posting in this thread as you feel the need.

We welcome all critiques here! :lol:

[Alastair MacDirk]

Nice of you to welcome me in Uranus. I guess the thrust of what I am trying to convey is this. That there seems to be a fairly natural limit of what the large end of the spectrum is for tourney maps. 1ms and 2 expansions limits how large the footprint can grow. I think it is also important to have some specification for the smallest size acceptable. One way to measure this would be the distance between the starting zones in hexes. The reasons stated above in the thread about certain figures being able to attack the other starting zone on turn marker 1 are part of the argument against small maps. Another is it kinda, sorta takes much of the strategy out of the game.... ie. how do you develop your army onto the map??? Put all your turn markers on one powerful unit and go on a killing spree? vs. Spreading your markers early to gain critical mass of might in the most strategic part of the map? An un-small map leads to more strategy and tactics which allows the better players to have an advantage. I feel small maps let too much luck and the intrinsic might of the most powerful units to take over. Also in tourneys there are usually 4 or so maps being played simultaneously. Its a small point, but doesn't it stand to reason that these games will wrap up 15-20 mins before all the others???
Here is a map I made to demonstrate the Slippery Slope argument. I call this battlefield "The Slippery Slope"http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10243/normal_slippery_slope.JPG
Is this where we're headed???? (Asking tongue in cheek obviously) :twisted:

I am a tournament player and I am just voicing concerns about a factor The Committee should consider in the selection process. :2cents:

[Revdyer]

Having played five competitive games, using various opponents, and fiddled and "what if-ed" the map quite a bit, I have a vote for Into the Breech: Yes.

The map is a good size; not too big, not too small, just like the three bears would have it. That wall in the middle has a nice "Wow!" factor. But the wall doesn't unbalance the game. Seeing Nilfheim up there is certainly scary; but some 4th Mass or AE can take him down. Speaking of which, the AE are powerful on this map, especially if they land up on the wall, but not impossible. And having a horde of zombies pour through the breech against the MacDirks was one of my most exciting games ever.

Having the ladders on the far side of the field, so you have to sweep around to get to them is a very nice touch.

So, Ry (and GB), that's my vote on this one.

[UranusPChicago]

Nice of you to welcome me in Uranus. I guess the thrust of what I am trying to convey is this. That there seems to be a fairly natural limit of what the large end of the spectrum is for tourney maps. 1ms and 2 expansions limits how large the footprint can grow. I think it is also important to have some specification for the smallest size acceptable. One way to measure this would be the distance between the starting zones in hexes. The reasons stated above in the thread about certain figures being able to attack the other starting zone on turn marker 1 are part of the argument against small maps. Another is it kinda, sorta takes much of the strategy out of the game.... ie. how do you develop your army onto the map??? Put all your turn markers on one powerful unit and go on a killing spree? vs. Spreading your markers early to gain critical mass of might in the most strategic part of the map? An un-small map leads to more strategy and tactics which allows the better players to have an advantage. I feel small maps let too much luck and the intrinsic might of the most powerful units to take over. Also in tourneys there are usually 4 or so maps being played simultaneously. Its a small point, but doesn't it stand to reason that these games will wrap up 15-20 mins before all the others???
Here is a map I made to demonstrate the Slippery Slope argument. I call this battlefield "The Slippery Slope"http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10243/normal_slippery_slope.JPG
Is this where we're headed???? (Asking tongue in cheek obviously) :twisted:

I am a tournament player and I am just voicing concerns about a factor The Committee should consider in the selection process. :2cents:

I completely understand what you are saying, but... :wink:

I think you are taking a judgement of this particular map and turning into a general statement. Your judgement of the map might be completely valid (in all honesty, I still have not had a chance to look at the map in question). However, your overall concern my not be valid in all circumstances.

For example, I have been busy creating another map that I hope to post this weekend. My latest three creations Highways and Dieways, Team Castle and the soon to be released DMZ :) have all tried to lessen Ranged Units dominance.

H & D (1 MS, 2 FF) accomplishes this by having lots of road hexes winding through lots of trees. It is a very fast map that encourages "closing in" quickly on your enemy. Team Castle (1MS, 2FF, 2 Castle) is just nasty. :twisted: It was created for a 2v2 setting, however it certainly could be played 1v1. It has a split start zone where the majority of the start zone is situated on a bridge (of road hexes) that connects two castles. The action is hot and heavy from turn one, but I guess this map would suffer the same "limitation" of having start zones too close to each other. But in this situation, as much as it allows ranged units to attack from turn one, it also allows melee to engage from turn one. And yet, the initiative winner of round one does not in anyway guarantee a win. DMZ (1MS, 1FF) has starting zones fairly close to each other yet it has ruins and trees halfway between to limit full fledged range attack into the opponent's starting zone. Also, the starting zone is very wide and two deep limiting Mimring's first turn attack to a maximum of two figures.

One of my first maps I created back on HQ, Volcano King (1MS), had starting zones completely around the volcano that interlaped each other.

What I am trying to say is that close starting zones may not always be a bad thing, if they are handled correctly (and hopefully I did :lol: ). This map may or may not have handled it correctly. I realize your example was tongue in cheek, but I also hope you understand that the judges are taking such things into consideration.

The Meta Map certainly has its place in the community. We are yet to find out if any of them are tournament (400-600 point army) worthy. They may very well work perfectly with smaller armies, yet not work here. We will figure that out, I guess...