PDA

View Full Version : [Pod 0] Pillar of Hár (Crypolith) - Editing


flameslayer93
May 13th, 2019, 11:36 AM
The Book of "Crypolith"

Arena of the Valkyrie Master Set

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/567009548041453579/577338124737183764/image0.jpg?width=401&height=281

Printer-Friendly PDF

NAME
DESTRUCTIBLE OBJECT
SIZE 9

LIFE 3
DEFENSE 3

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may be placed on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár and does not receive falling damage.

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound but is not destroyed, a figure on top of it must move 1 space. When this Pillar of Hár receives is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed. A figure moved or placed by Unstable will receive falling damage.

Special Rules
Only a small or medium figure may be placed on top of a Pillar of Hár.
Figures on top of a Pillar of Hár is considered adjacent to it.
Figures on top of a Pillar of Hár may use the corners as their own sight points.

The figure used for this destructible object is the Crypolith from Arena of the Planeswalkers.


Character Bio:


-Rulings and Clarifications-
Q: Can a figure fly, teleport, leap, etc onto/off of a Pillar of Hár?
A: Yes, as long as they are a small or medium figure.

-Combinations and Synergies-

Synergy Benefits Received
TBA

Synergy Benefits Offered
TBA

-Strategy, Tactics and Tips-
TBA


https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/567009548041453579/577338124737183764/image0.jpg?width=401&height=281


Playtest Reports:
https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2367573&postcount=249 - Largely irrelevant (4D)

https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2367635&postcount=250 - irrelevant/unused (4D)
https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2378430&postcount=40
- was used, somewhat relevant (4D)
https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showpost.php?p=2382044&postcount=143 - irrelevant/unused (4D)

Astroking112
May 13th, 2019, 01:42 PM
Some of the ideas that have been shared for Cryptoliths in the Pre-Brainstorming thread:

Porting over the rules from MtG directly, or making them climbable towers that can be destroyed.
Giving them a forcefield aura that prevents people from being targeted by ranged normal attacks when within X spaces.
Giving them a movement aura that slightly boosts the move of figures that begin their turn within X spaces.
Giving them some kind of a negative effect, such as negating figures within X clear sight spaces or subtracting range.
Making them teleportation beacons, so when a figure ends its move (or turn) adjacent to one, they can be placed on any empty space adjacent to another.


Of course, I may be missing some, so feel free to add any others.

Pretty much every idea meshes well with the Destructible Object angle, which is good in my opinion. There are some sketchy rules with the implementation of Destructible Objects in HeroScape, but it's a design space that we never truly saw explored outside of the Fortress Door, and now's the perfect opportunity to do that.

Of the ideas that have been proposed so far, my personal favorite is the teleportation beacons. That provides a new and unique tool to mapmakers, matches the clear sci-fi aesthetic of the Cryptoliths, and is very easy to remember (even though each tower will need its own card). My main issue with it is that it could deemphasize the DO aspect, since there will be less reason to destroy the towers if the important figures have already teleported.

Perhaps some kind of simple destruction rule could help by providing some reward beyond decreasing mobility for both armies, such as rolling an unblockable attack die against all adjacent figures when a Cryptolith is destroyed. We have precedent with terrain rules like this with the Lava Terrain, so it could be something to explore if we wanted to go that route.

lefton4ya
May 13th, 2019, 02:23 PM
I would prefer if we could mix official Magic:AotP rules with one additional power, and would be against any ruling that does not allow someone to go on top of the cryptolith. I do like a negative aura such as all figures within X spaces reduce Y from [Range/Attack], even within 1 spaces as it would effect figure on top and anyone next to it trying to attack or scale. However the teleport would be fun, maybe teleport from next to or on top of cryptolith to the same of other cryptoliths.

Official Card direct port is already made:
https://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/6/5/2/7/cryptoliths.png (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/gallery/files/6/5/2/7/cryptoliths_original.png)

Pumpkin_King
May 13th, 2019, 03:57 PM
What’s to stop us from indicating a range of powers and allowing the players to choose?

flameslayer93
May 13th, 2019, 04:03 PM
What’s to stop us from indicating a range of powers and allowing the players to choose?

Nothing. :mrgreen:

Pumpkin_King
May 13th, 2019, 04:09 PM
That may be an option then. Putting 3 powers under a subsection on the card and then a header describing that the player may choose one or all powers, or go by the rules in a given scenario.

Astroking112
May 13th, 2019, 04:12 PM
I'm not a fan of climbable Cryptoliths at all, personally. There is some uniqueness inherent in them being a Destructible Object, but there's still a lot of overlap with the normal towers that can be made with Fortress of the Archkyrie. It feels much less unique to me than the other terrain boosters that we've had in the past, and it would be a pity for the first true sci-fi terrain in HeroScape to be like that.

In addition to that overlap, it also boosts a couple of things above others: range, Raelin, and fliers. All of those are typically pretty strong as-is, and I don't think that they really need another set boosting them. Even if there are harsh penalties for being near a tower when it collapses, that won't help much if you're going against a melee army that can't reach the tower in the first place. I'd much rather say that no figures can stand on top of the Cryptoliths.

What’s to stop us from indicating a range of powers and allowing the players to choose?

Simplicity. While we do have the Thaelenk Tundra allowing players to choose whether they use Heavy Snow and Slippery Ice or not, that's very much just an "on" or "off" power. Outside of scenarios, we want to be able to look at any map with Cryptoliths and know what we're getting into, just like with castle pieces, roads, and lava.

It would also make balancing maps with Cryptoliths in them extremely difficult, since the player could freely choose what effect they want from the list. Unless a scenario needs to change the rules for whatever reason, I think that we really should nail the Cryptoliths down to a single consistent gameplay effect.

Pumpkin_King
May 13th, 2019, 07:28 PM
Yeah, I think you’re right, when you put it that way. Of the options presented I think we could do range negation? I think that had the most potential for cool plays.

All Your Pie
May 14th, 2019, 03:47 AM
I know my stance here is largely not agreed with, but I do feel I should register it in this thread at least once. Weirdly-shaped shiny rocks do not in my mind indicate sci-fi terrain that gives us free reign to make up whatever power we please. Each different type of terrain with an effect in Heroscape is very obviously thematically connected with its mechanics. I’ll grant that a DO, by virtue of having its own card with easy-to-reference rules text, can get away with a bit more. But nothing about the cryptoliths visually reads “anti-range aura” or any kind of aura. (As an aside, while Raelin and range perching is a valid concern for the climbable versions, an anti-range aura corrects way too far in the opposite direction. If the climbable cryptolith is just a gimmicky castle wall, then an anti-range aura is just gimmicky and wildly powerful jungle brush.)

At the end of the day, I know I’m in the minority here so I won’t be inclined to adamantly oppose any kind of aura whatsoever (although I would oppose the anti-range aura.) But nonetheless I do feel the need to register my perspective here.

flameslayer93
May 14th, 2019, 10:18 AM
What do you suggest we do with them, AYP? I wouldn’t even be opposed if they weren’t DO’s at all, but simply terrain pieces like the jungle bushes.

NecroBlade
May 14th, 2019, 11:06 AM
I much prefer adding a new DO to the game than just terrain pieces. That also makes it easier to give them rules (text on a card). One reason I want them climbable is they only provide so much LoS blocking. To that end, I do like the idea of some kind of negation/reduction for figures on and around them. Are they necessarily sci-fi? Maybe not, but they are weird (remind me a bit of reading about the alien structures in the Expanse series [though I'm having trouble getting through book 4 right now, it's just... not good]).

lefton4ya
May 14th, 2019, 12:09 PM
As mentioned earlier I really want these climbable (or teleport on top-able) and want a destructible object card. Maybe in the "rules" we include you can make one of the powers optional such as with Fortress Door you could make reinforced defense optional in Scenario or Map, but there should be 1 standard card for the Cryptolith (or whatever we name it). Again my suggestion is was to port Magic:AotP rules as is but add:

[Obscurus]: Figures on top of or [adjacent / within [2] clear sight spaces] of this cryptolith reduce their [range / attack] by [2] when attacking a non-adjacent figure.

Just figure out among the [brackets] what you want. That's just a suggestion.

Another suggestion is instead of Scale have:
[Teleport]: Figures who end their move on a space adjacent to a cryptolith may choose to teleport on top. Figures who start their move on top of a cryptolith at the start of their move may choose to teleport onto a space adjacent to that cryptolith or on top of another cryptolith. Any figure on top of a cryptolith when it is destroyed is placed on the space the cryptolith previously occupied. Check for falling damage. Note: a figure cannot attack a cryptolith while it is on the top space of that cryptolith.

Astroking112
May 14th, 2019, 12:09 PM
I agree that making them a Destructible Object is preferable over making another terrain piece in the vein of the Jungle Bushes, especially since as NecroBlade mentioned, they won't be providing much cover from line of sight.

Visually, I think that the towers look perfect for some kind of a sci-fi tower, which inherently won't have the same kind of visual unity as snow being slow, lava hurting, or road being fast. So long as the rule is simple, thematic, and easy to remember, I see no problem with taking a small liberty here for the sake of gameplay.

I might also be alone in this, but the first time I saw the Cryptoliths, I never thought that you were supposed to put figures on top of them. :lol: In my mind, it isn't any more logical to have them climbable than it is to have a small gameplay effect like the bushes, at least from an aesthetic standpoint.

All Your Pie
May 14th, 2019, 09:46 PM
What do you suggest we do with them, AYP? I wouldn’t even be opposed if they weren’t DO’s at all, but simply terrain pieces like the jungle bushes.
The climbing and destructibility, with either autowounds or a chance to wound figures on top when it falls, are the sort of direction I'm more interested in. Either way I would prefer them to be DOs, though I may need to re-read those rules when evaluating an implementation.

And again, since I know I'm in the minority here I don't plan to absolutely reject any type of aura, but simply to register that I don't agree with that design choice. On the other hand, I am absolutely opposed to a Thorian aura, as that is far too oppressive an anti-ranged measure to attach to a DO or piece of terrain.

Astroking112
May 14th, 2019, 11:30 PM
A Thorian aura does at least provide some counterplay if the opponent can still attack the towers from afar, but that feels a little too powerful for a terrain piece to me.

We also do have the jungle bushes: as much as I'd rather help melee than ranged with the new terrain type, there's just as much overlap in making an anti-range aura as there is in making a climbable tower.

Pumpkin_King
May 14th, 2019, 11:39 PM
Would you like any sort of power attached to them, AYP?

All Your Pie
May 14th, 2019, 11:53 PM
Would you like any sort of power attached to them, AYP?
I'm willing to concede the point of having a power attached, and I think it's within this group's power to come up with a fun and interesting one. I don't think a Thorian aura is it, though.

Pumpkin_King
May 15th, 2019, 12:06 AM
I can see that. What about if we go with a more chaotic angle? As in, time and space gets wonky around them.

NecroBlade
May 17th, 2019, 11:02 AM
How about an "unstable footing" power that knocks the figure off the top when the DO is wounded (controller must place adjacent to the tower, falling damage applies)?

capsocrates
May 19th, 2019, 01:26 PM
Something with unstable footing sounds cool, NB.

My general design goals would be:
* Leave balance up to map designers
* But also make something that is balance-able
* Make it climbable
* Make it destructible

flameslayer93
May 19th, 2019, 01:54 PM
Unstable footing can work. We should include wording that would force flyers to potentially take falling damage, if we go that route. Smacking a 4-5-6 Defense DO should earn you a chance at a wound vs Raelin.

Astroking112
May 19th, 2019, 02:39 PM
An unstable footing downside eases some of my concerns about making another set of towers for the game, but it still isn't my favorite direction in general. I'm willing to be outvoted on this if everyone else prefers the towers over a simple power, though.

NecroBlade
May 19th, 2019, 04:44 PM
Scaling is necessary, IMO, but I think we can get away without Sighting. Iirc, that would make it possible to stand at the base of the tower and hack at it while a figure on top is unable to see you (another way to mitigate its advantages as climbable). We could then do Unstable Footing and maybe one other power if we feel the need to go that direction?

flameslayer93
May 27th, 2019, 02:21 PM
Something important to remember is that we need to decide if these DO’s should be toggled on or off. I argue that mapmakers should be allowed to toggle them, to improve the odds that they are balance-able and to allow mapmakers to use them as direct LoS blockers (handy for LoS poor battlefields).

I was thinking a powerset that combine several bits and bobbles from this thread. Here’s what I’ve got:


Crypolith Rules: Figures can not move or be placed on top of a Crypolith except by the Crypolith Warp Field Special power on the Crypolith Destructible Army Card.

Crypoliths have a height of 9.

Crypolith Optional Rule: Any scenarios you design may allow using the Crypolith Destructible Object Rules, or may not use the Crypolith Destructible Object Rules and use them as obstacles to block Line of Sight.


Life 3
Defense 4 (typically boosted to 5 while on it’s hill)

Crypolith Warp Field:
Before moving a figure you control that is adjacent or on top of this Crypolith, you may either place that figure on top of this Crypolith or adjacent to this Crypolith. Figures being placed by Crypolith Warp Field will receive any Leaving Engagement attacks, even if they normally do not.

Weird Footing:
When this Crypolith receives a wound, a figure on top of it must be placed on a space adjacent to it by its controller if possible. A figure placed in this way with a height lower than 8 must roll an unblockable attack die. On a skull, that figure receives a wound.

<><><><><><><>

This rules + powerset should prevent a lot of universal issues with Raelin, Airborne Elite, Air Elementals, etc. I can take or leave the extra engagement clause within Crypolith Warp Field, but I figured that even ninjas can’t understand floating around in a warp field enough to bother trying to dodge engagement attacks.

capsocrates
May 27th, 2019, 08:29 PM
Hmm, I appreciate the goals you have but the implementation is not there yet. On the first power, the bit about being forced to take LEAs is clunky; scratch it. On the second power... I don't think I see the theme, and that makes the whole thing feel forced.

flameslayer93
May 27th, 2019, 08:50 PM
Would something like a hot steam release with lavarock rules be better? Or maybe it’ll glitch out and whatever’s on/around could get shuffled around at the end of the round?

NecroBlade
May 27th, 2019, 09:36 PM
I don't hate it, but cap is right. It's trying too hard. I don't know why it has to have a sci-fi theme, when all the same stuff can be accomplished more simply and more clearly without it.

SCALING
Figures that begin their movement adjacent to a cryptolith may move to the top of that cryptolith instead of moving normally.


Short, to the point, no need for an "engagement" clause since it'll apply normally.

CROSSWINDS
Figures cannot move to the top of the cryptolith except with Scaling.


Again, straight to the point. Could use a better name, be rolled into Scaling, or rolled in and a better name.

UNSTABLE FOOTING
When this crypolith receives a wound, a figure on top of it must be placed on a space adjacent to it by its controller and roll an attack die. On a skull, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.


This one was closer. Unstable Footing makes sense; Weird Footing just begs the question "but why is it weird?" Take out the "height" bit (there's only one space on top so pretty much any figure that can get there will be affected anyway). Add that it's destroyed if it can't be placed (prevents getting your Raelin up there and fully surrounding the cryptolith for immunity). May or may not need to mention falling damage (or lack thereof, whichever way we decide to go).

Two or three powers, all very clear and straightforward wording, no need to muddy things with a sci-fi theme. (Yes, they're strange-looking towers, but let them just be strange-looking towers without trying to force a theme, especially if that theme is optional and half the time they might just be terrain with no rules anyway.)

All Your Pie
May 27th, 2019, 09:46 PM
I like that proposal NB, although Crosswinds feels like a thematic leap that we don't need. If we look at these from a competitive standpoint, mapmakers are already going to avoid placing the Cryptoliths near either player's start zone to avoid providing an easy place to camp and fire from. We certainly can take a special effort to prevent them from being used as Raelin perches on top of that, but any decently skilled mapmaker will be able to minimize that risk through design alone.

Other than that, I think we should probably specify that only Small or Medium figures can scale on occupy the Cryptoliths. I'd assume that Deathwalker 9k or Moltenclaw are a bit too chufty to comfortably sit on the pillar.

Astroking112
May 27th, 2019, 09:50 PM
I don't see much need for making the rules optional, considering how little line-of-sight protection they actually offer, but that's fine.

I disagree on the lack of a sci-fi theme. Scaling is a better and clearer name, but Crosswinds makes me wonder why only those spaces are inaccessible to flyers and other figures that can move over spaces. A sci-fi theme, on the other hand (be it a warp field or something else), can better explain this discrepancy. That said, I think that the text in Crosswinds fits better as just being put at the end of Scaling, which removes this problem altogether.

I also think that Unstable Footing is better than Weird Footing, which poses more questions than it answers. Combined with Scaling, I think that both names are pretty straightforward. A sci-fi theme in this case would be better suited to the name of the Destructible Object, such as a Recon Tower or some kind of a SoulBorg deployment.

flameslayer93
May 27th, 2019, 09:58 PM
The problem with Crosswinds as a power is that we’d have people assuming that the things are traversable (even just with flying) when these guys don’t have their “powers” working. So either we’ll have to make a note of that in the rules anyway, or ignore Crosswinds and make it only scale-able with Scaling. The Marvel Ruins piece has the same issue.

Although, this thing doesn’t look like you can climb it anyway. It’s quite rounded, and the top bows back out.

Also, I included the Height bit because a single spacer can be taller than it (the Frost Giant is equal height for example), even if none of them are bigger yet.

Besides, this thing isn’t a tree or a bush, it’s some type of magical/sci-fi pillar. It probably should do *something* unless it’s out of gas or whatever.

NecroBlade
May 27th, 2019, 10:32 PM
Guys, I literally said name it something else or stick it with Scaling. Either way it does what it needs to do (keep fliers from perching easily) without tacked-on theme.

flameslayer93
May 27th, 2019, 11:12 PM
What makes a deliberate Sci-fi theme tacked on, exactly?

capsocrates
May 28th, 2019, 03:51 PM
I don't understand the theme behind Crosswinds. I mean, I do--as a map-specific effect. But I don't understand why the Cryptolith* always generates Crosswinds over it? And if it does, why can figures fly *over* it but not land *on* it?

I like Scaling! Or at least I think I do. It is simple, but it might need a slightly different name in order to better communicate a theme that fits the mechanic.

I think Moltenclaw should be able to land on a Cryptolith just fine but I would need to pull them both out and see; maybe I'll be persuaded the other way.

Instead of calling the third one Unstable Footing just call it Unstable and I think I'm more or less sold. However, I think the figure should be able to be placed where the Cryptolith *was* after a wound is placed to destroy it, and the current wording doesn't allow that.

flameslayer93
May 28th, 2019, 10:59 PM
Would this be better?

(Assuming the same rules, although I’m ok with not allowing toggling).

Crypolith Warp Field:
Before moving a figure you control that is adjacent or on top of this Crypolith, you may either place that figure on top of this Crypolith or adjacent to this Crypolith. Figures being placed by Crypolith Warp Field will receive any Leaving Engagement attacks.

Unstable
When this Crypolith receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on a space adjacent to it by its controller, or on the space it previously occupied.

The rules mean we can omit Crosswinds, and it’s much easier to explain a Warp Field from a mysterious tower causing some issues with flight than it is to ask why Crosswinds applies for these things but not 30 Levels high mountains.

I’d also like to point out that balance for the sake of balance is nice, but it’s far more important that mapmakers who decide to use this set actually *want* to use the rules. A short range “warp” that helps melee units reach their ranged targets after hiding behind it (it provides a little bit of cover, and has stopped clear sight a couple of times) and actually gives mapmakers a new tool. Forcing players to cap their FotA towers made those maps generally less balanced, until the later competitive map groups (like ARV) decided to forgo that. I brought up the Marvel Ruins piece earlier as another example of modern mapmakers not using the stuff “correctly”. I’ve played on maps where they rip the 2nd level out of the thing. And then we have the Fortress Door, in all of its invincible glory. That people deliberately use custom rules for, or just don’t use it. :p

This thing isn’t a unit, but we should still *want* to use it outside of AotV.

capsocrates
May 29th, 2019, 06:24 PM
I think I'm sold. However, should Unstable be an always-on-all-the-time effect? I guess it makes sense since damaging the cryptolith is not a given, so there's already an element of chance in investing an attack in it.

How does this interact with area-of-effect attacks? Can they hit the cryptolith *and* the figure on top of it *and* figures adjacent to it?

flameslayer93
May 29th, 2019, 07:02 PM
I’ll have to dig through the AotP rulebooks to see if that was ever addressed, but if it wasn’t we will have to address it ourselves.

lefton4ya
May 30th, 2019, 11:52 AM
I think an Explosion attack targeting the cryptolith and /or figure, both are considered adjacent to each other, but not sure. For adjacent figures - it is similar to figure on-top of overhang where base+height of figure is compared to base+height of cryptolith.

NecroBlade
May 30th, 2019, 09:18 PM
What makes a deliberate Sci-fi theme tacked on, exactly?
We can accomplish all the same stuff without reference to a specific kind of theme.

I don't understand the theme behind Crosswinds.
It was a placeholder name. Would it help you guys getting hung up on names if I stopped naming things altogether and just used [PLACEHOLDER POWER NAME] everywhere?

Instead of calling the third one Unstable Footing just call it Unstable and I think I'm more or less sold. However, I think the figure should be able to be placed where the Cryptolith *was* after a wound is placed to destroy it, and the current wording doesn't allow that.
I like the power name "Unstable". We can easily reword to accommodate that placement.

Crypolith Warp Field:
Before moving a figure you control that is adjacent or on top of this Crypolith, you may either place that figure on top of this Crypolith or adjacent to this Crypolith. Figures being placed by Crypolith Warp Field will receive any Leaving Engagement attacks.

The rules mean we can omit Crosswinds, and it’s much easier to explain a Warp Field from a mysterious tower causing some issues with flight than it is to ask why Crosswinds applies for these things but not 30 Levels high mountains.
Seriously, please stop getting attached to the first name thrown out. The point is to have a power that doesn't allow figures to simply fly to the top. What that power is called can be figured out later. That said, I don't see anything in your "warp field" power that means we can omit said anti-flying power? Your power as written also allows descent and full normal movement in the same turn, which doesn't seem right.

DIFFICULT SUMMIT
Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement adjacent to a cryptolith may move to the top of that cryptolith. Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that cryptolith. Figures cannot move to the top of the cryptolith except with Difficult Summit.

UNSTABLE
When this crypolith receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on a space adjacent to it or the space it previously occupied by its controller. Roll an attack die. On a skull, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.

capsocrates
May 31st, 2019, 12:54 PM
DIFFICULT SUMMIT
Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement adjacent to a cryptolith may move to the top of that cryptolith. Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that cryptolith. Figures cannot move to the top of the cryptolith except with Difficult Summit.
Why?

All Your Pie
May 31st, 2019, 09:14 PM
DIFFICULT SUMMIT
Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement adjacent to a cryptolith may move to the top of that cryptolith. Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that cryptolith. Figures cannot move to the top of the cryptolith except with Difficult Summit.
Why?
To elaborate on this point (which I agree with), appending this to the end of the power is going to feel awkward no matter what thematic justification we choose to pursue for it. Especially if we're going for an already simple mechanical direction for a climbable, unstable tower, any additional aspect appended to that is going to feel inelegant.

I understand the desire to not make another FotA tower. But the piece of plastic sitting in front of us is nonetheless an elevated platform rising vertically from the ground with a space on top to stand on. From the standpoint of building a cohesive set, it's going to be very strange for us to design flying figures while simultaneously removing their ability to use the only piece of terrain with any verticality in AotP. From the standpoint of communicating theme, nothing about these towers visually suggests that flying figures can't land on them, making it an odd unintuitive condition to have to check mid game. This condition only works from a balance perspective, and one that is concerned almost exclusively with playability in tounrament-style formats. That's important, but we do have to consider how much we're willing to push and bend theme (meant broadly here, not simply in reference to any specific thematic justification that has been proposed) in order to prevent these from being used as perches.

Regarding figure size limitations, I'm mostly just following the precedent of ladders here. You probably could physically fit Deathwalker 9k onto a ladder rung, but the small/medium restriction works to easily shut down any allowance for double-spaced figures to climb them. From there, it's believable that single-based large figures would simply be too big or heavy to climb, and given that instability is a consistent aspect we've thrown around here, it seems like that would apply to Cryptoliths as well.

NecroBlade
June 1st, 2019, 04:00 PM
To elaborate on this point (which I agree with), appending this to the end of the power is going to feel awkward no matter what thematic justification we choose to pursue for it.
I disagree, because anyone who has played with flying figures and perches understands it from a balance perspective. And that's why I thought it was something we were including. But if we're not interested in that limitation (given Unstable is intended to help curb that power play as well), I'm fine with omitting it and testing it without. It just seemed to be part of the discussion until this point.

Fakeraistlin
June 4th, 2019, 01:08 AM
Hi all, what about:

Teleport: Move a figure on top of cryptolith to any unoccupied top cryptolith on board map
Warped Reality: All powers are nullified (Flying included) from and to cryptolith hex. Range to hex is reduced by 3.

Only can climb at beginning of turn if on hex and has a movement of 5 or more.
Destructible and stats as discussed previously.

Astroking112
June 4th, 2019, 01:41 AM
I'm not a fan of any type of Crosswinds/Difficult Summit power unless it has a Sci-Fi theme (such as the warp field) to justify it. I'm not sure that there's another way to make it thematically work without relying on the sci-fi angle at least somewhat.

That said, I'm also fine with omitting the limitation altogether. It definitely helps differentiate them from FotA towers a bit, but like All Your Pie mentioned, it's not intuitive and one of the benefits of using them as towers is that it makes flying more impactful in the set.

Hi all, what about:

Teleport: Move a figure on top of cryptolith to any unoccupied top cryptolith on board map
Warped Reality: All powers are nullified (Flying included) from and to cryptolith hex. Range to hex is reduced by 3.

Only can climb at beginning of turn if on hex and has a movement of 5 or more.
Destructible and stats as discussed previously.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! We've actually discussed a bit about using them as teleportation beacons or negation auras before, but the consensus is to use them as towers instead. It's felt that a sci-fi theme wouldn't be immediately recognizable and that towers with a significant negative power are more straightforward.

Fakeraistlin
June 4th, 2019, 02:31 AM
Ah now I know what you mean about Cross winds...


I'm not a fan of any type of Crosswinds/Difficult Summit power unless it has a Sci-Fi theme (such as the warp field) to justify it. I'm not sure that there's another way to make it thematically work without relying on the sci-fi angle at least somewhat.



That said, I'm also fine with omitting the limitation altogether. It definitely helps differentiate them from FotA towers a bit, but like All Your Pie mentioned, it's not intuitive and one of the benefits of using them as towers is that it makes flying more impactful in the set.

Hi all, what about:

Teleport: Move a figure on top of cryptolith to any unoccupied top cryptolith on board map
Warped Reality: All powers are nullified (Flying included) from and to cryptolith hex. Range to hex is reduced by 3.

Only can climb at beginning of turn if on hex and has a movement of 5 or more.
Destructible and stats as discussed previously.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! We've actually discussed a bit about using them as teleportation beacons or negation auras before, but the consensus is to use them as towers instead. It's felt that a sci-fi theme wouldn't be immediately recognizable and that towers with a significant negative power are more straightforward.

Understood, I will read this thread again.... Couldn't these also be some mad fantasy or Mountain of Madness type of structures.
In any case I've read the FAQ and will limit my comments to the brainstorming thread :)


Thanks

lefton4ya
June 4th, 2019, 11:50 AM
If you thought about if the actual structure was to scale in our real world, the structure would pick up some mad winds as it is designed to funnel the wind to either the bottom or the top of the structure (with an invisible gust of wind going straight up preventing flying over/landing on top of it). In addition due to the cyclone structure and being really skinny and not able to have a solid beam through the center it would probably shake a lot (I have a "Cat tree" and even that thing shakes when a cat is on top and its only 4 feet high with a pole in the middle) . I could totally see if this was real and some powerful blast/being hit it it would shake enough to knock the figure off. I think if we had a power with the 50/50 chance of either falling or getting a wound if on top it mitigates allowing flying figures on top, but I could totally see a non fantasy/sci-fi logic (i.e.e real world architecture/aerodynamics) both for it being unstable and not allowing figures to fly over and land on top.

flameslayer93
June 4th, 2019, 03:22 PM
Why wouldn’t a figure be able to land on something unstable simply because its unstable? Cats jump onto cat towers without falling off, after all. Thematically, not being able to land on a crypolith doesn’t fit without a magical/sci-fi theme. We can test it out without the “cannot land on this with climbing it” version and see what happens. If it’s not really fun, we can go back to the drawing board.

capsocrates
June 4th, 2019, 04:04 PM
To elaborate on this point (which I agree with), appending this to the end of the power is going to feel awkward no matter what thematic justification we choose to pursue for it.
I disagree, because anyone who has played with flying figures and perches understands it from a balance perspective. And that's why I thought it was something we were including. But if we're not interested in that limitation (given Unstable is intended to help curb that power play as well), I'm fine with omitting it and testing it without. It just seemed to be part of the discussion until this point.
Yes, I understand it from a balance perspective. I am struggling with it from a thematic perspective.


Shouldn't this destructible object be something that is *in* Valhalla? So not some kind of sci-fi thing?

Astroking112
June 4th, 2019, 04:22 PM
Yes, I understand it from a balance perspective. I am struggling with it from a thematic perspective.


Shouldn't this destructible object be something that is *in* Valhalla? So not some kind of sci-fi thing?

My line of reasoning behind a sci-fi theme (besides that being the best explanation for their appearance in my opinion) is that they could easily have been brought to Valhalla like the Marro Hive. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that Vydar summoned some SoulBorg Reconnaissance Towers from Alpha Prime or Isadora, and it feels better to me than saying that they're some ancient artifacts from the Underdark or the like.

capsocrates
June 4th, 2019, 05:38 PM
My line of reasoning behind a sci-fi theme (besides that being the best explanation for their appearance in my opinion) is that they could easily have been brought to Valhalla like the Marro Hive. I don't think that it's a stretch to say that Vydar summoned some SoulBorg Reconnaissance Towers from Alpha Prime or Isadora, and it feels better to me than saying that they're some ancient artifacts from the Underdark or the like.
Okay, I can see that.

Phantom
June 4th, 2019, 10:08 PM
I thought the teleportation idea was pretty neat but the thread seems to be drifting away from that.
Since it's such prime real estate, what about keeping the unstable footing part and some sort of D20 rolling involved?
As in you have to roll a certain number to land if you are a flyer and even if you climbed up there (is that even possible? I'm the WORST at counting spaces...), after the end of a round or turn &/or somebody hits the stand you have to roll to see if you fall off and get hurt?

Pumpkin_King
June 20th, 2019, 08:11 PM
Bumping this after the outage.

NecroBlade
June 21st, 2019, 09:40 AM
Scaling essentially is teleportation, just without the theme implied in the name, so players can imagine whatever theme they like for the things (whether it be for a scenario or just personal preference). Here it is without the anti-flier clause:

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement adjacent to a cryptolith may move to the top of that cryptolith. Instead of moving normally, figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that cryptolith.

UNSTABLE
When this crypolith receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller on a space adjacent to the cryptolith or the space it previously occupied. Roll an attack die. On a skull, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.

How does that feel?

lefton4ya
June 21st, 2019, 11:32 AM
I do not like that if the Cryptolith receives one wound the figure is automatically dropped AND there is a 50% chance of wound - that totally negates almost any reason to scale a cryptolith. If it is was a ~50% chance of falling (Heroscape or 20-sided die roll) on one+ wound then maybe it would be worth it, but maybe I am jaded in that I like the Magic:AotP rules almost as is where the cryptolith must be destroyed first (although I do like the adjacent for automatic scale versus 4 move).

Astroking112
June 21st, 2019, 11:42 AM
I still have a preference for a sci-fi themed, non-climbable tower, but this is the best version of tower rules that I can remember, and the generic theming doesn't bother me since it's pretty straightforward. Since the tower direction has the most support, this is what I think we should proceed with.

How do we feel about naming the Cryptoliths, though? I'd rather not use Cryptolith as the name, given that it likely has stronger correlations to Magic: The Gathering. We should likely decide just where these things came from, since they look relatively foreign to Valhalla. I see three main options:

1) Make them native to some part of Valhalla, probably a desert region from what we have in our set.
2) Make them some kind of dark artifacts from the Underdark, or another fantasy spin on them.
3) Make them sci-fi in origin, having been summoned from another planet like the Marro Hive.

The last option is my personal favorite, but whichever one we decide on should determine how we settle on a name.

flameslayer93
June 21st, 2019, 02:51 PM
I do not like that if the Cryptolith receives one wound the figure is automatically dropped AND there is a 50% chance of wound - that totally negates almost any reason to scale a cryptolith. If it is was a ~50% chance of falling (Heroscape or 20-sided die roll) on one+ wound then maybe it would be worth it, but maybe I am jaded in that I like the Magic:AotP rules almost as is where the cryptolith must be destroyed first (although I do like the adjacent for automatic scale versus 4 move).

Raelin has plenty of reason to scale/fly onto it. It’s the best seat in the house. Pick a screen to protect her Crypolith. Bonus points if its capable of doing the fighting too.

Airborne Elite have great perches that let them receive their attack boost (and often have a great grenades spot) without the downside of their very low defense.

Air Elementals and Boreos can troll melee figures by flying from Crypolith to Crypolith.

Protectors can hop onto them and shoot without worry. Can’t get knocked off if everything that’s close is dead.

There’s plenty more examples too.

Point is, there is good reason to sit on the Crypoliths, even with the falling rule. The only units who would bother hopping onto one are cheerleaders or range anyway.

NecroBlade
June 22nd, 2019, 12:44 PM
How do we feel about naming the Cryptoliths, though?
IMO, cryptolith has always been a placeholder name. It's from Magic, so has 0 reason to be in Heroscape proper. I don't have a good name off the top of my head, though.


Raelin has plenty of reason to scale/fly onto it. It’s the best seat in the house. Pick a screen to protect her Crypolith. Bonus points if its capable of doing the fighting too.

Airborne Elite have great perches that let them receive their attack boost (and often have a great grenades spot) without the downside of their very low defense.

Air Elementals and Boreos can troll melee figures by flying from Crypolith to Crypolith.

Protectors can hop onto them and shoot without worry. Can’t get knocked off if everything that’s close is dead.

There’s plenty more examples too.

Point is, there is good reason to sit on the Crypoliths, even with the falling rule. The only units who would bother hopping onto one are cheerleaders or range anyway.

Agreed.

Pumpkin_King
June 23rd, 2019, 12:24 PM
I’m still on the train that they should have some kind of generally used but optional rules aside from just “you can climb this.” I don’t have any ideas, though, and I’m happy to leave that to scenario writers and see if any particular effect becomes popular in the community.

Astroking112
June 24th, 2019, 01:32 AM
How do we feel about naming the Cryptoliths, though?
IMO, cryptolith has always been a placeholder name. It's from Magic, so has 0 reason to be in Heroscape proper. I don't have a good name off the top of my head, though.

Indeed. I think that since we seem to be settling on the climbable tower angle, we should decide what the theme is before deciding on a name.

I’m still on the train that they should have some kind of generally used but optional rules aside from just “you can climb this.” I don’t have any ideas, though, and I’m happy to leave that to scenario writers and see if any particular effect becomes popular in the community.

I think that any optional rules should be relegated to scenarios. Since we're already having the mandatory climbing rules, I don't want to complicate things too much by throwing some additional rules to choose from on top of that. If the scenarios find it convenient to use some consistent effects across the board, then that's fine, but it would need to be done there in my opinion.

flameslayer93
June 29th, 2019, 09:31 AM
Names can include:

Ancient Column/Pillar (Ruins theme)
Security Tower (Alpha Prime theme)
Desert Oddity (Desert theme)

Astroking112
June 29th, 2019, 12:46 PM
If we wanted to say that these towers were brought in from a Sci-Fi planet, I like the idea of bringing them from Isadora, the prison moon/planet for Alpha Prime. We could call them Panopticons or some variant to play on their intended purpose (Deployed or Portable Panopticon Towers covers the theme well enough in my eyes, although it is a mouthful and we could simplify it).

NecroBlade
June 30th, 2019, 12:45 PM
Portable Panopticon has a nice alliteration to it, but I like Ancient Pillar because it could be from anywhere's distant past and also sounds more like it could be "unstable".

Pumpkin_King
June 30th, 2019, 12:47 PM
Panopticon would almost require a special effect of some kind. Keep it in mind for a scenario that takes place on Alpha Prime, maybe.

Astroking112
July 15th, 2019, 12:37 AM
Portable Panopticon has a nice alliteration to it, but I like Ancient Pillar because it could be from anywhere's distant past and also sounds more like it could be "unstable".

Ancient Pillar feels a little too generic to me. It reminds me of the Underdark being added beneath Valhalla, which I felt diluted its fantasy. At the very least if we go that route, I'd like to give them a unique Valhalla-sounding name to make it clear that they're some kind of structures from a desert region on the planet, rather than a random fantasy structure that could've been anywhere.

Panopticon would almost require a special effect of some kind. Keep it in mind for a scenario that takes place on Alpha Prime, maybe.

I think that whatever name and theme we go with for the towers should be consistent with how they're portrayed in scenarios. Perhaps we could add some simple additional rules to them if it makes sense, but I don't think we should say that they're sci-fi towers in one scenario and ancient artifacts in another.

NecroBlade
July 18th, 2019, 03:08 PM
I think that whatever name and theme we go with for the towers should be consistent with how they're portrayed in scenarios. Perhaps we could add some simple additional rules to them if it makes sense, but I don't think we should say that they're sci-fi towers in one scenario and ancient artifacts in another.
I suppose it depends on how we view scenarios. If we're only concerned about a specific set of scenarios in the Master Set with a specific theme, then we could go with that specific name. But if we want to leave it open and flexible for anyone to use and create scenarios with outside of that, then we should lean generic.

On an unrelated note, how long have you been a Gila monster in Kaemon Awa's helmet??

Astroking112
July 18th, 2019, 04:35 PM
I think that whatever name and theme we go with for the towers should be consistent with how they're portrayed in scenarios. Perhaps we could add some simple additional rules to them if it makes sense, but I don't think we should say that they're sci-fi towers in one scenario and ancient artifacts in another.
I suppose it depends on how we view scenarios. If we're only concerned about a specific set of scenarios in the Master Set with a specific theme, then we could go with that specific name. But if we want to leave it open and flexible for anyone to use and create scenarios with outside of that, then we should lean generic.

That's a fair point for a generic name if we want to leave scenario-makers free to make their own stories. I think that Ancient Pillar or the like similarly locks out a sci-fi theme, though, and those themes can't be conveyed with other sets already. Adding a lightly themed sci-fi piece for mapmakers to use would expand the possibilities in that regard, since it's a niche that's hard to fill with what's already been released.

On an unrelated note, how long have you been a Gila monster in Kaemon Awa's helmet??

I've always been a goanna lizard. Becoming Kaemon Goanna was just the next step of my evolution.

So, in other words, since yesterday.

NecroBlade
July 28th, 2019, 02:46 PM
I think that Ancient Pillar or the like similarly locks out a sci-fi theme, though

I dunno, I'm reading The Expanse and there are plenty of ancient pillars. :shrug: Just because Humans haven't been around long enough to make ancient sci-fi pillars* doesn't mean other races haven't.

*Give or take how much Ancient Aliens you watch. :p

Astroking112
July 30th, 2019, 12:02 AM
I think that Ancient Pillar or the like similarly locks out a sci-fi theme, though

I dunno, I'm reading The Expanse and there are plenty of ancient pillars. :shrug: Just because Humans haven't been around long enough to make ancient sci-fi pillars* doesn't mean other races haven't.

*Give or take how much Ancient Aliens you watch. :p

I think that the context of these being on Valhalla naturally implies that if they're ancient, they were always there. We could say that an Archkyrie summoned them from Arctorus or the like, but that kind of begs the question of why in that case, since if they're old pillars then there are probably better candidates elsewhere.

It does give me the absolutely hilarious image of Vydar stealing the pyramids from Earth, though, which is worth something. :lol:

If we don't want to go with the sci-fi theme, then I like setting them in some desert region of Valhalla and expanding the lore through scenarios there. Looking at the map of Valhalla, I think that we could set Arena of the Valkyrie around the Sea of Sand for some interesting storytelling. The name in such a case should be similar to the Power Glyphs and units that originate on Valhalla in that case, IMO, where they sound vaguely Norse.

https://i.imgur.com/fnBDPS2.jpg

capsocrates , All Your Pie , do either of you have any thoughts on the name for the towers (or greater location for the Master Set)? Just checking to see how we're all feeling about it.

Lumovanis
August 11th, 2019, 05:03 PM
Just tossing this out there; what if it was a gravity field effect and shut flying off in a fairly wide area? Maybe even increase falling damage or make climbing upwards more difficult?

Astroking112
August 12th, 2019, 04:46 PM
I believe that we actually did discuss an aura that negates flying within X spaces back near the beginning of this design. It ended up not gaining too much traction because we want the effects of the Destructible Object to be clearly conveyed by the structure itself, much like how the gameplay effects of the official terrain were clearly linked to its appearance. There are also some rules problems with stopping flying within an aura, though that wasn't the main reason we settled on the current direction.

flameslayer93
September 8th, 2019, 02:58 PM
A quick google search revealed that “himinn” is the norse word for pillar. Ancient Himinn could work as a name, as it has a distinct sound while retaining the norse origins of the valhalla.

Astroking112
September 8th, 2019, 03:18 PM
I'm still not overly fond of adding the word "ancient" to the title. If we just call them Himinn, that evokes the Norse inspiration better in my opinion and sounds more HeroScape-y, and we can still talk about how they're these mysterious artifacts in the Sea of Sand in the scenarios and story around the Master Set.

Alternatively, if we want to evoke the "Glyphs of NORSE-SOUNDING WORD" template, they could be Pillars of Hár or some Norse word for height for example.

flameslayer93
September 8th, 2019, 03:21 PM
Pillars of Height sounds silly, but Pillars of Hár almost sounds like they’re built to worship someone. A god? An archkyrie of times past? That is workable.

Astroking112
September 8th, 2019, 03:57 PM
Pillars of Height sounds silly, but Pillars of Hár almost sounds like they’re built to worship someone. A god? An archkyrie of times past? That is workable.

Ironically, Hár is just the first thing that popped up when I looked up the Norse word for height. :p

Some kind of long-forgotten god (probably an Archkyrie before more people discovered the wellsprings in the modern times of Valhalla) sounds like an interesting concept.

NecroBlade
September 11th, 2019, 07:48 PM
Pillar of Hár (or some other Norse word) seems like a reasonable approach.

Astroking112
September 11th, 2019, 08:17 PM
Does anyone have any objections and alternative suggestions to Pillar of Hár? I'm fine with proceeding with that name, since it gives us plenty of storytelling wriggle room.

flameslayer93
September 11th, 2019, 08:33 PM
Any opinions on these thing’s stats?

Earlier I suggested 3 Life and 4 defense. Anyone have other suggestions?

NecroBlade
September 15th, 2019, 09:14 AM
No immediate objections to 4D/3L.

Astroking112
September 17th, 2019, 03:05 PM
3L/4D sounds like a reasonable starting point to me.

The main alternative that I could see is lowering the defense but adding an automatic shield to match the official Destructible Objects that we saw, but we want these things to be considerably more fragile than those were, and many squads with 2 attack would really struggle against an auto-shield.

robbdaman
September 21st, 2019, 02:41 PM
Just as a thought I don't feel it makes much sense to have these be so easily scalable given ladders take a lot of movement points to use. If these are 10 tall then it should take at least that to get to the top anyway.

Since it is flat standing on the top should require being center of the thing I'd say.

As for destructible, that'd be fine but I'd be disappointed in it providing some special effect as that seems off given no other terrain does so. Terrain is for fighting around, the figures in the game are the focus.

Astroking112
September 21st, 2019, 11:50 PM
Just as a thought I don't feel it makes much sense to have these be so easily scalable given ladders take a lot of movement points to use. If these are 10 tall then it should take at least that to get to the top anyway.

Since it is flat standing on the top should require being center of the thing I'd say.

As for destructible, that'd be fine but I'd be disappointed in it providing some special effect as that seems off given no other terrain does so. Terrain is for fighting around, the figures in the game are the focus.

If it takes 10 move to climb the sides of these, very few figures other than fliers will ever be able to scale them. Requiring a figure to sacrifice their normal move is already often going to be somewhat slow, and since we don't have any ladders to let figures stop partway, it feels like a decent compromise for this direction to me.

Personally, the idea of these being destructible is one of the highlights of using them. Classic HeroScape technically only ever saw the Fortress Door as a Destructible Object, so I think that it's an interesting yet mostly unexplored design space. The negative powers other than Scaling are just to balance it out more, because towers heavily favor ranged and flying units and our line of sight blockers are limited.

robbdaman
September 22nd, 2019, 01:11 AM
I agree making them destructible would keep them from being too advantageous, sitting Raelinontop isn’t as useful if it can be blown out from under her.

It could be provided with some limitations of figures not being able to effect others nearby either targeting other figures or providing clear sight powers while on it.

flameslayer93
September 23rd, 2019, 08:00 PM
Does anyone have any objections and alternative suggestions to Pillar of Hár? I'm fine with proceeding with that name, since it gives us plenty of storytelling wriggle room.

Pillar of Hár sounds good to me.

Regarding the prospect of them getting powers that limit ranged attacks/powers/etc, I believe I more or less was out voted on measures that would make them less intuitive than these weird twisty columns already are.

Thanks so much for your thoughts robbdaman !

Astroking112
September 23rd, 2019, 09:00 PM
Regarding the prospect of them getting powers that limit ranged attacks/powers/etc, I believe I more or less was out voted on measures that would make them less intuitive than these weird twisty columns already are.

You and me both. ;)

Is anyone opposed to Pillars of Hár for the name? I'd like to stop calling them Cryptoliths, and it gives us plenty of room to flesh them out more with the plot of the set.

capsocrates
September 24th, 2019, 01:34 AM
I am fine with Pillars of Har and the way it falls on the ears, but effectively naming them "Pillars of Height" feels a little too on-the-nose.

flameslayer93
September 24th, 2019, 10:26 AM
I am fine with Pillars of Har and the way it falls on the ears, but effectively naming them "Pillars of Height" feels a little too on-the-nose.

As opposed to Jotun translating to Giant? It feels a bit like traditional scape in that sense.

flameslayer93
November 7th, 2019, 12:29 AM
Pumpkin_King
All Your Pie

Any issues with going forward as Pillar of Hár for the name of these?

Also, any issue with 3 Life and 4 Defense?

All Your Pie
November 7th, 2019, 02:45 AM
Both of those details are fine with me. I could see a more skewed number working like 2 life 5 defense, as these look more like they would snap to a few strong hits rather than be whittled away by numerous weaker ones. But 3 is already fairly brittle.

Pumpkin_King
November 7th, 2019, 03:53 AM
Yep. Works for me. I get the feeling the main thing will be scenario design.

flameslayer93
November 7th, 2019, 07:44 AM
Then I believe we are ready for editing. I’ll wait a few days for anyone else to chime in on the name and stats before calling the vote to move to editing.

Edit: OP updated. I left the Basic Side Defense as 4, but we may decide its not attackable anyway. The Basic game doesn’t matter.*

Astroking112
November 7th, 2019, 12:13 PM
I don't anticipate having a basic side for the card here. The Fortress Door card just had the HeroScape logo on the back like the Glyph cards, correct? I wouldn't mind matching that precedent.

The name and stats seem good to me. I'm a little less concerned about getting this unit out of the door right now because it largely depends on scenarios and how the other characters will play, but it doesn't hurt to move it forward if we're mostly settled at this point.

flameslayer93
November 7th, 2019, 12:38 PM
I don't anticipate having a basic side for the card here. The Fortress Door card just had the HeroScape logo on the back like the Glyph cards, correct? I wouldn't mind matching that precedent.

The name and stats seem good to me. I'm a little less concerned about getting this unit out of the door right now because it largely depends on scenarios and how the other characters will play, but it doesn't hurt to move it forward if we're mostly settled at this point.

Well, we will need to do “some” testing for the Pillar for sure. By some I mean a bunch of RaeRae tests. :p

NecroBlade
November 8th, 2019, 09:48 AM
Small wording suggestion for clarity:

UNSTABLE
When this crypolith receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller on a space adjacent to the cryptolith or the space it the cryptolith previously occupied. Roll an attack die. On a skull, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.

Pumpkin_King
November 8th, 2019, 02:16 PM
I guess we do editing with this one same as figures, yeah?

Astroking112
November 8th, 2019, 02:26 PM
Well, we will need to do “some” testing for the Pillar for sure. By some I mean a bunch of RaeRae tests. :p

I suppose that we should throw in Protectors of Ullar as well. A ranged flying squad should be appreciative of these.

A big part of the "competitive" balance of this Destructible Object will come from mapmakers, though. I'm okay with these things being a bit of a silly fun kind of addition to the game, like the castles.

Small wording suggestion for clarity:

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller either on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár or the space it the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. Roll an attack die. If a skull is rolled, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.

I made some minor updates, but it otherwise looks good to me.

I guess we do editing with this one same as figures, yeah?

I see no reason why not.

NecroBlade
November 17th, 2019, 01:45 PM
Looks good, Astro. :up:

lefton4ya
November 18th, 2019, 11:45 AM
Does "If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed" cover if you have two pillars next to each other with a double space figure on both of them, and one pillar is destroyed? Also hypothetically you could mix with fortress set (or Marvel set or just tons of terrain) so that the top of the pillar is the same height as other terrain so a double-space figure can be 1/2 on the pillar and 1/2 on other terrain. We could make it in rules where they pillars could never be placed next to each other or other same height terrain, but I don't like that restriction, so we need a contingency for double-spaced figures 1/2 on a pillar that gets destroyed.

Also as UNSTABLE is worded figures with >=10 height will still need to roll from damage. I think (double-check me) the only figures with >=10 height are double-spaced. So only scenario is with explosion attack that destroys both pillars if a double-spaced figure falls he/she/it will still possibly take damage.

Astroking112
November 18th, 2019, 06:52 PM
flameslayer93 could you update the OP with the most recent changes?

lefton4ya I figured that we were limiting Pillars of Hár to small or medium figures. It looks like we weren't, but I think that we should to avoid anything silly like trying to fit a double-spaced figure on two adjacent pillars. Even if this just takes the form of the rulebook noting that a double-spaced figure can never be placed on a Pillar of Hár (similar to how the SotM rulebook gives some special rules for the Hive or the FotA rulebook for the door and ladders), the alternative seems silly and messy.

flameslayer93
November 24th, 2019, 12:38 AM
OP Updated.

Honestly, I think we're better off restricting Scaling to Small and Medium figures.

For double hexers falling off because of Unstable, my best suggestion would be to force the double hexer off of both Pillars, and they would just have to sit on the ground. If they could not be placed on the ground, *then* they would be destroyed.

In the event that the Pillar is destroyed, either part of the base must occupy where the destroyed Pillar was and another same level space on the ground.

These are of course if we allow double hexers onto pillars at all, which might be worthwhile for playing and counter-playing dragons on maps with adjacent pillars. I'm ok with allowing double hexers on them because landing them is fairly straightforward.

Astroking112
November 24th, 2019, 01:58 AM
Honestly, I think we're better off restricting Scaling to Small and Medium figures.

Agreed. I think that allowing double-spaced figures to stand on the pillars would be a big mess and something that we should absolutely avoid. I'd add a caveat (either in the rulebook or on the card itself) that only small and medium figures can "land" on top of the pillars or use Scaling.

NecroBlade
November 24th, 2019, 08:42 AM
Might need to be in the rulebook. Adding it to Scaling only restricts that power's usage, doesn't do anything to stop say Mimring from just flying up there.

flameslayer93
November 24th, 2019, 08:47 AM
Why do you think it would be a mess Astro? It should be easy to clear up and about as intuitive as using the glyph of Erland to summon a double hexer. A few pictures in the rulebook with some rules text and any problems go away.

Pumpkin_King
November 24th, 2019, 04:11 PM
Mimring being double-spaced stops him.

Astroking112
November 24th, 2019, 04:32 PM
Why do you think it would be a mess Astro? It should be easy to clear up and about as intuitive as using the glyph of Erland to summon a double hexer. A few pictures in the rulebook with some rules text and any problems go away.

I won't have the box with me again until next week, but trying to perch Nilfheim or Jotun on top of the Pillars of Hár just sounds like a trainwreck waiting to happen. Even if the physical balance is fine (which, given that these aren't full hexes unlike the castle set, I'd be surprised to hear in all honesty), which Scaling power was used? How many edge cases are we introducing with Unstable just to let a dragon perch up there? Erland is a lot more intuitive to use and introduces far fewer problematic rules interactions.

Mimring being double-spaced stops him.

The problem is that unless we specifically call it out, players could debatably place Mimring on top of two adjacent Pillars of Hár (or half on an adjacent same-level cliff and half on the single Pillar space).

NecroBlade
December 2nd, 2019, 10:22 PM
Yeah I'm with Astro on this. That can of worms doesn't even need to be in the same room as a can opener.

Pumpkin_King
December 5th, 2019, 09:45 PM
I can sympathize with that. Let's avoid it if we can.

lefton4ya
December 6th, 2019, 11:27 AM
I'm OK with rule that only small/medium/large OR only single space figures can go on top of the pillar. This should just be a ruling on who can even go on top, regardless of whether scaling or flying or climbing on other terrain to get on top.

NecroBlade
December 8th, 2019, 02:15 PM
I would normally suggest Small/Medium, but I think there may be precedent for single-base somewhere. Do the ladder rules specify Small/Medium or single base? If there's precedent, let's go with that. Otherwise, Small/Medium is an easy fallback position.

flameslayer93
December 8th, 2019, 02:26 PM
They specify Small/Medium.

Astroking112
December 8th, 2019, 05:11 PM
My concern with going with "single-spaced" over small/medium is primarily whether stuff like Moltenclaw or VC figures not originally designed for HeroScape bases will be balanced on the pillars. Small and medium is the safer option, IMO, especially since VC is going to continue expanding and figures that might not balance well could still be introduced.

NecroBlade
December 13th, 2019, 09:03 PM
Small or medium it is, then. And a short line in the rulebook.

flameslayer93
December 13th, 2019, 09:27 PM
Updated the OP thus far. Let me know if I missed something. 8)

lefton4ya
December 16th, 2019, 06:43 PM
I think we do not need redundancies between SCALING and Special rules, but maybe it wouldn't hut.

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár.

Special Rules
Only a small or medium figure may move or be placed on top of a Pillar of Hár.

flameslayer93
December 16th, 2019, 10:49 PM
The “wouldn’t hurt” part was intentional. It’s not like people to read the rulebook. ;)

flameslayer93
April 10th, 2020, 04:52 PM
:bump: time. Is everyone good with the OP? Should be safe to send to editing no?

Its an :up: from me if a votes needed.

NecroBlade
April 10th, 2020, 08:40 PM
:up: I like what's in the OP.

flameslayer93
April 12th, 2020, 11:49 AM
Looks like all votes up to this point suggest we’re good so this is off to editing.
Scytale , whenever you’re ready kind sir. :) Astroking112 , tagging you so the status reports can get updated accordingly.

Scytale
April 13th, 2020, 11:35 AM
This is another design that seems overly complicated for a master set designed for new players.

Pumpkin_King
April 13th, 2020, 01:09 PM
It’s basically just movement rules. I don’t see how it’s complex.

Astroking112
April 13th, 2020, 04:16 PM
This is another design that seems overly complicated for a master set designed for new players.

How do you think that we could simplify it? The only thing that I can really think of is dropping Unstable, which has some very negative gameplay ramifications and essentially turns them into normal FotA towers.

Scaling feels just about as simple as we can make it to me, and the special rule limiting it to just small and medium figures is necessary to simplify potential corner cases.

Scytale
April 13th, 2020, 04:27 PM
This is another design that seems overly complicated for a master set designed for new players.

How do you think that we could simplify it? The only thing that I can really think of is dropping Unstable, which has some very negative gameplay ramifications and essentially turns them into normal FotA towers.

Scaling feels just about as simple as we can make it to me, and the special rule limiting it to just small and medium figures is necessary to simplify potential corner cases.
I wouldn't have made them something that figures could stand on for the sake of simplicity.

Looking at the powers, they seem relatively simple and necessary for a DO that can be climbed and stood on.

NecroBlade
April 14th, 2020, 07:02 PM
Yeah nothing about this one seems too complicated to me. :shrug:

lefton4ya
April 15th, 2020, 12:46 PM
IMHO our new rues are easier than the MtG:AotP Innostrad rules and they were designed for new players in mind - so to me that is a win.
SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a cryptolith may move to a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár.

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller either on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár or the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. Roll an attack die. If a skull is rolled, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.

Special Rules
Only a small or medium figure may be placed on top of a Pillar of Hár.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7tocqjPoy1c/V6OhoxQ2obI/AAAAAAAASsM/rUnDn8rPFrE25JNwHzI6-RkZBj0EbT7PwCCo/s728/CRYPTOLITH.png

Also I just noticed, do we want to add the SIGHTING rules to this (so a raged figure can shot someone next to the Pillar of Hár?) IMHO there is very little reason for a ranged squad figure to ever climb the pillar unless we have this rule, but it does help ranged heroes more, so we have to decide what it more worth it.

SIGHTING
A figure occupying the top space of a Pillar of Hár may use one of it's points as a sighting point.

flameslayer93
April 15th, 2020, 02:02 PM
I’d rather not use the Sighting rules. Most ranged squaddies have good reason to climb this, since they usually have less defense than the pillar. I’d rather the 4D pillar get swung at than my 2D member of the 10th.

Scytale
April 15th, 2020, 02:07 PM
What is the official height of a Pillar (in hexes)?

lefton4ya
April 15th, 2020, 02:47 PM
Height 9 (and Huge size) according to Mtg:AotP. So if Jotun is standing on the other hex of the base, he would be adjacent to the figure on top, but if he was below the base he would not.

I guess if a range against melee then yea then even with out sighting range squaddies have some reason to climb as they may go on it one turn then go off the next turn (after figure move next to pillar) to be able to attack again. Up to yall, but there is a reason the Fortress and Road Walls have sighting rules. Maybe we can make it an "optional" or scenario rule where it is a "storm the Pillars of Hár" similar to storm the castle scenarios, but otherwise (i.e. for tournaments) not have it. Or we can make it like the slippery ice rule that it is set by map and scenarios, and really only will be used with drafting so you can make an army to prepare for it.

flameslayer93
April 15th, 2020, 03:19 PM
What is the official height of a Pillar (in hexes)?

Good catch Scytale. I believe the height is 9 (I can certainly double check in a minute to verify too).

I’ll let my fellow leads chime in on Sighting rules. My stance has not changed as of this posting.

Edit: Verified about Size 9. That does not include the 2-hex base it sits in.

Scytale
April 15th, 2020, 03:23 PM
I'm not part of the design group, but I would be annoyed if my archer on top of the pillar could not attack the warriors attacking the base of the pillar.

NecroBlade
April 19th, 2020, 11:41 AM
I'm not 100% either way on it. But it could probably be another special rule in the rulebook, like battlements and the road wall (since we're going to have the small/medium rule already).

Astroking112
April 22nd, 2020, 02:03 AM
I think that we should include a rule that figures standing on the Pillars can still target figures standing adjacent to the Pillar. It's frustrating for melee, but that's towers for you (and it'll still be fine for scenarios).

We'll have to keep an eye out for something horrible like Tetsuo hopping back on a Pillar each turn to get height and "4 defense," of course, but I think it's manageable.

I don't think targeting rules need to be on the card, though; putting it into the rulebook like the battlement corner line of sight rules seems fine to me.

lefton4ya
April 22nd, 2020, 10:17 AM
Good idea Astroking112. This power can be on the card:
SIGHTING
A figure with a range of 3 or more occupying the top space of this Pillar of Hár may target a figure adjacent to this Pillar of Hár.

I think this is a good middle ground as it allows you to attack someone trying to take down the tower, but prevents the tower from being a snipe point. Also makes map-making more strategic. If you design a map where someone can just go around the pillar, melee figures probably will just run past it and this will make a figure come down off the pillar. If you put the pillar on a choke-point or in the middle of a 7-hex that is on height (besides pillar), then both range and melee might risk climbing up next to a pillar for height advantage on other figures.

NecroBlade
April 24th, 2020, 09:57 PM
Good idea Astroking112. This power can be on the card:
SIGHTING
A figure with a range of 3 or more occupying the top space of this Pillar of Hár may target a figure adjacent to this Pillar of Hár.

Uh...


I don't think targeting rules need to be on the card, though; putting it into the rulebook like the battlement corner line of sight rules seems fine to me.

And anyway, let's not get fancy. Just add "target points" to the corners of the pillar top, exactly like battlements or walls.

flameslayer93
May 5th, 2020, 04:10 PM
For AoE attacks, like Deathwalker 9000’s Explosion SA, should the figure on top of the Pillar be considered adjacent to the Pillar? I don’t believe I saw an effective ruling we could borrow from AotP’s rulebook when I last read it.

Astroking112
May 5th, 2020, 05:37 PM
I'd prefer for the answer to be yes. It makes thematic sense and adds some little counterplay to the towers.

NecroBlade
May 5th, 2020, 11:16 PM
From the Fortress Door:

"Can the shotgun, grenades, and explosion target the Door and hurt someone on the other side?
These attacks will hit someone behind the door because they are adjacent to the door - being behind the closed door does not stop the ability from affecting them."

So I would say yes.

flameslayer93
May 6th, 2020, 07:27 AM
I’ll look around and see if there are any “breaks” in logic, but I do agree AoE attacks should affect the figure on top (and, conversely, the pillar shen the figure is targetted).

How does this sound to add to the rulebook, since its always better to spell things out?

Figures on top of a Pillar of Hár is considered adjacent to it, but they may not target the Pillar of Hár that they are on top of.

NecroBlade
May 9th, 2020, 04:43 PM
Personally I don't really care if figures on top can target it. What are you gonna do, make yourself fall?

flameslayer93
May 9th, 2020, 08:40 PM
OP updated with additional special rules, and playtest reports where they were included. I'll look around and double check to see if there any more to add in later on, and probably do the same thing for the glyphs.

capsocrates
May 13th, 2020, 01:25 PM
It looks to me like we can go to playtesting here?

Scytale
May 13th, 2020, 01:26 PM
It looks to me like we can go to playtesting here?
I haven't done any Editing here yet.

capsocrates
May 13th, 2020, 02:11 PM
D'oh. You're right

Scytale
May 15th, 2020, 05:32 PM
There isn't any sort of checklist for destructible objects, so I'll just try to do the best I can.

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may move to a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár.I think this needs to spell out that the figure does not take any falling damage when climbing down, if that's the intent. Also, there is no such thing as space being adjacent, it should be worded so as to place the figure adjacent.

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller either on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár or the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. Roll an attack die. If a skull is rolled, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.There is a unthematic thing here in that a figure on a Pillar cannot fall onto a space significantly lower than the base of the Pillar, in that the figure could not be placed adjacent to the figure. I'm fine with that for simplicity, but I want to make sure everyone here understands that. This could be avoided by simply making the figure "move 1" and take normal falling damage.

Second, the "adjacent" thing doesn't work if the Pillar is destroyed, as there is no space adjacent to a non-existent Pillar. I suppose we could change that to "before removing the Pillar", but then it could not end on the space the Pillar occupied. We could change to have to occupy the space the Pillar was on if it is destroyed, though I am a bit concerned about Pounce-like attacks that place the figure on the attacked figure's space. Actually, I think Sonic Fists is an existing example. Not sure what would happen first, the fall or Sonic Fists.

flameslayer93
May 15th, 2020, 06:17 PM
Let's do some fine tuning here...

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may be placed on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár and does not receive falling damage.

That should handle Scaling, no?

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound but is not destroyed, a figure on top of it must move 1 space. When this Pillar of Hár receives is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed. A figure moved or placed by Unstable will receive falling damage.

I think that handles that should handle both possible scenarios for when the Pillar takes damage.

As for Sonic Fists I would think that the special attacker would be placed first because of the immediate wording and because he can be placed on spaces where DO's occupied. Pounce itself is a non-issue because it can only target figures.

Astroking112
May 18th, 2020, 03:18 AM
There isn't any sort of checklist for destructible objects, so I'll just try to do the best I can.

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may move to a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár.I think this needs to spell out that the figure does not take any falling damage when climbing down, if that's the intent. Also, there is no such thing as space being adjacent, it should be worded so as to place the figure adjacent.

Does updating the wording to say some form of "place that figure" instead of "move to" for both scaling up and down work? That also handles the lack of adjacent spaces.

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound or is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed by its controller either on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár or the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. Roll an attack die. If a skull is rolled, that figure receives a wound. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed.There is a unthematic thing here in that a figure on a Pillar cannot fall onto a space significantly lower than the base of the Pillar, in that the figure could not be placed adjacent to the figure. I'm fine with that for simplicity, but I want to make sure everyone here understands that. This could be avoided by simply making the figure "move 1" and take normal falling damage.

I'm fine with just destroying the figure in that case. Next time, they shouldn't stand on an unstable tower by a cliff.

Second, the "adjacent" thing doesn't work if the Pillar is destroyed, as there is no space adjacent to a non-existent Pillar. I suppose we could change that to "before removing the Pillar", but then it could not end on the space the Pillar occupied. We could change to have to occupy the space the Pillar was on if it is destroyed, though I am a bit concerned about Pounce-like attacks that place the figure on the attacked figure's space. Actually, I think Sonic Fists is an existing example. Not sure what would happen first, the fall or Sonic Fists.

Would something like "a space that was adjacent to that Pillar of Hár" work? It sounds a little wonky when the pillar isn't destroyed, but I think that the intent is clear.

I agree with flameslayer's interpretation that Pounce and other powers that activate immediately would happen before any Unstable placements. That does mean that the proposed wording in his post would result in a Wolf pounce automatically destroying the figure on top of the pillar, though, which is a strike against it IMO.

flameslayer93
May 18th, 2020, 06:16 AM
The Wolf Pounce won’t auto destroy the figure though? Pounce cannot trigger Unstable since Pounce cannot target DO’s.

Scytale
June 9th, 2020, 02:24 PM
There isn't any sort of checklist for destructible objects, so I'll just try to do the best I can.

SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may move to a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár.I think this needs to spell out that the figure does not take any falling damage when climbing down, if that's the intent. Also, there is no such thing as space being adjacent, it should be worded so as to place the figure adjacent.

Does updating the wording to say some form of "place that figure" instead of "move to" for both scaling up and down work? That also handles the lack of adjacent spaces.
Eh, "placing" is arguably sufficient, but why make it hard to interpret? I think flameslayer's version covers it nicely.

As for Unstable, I don't like "a space that was adjacent," because spaces can't be adjacent (exception for same-level). Again, flameslayer's version works much better. It removes the "fall to the side" aspect, but I personally don't think that's worth keeping with the rules troubles.

I'm not sure I like the "move 1" wording now that I see it. I worry you need to know your rules fairly well to understand what that means and the implications (and that Scaling can't be used with it). But it does allow a figure to fall off onto a space much lower than the pillar, which makes sense thematically.

NecroBlade
June 14th, 2020, 03:16 PM
SCALING
Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement adjacent to a Pillar of Hár may move to the top of that Pillar of Hár. Instead of moving normally, small or medium figures that begin their movement on top of a Pillar of Hár may be placed on a space adjacent to that Pillar of Hár and does not receive falling damage.

UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound but is not destroyed, a figure on top of it must move 1 space. When this Pillar of Hár receives is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed. A figure moved or placed by Unstable will receive falling damage.

I think this is the best we have. I'm fine with "move 1 space" because it's the cleanest way to word it and it shouldn't be hard to understand because figures move every turn. I do wonder if it could be any clearer that "that figure" refers to both figures that move 1 space and figures after the Pillar is destroyed. Maybe "If a figure cannot be placed"?

flameslayer93
June 25th, 2020, 02:44 AM
Played a couple of scenarios with these things. In one game, used Omnicron Snipers and the other, the Airborne Elite. Both games were shutouts as soon as those guys got on the pillars. Although I know it’ll be impossible to prevent some units from being too strong here, I think we can try to tune the effectiveness. My current guess is lowering the defense on these things to 3.

Oh, I should note that these games weren’t really for competitive play. I was just messing around with scenario ideas. :)

NecroBlade
June 28th, 2020, 05:46 PM
3 Defense sounds like the perfect dial to tweak if we need to. Airborne have always been the most dangerous thing you can do with pillars (well, now there's Moltenclaw, too, but he's only 1 figure and doesn't have 8 Range).

capsocrates
July 4th, 2020, 12:44 AM
That sounds good to me.

Scytale
October 23rd, 2020, 03:55 PM
UNSTABLE
When this Pillar of Hár receives a wound but is not destroyed, a figure on top of it must move 1 space. When this Pillar of Hár receives is destroyed, a figure on top of it must be placed on the space the Pillar of Hár previously occupied. If that figure cannot be placed, it is destroyed. A figure moved or placed by Unstable will receive falling damage.
With the "move 1 space" version, a figure could move from one pillar to an adjacent one (and not fall). Is that ok?

Astroking112
October 23rd, 2020, 04:53 PM
I'm fine with that quirk.

Figures could also move to an adjacent cliff or ledge that's closer than the ground is to avoid falling damage, correct?

Scytale
October 23rd, 2020, 04:57 PM
I'm fine with that quirk.

Figures could also move to an adjacent cliff or ledge that's closer than the ground is to avoid falling damage, correct?
Yes

NecroBlade
October 25th, 2020, 06:02 PM
I see no reason not to allow all that.