[TREX]

Originally Posted by S1R_ART0R1US

I agree with @Shiftrex and @TREX .

Here's what I'm picturing for Engineers of Valhalla:

1. An "Engineering Review Board" with defined members that vote on whether designs are EoV approved. This approval is to signify the design's quality and compatibility with existing Heroscape terrain/figures/canon.
2. Designs to be submitted must include certain elements (the first two I stole from TREX)
a. DO, a passive terrain piece, or an interactive terrain piece
b. Competitive maps, or scenario/for fun maps
c. Rules design (added on a to-be-designed EoV template card like glyphs and DOs have)
d. Access instructions (this could be an .stl file, a papercraft .pdf, a set of instructions for sculpting out of foamcore, a commercial SKU/product ID. It just needs to be a way where somebody can make/buy the design for home use)
3. An individual (on the ERB or not) can only have one design in review at a time.
4. Some voting threshold for approval, which adds you to an index of approved terrain elements.
5. A checklist or grading guideline for the ERB to weigh approval with. Questions can include:
a. Does the design fit into HeroScape canon?
b. Is the design reasonably made or procured?
c. Are the rules coherently written?
d. Do the rules interfere in a negative way with gameplay?
e. Has the designed been playtested/how does it play?
f. Are there examples uses of the design on maps provided?
g. etc

This is a great outline. We will want to put this in a thread probably called welcome to the EOV. (Engineers of Valhalla). Other bits we will want to put somewhere will be how long members will have to vote on a design. If a member is on hiatus too long and it holds up the process it leads to stagnation of the project and frustration for fellow members. We will need a play test minimum set in order. Nothing too crazy. These pieces should be fairly easily to spot if they are broken for competitive play, which would move them to the for fun category if changes are not made. Unless they aren’t fun and are game breaking , then at that point it should be reworked or discarded.

To add to examples of what should be asked, it should be similar to a play test used in other groups:
1. Is the design fun
2. Is the design fun for your opponent
3. Is the design something you would want on the battlefield.
4. Are elements of the design game breaking.
5. Does the design bring something new to the table.


I like where this conversation is heading. So far it looks pretty good.