Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[Bengi]

I have no problem with double glyphs if the map is designed for that kind of thing. Honestly, if there are double wannok glyphs and one of them is in your zone and you let your opponent control both of them, you kind of deserve consequences.

[Typhon2222]

Interesting idea Not User Name......

Originally Posted by Seraph

I'd be hesitant to put duplicate Glyphs on the board...

Out of curiosity, why Seraph?

Originally Posted by Foudzing

I played one gamewith double Wannok, it was on Immolate by Dignan (both Wannoks in the center). I secured early the two Wannoks and it was insane, the game didn't last long.

Foudzing, I'm not sure what the lesson of that is supposed to be. Are you implying that doubling a glyph is inherently more unbalanced than using two different glyphs? Or implying that Wannok in particular is unbalanced when doubled? Or simply noting that Wannok is powerful?

Originally Posted by Bengi

I have no problem with double glyphs if the map is designed for that kind of thing. Honestly, if there are double wannok glyphs and one of them is in your zone and you let your opponent control both of them, you kind of deserve consequences.

@Bengi

[Seraph]

Before using duplicate glyphs I'd have to really think things through like if they would stack or not. +2 attack on a 4 man ranged squad seems like the most obvious scare.

[caps]

At many of my previous tourneys I've used all Wannok glyphs on most maps to keep things simple. I like Wannok because it is powerful enough that most armies can't ignore it but it is also not so powerful that grabbing it determines the game. I don't remember double-Wannok being a problem on the maps we used.

Double-Valda or Double-Dagmar seems fine to me too.

[Foudzing]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Before using duplicate glyphs I'd have to really think things through like if they would stack or not. +2 attack on a 4 man ranged squad seems like the most obvious scare.

If we follow the official rules the glyphs stack. We can do them not stack but then there is no point to getting both glyphs and both players will just grab the glyph near them, which usually lead to boring games.

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

Foudzing, I'm not sure what the lesson of that is supposed to be. Are you implying that doubling a glyph is inherently more unbalanced than using two different glyphs? Or implying that Wannok in particular is unbalanced when doubled? Or simply noting that Wannok is powerful?

I will elaborate my point.

My point is a glyph will almost always be more interesting for one army than the other.
For Wannok for example, if there is double Wannok on every map. Marcu Esenwein become a must have in all armies.
In my game there were only high points / life figures so the double Wannok were simply too strong (something between 50 and 70 points killed for free at each end of round...)

Double Wannok on all maps is a huge change on the meta and seriously Caps I don't understnad why everyone didn't run either Marcu or rats at this tournament.

It's quite obvious with Wannok, but it's the same for most glyphs really.

Double Gerda: Huge on common based armies, especially range. Too strong in Common vs commons battles.
Double Valda: Huge on common melee armies, too strong in melee vs range battles.
Double Ulvania: lol Kravs.

I think it's only viable for rather weak glyphs such as Dagmar (the doubling isn't uch of a deal), Holdir or Xipta.

Anyway I always militated for mandatory glyphs for each map. A great map can be easily ruined by a poor choice of glyphs, this happen a LOT of times really. I think the choice of the glyphs should be from the mapmaker and not from the tournament organizer.
I also militated for custom glyphs in certains maps for example on Ember's Canyon or Cage match, I'd love to have a Thorian glyph which works on special attacks too in the middle.

[dok]

Calling out glyphs explicitly in the build rules is not only allowed, but is something we see in a number of accepted BoV maps. I'm happy to see more of it. I'd love to see the C3V glyph of Frosa used on a map in a way that opens up an "ice bridge" to a critical spot.

I tend to agree with Foudzing that unspecified doubled glyphs in asymmetrical locations (i.e. "place the same glyph in each location" without specifying what that glyph is) can have some problematic effects in a number of matchups. However, when designed for it, called out doubled glyphs like this can allow for unconventional layouts to produce interesting gameplay. This could be something as mundane as double Dagmars being used to toggle initiative, or something like double Rannveig/Thorian to change the dynamic on a ranged/flyer friendly map. Or even something crazy like two Thorians and two Ivors on one map! Can that be balanced? I don't know, but maybe!

Like asymmetric maps more generally, this is a relatively unexplored design area.

[tannergx]

Where I've seen double glyphs used well, it's usually to offset something unbalanced with the map itself. @mad_wookiee 's Blindgate comes to mind, where he used double Valda's in the start zones to address the effective length of the map.

I tried something similar using Rannveig's in one of my maps, Checkpoint Narrows.

~tgx

[Joseph Sweeney]

Greetings, incredibly busy people! I would like to nominate Marsh Thicket by Joseph Sweeney (me ) for review.

(PDF is here and map pic can be found here)

~JS

[Foudzing]

I'm sorry Jospeh but I'll vote NO to induct Marsh Thicket in the WoS.

The heights are simply too easy to get and too hard to contest, and from those heights you control all the map, you can even shot at the opponent startzone wiht any ranged unit.

Melee units have to go throught what I call a swamp of death. The way towards the opponents isn't covered that much by the Jungle. And even if it were, the level 0 is just too much of a downside for the melee units, even with jungle, it's very hard to use Jungle as LoS since you only need to see a ridiculously small part of a figure to get vision (especially if your name is dok) and +1 defense < +1 attack AND +1 defense.

The map seems to becut in half by the swamp river which encourages camping.

The only good thing for melee is the map is so small that they get fast to the opponent but its like charging into their doom, garuanteed height disavantage and very small surface area (i.e you can't circle your opponent).

Also the map is too small at my taste, it's very hard to provide multiple interesting strategies with such little maps.

Overall that's not a map I would like to see in a tournament.

[Typhon2222]

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

I'd like to nominate PLATYPUS by @Robber .

PDF build instructions
VirtualScape (.hsc) file

@awesomeunleashed , any chance we (I) could beg you, pwetty pwetty pwease, to make a top-down of this newest version of Platypus?

(The map is really good, so hopefully the OHS crew will use it in a soon tournament, and this won't be wasted labor for you.)

[superfrog]

@Typhon2222 Does this work? I know my computer screen isn't as large as AU's so my board is a bit lower resolution, but this should work for you pretty well.

[awesomeunleashed]

I'm going to try to get updated boards for the three maps up in this thread done in the next couple days.

SF, that image is the same (old) version of Platypus that the current template has, it looks like.