Rednax's Maps - New Maps 7/6/18

[Sir Heroscape]

Well, random Glyphs do depend on what glyph pool you are working with. Competitively I agree that Crevcor and Astrid are OP and should not be in a glyph pool. I also agree that Valda doesn't lend much use here because it's an already small map and road heavy one at that. Be careful not to underestimate the power o insta-wound (let alone 2) upon your opponent's army. Wannock slowly eats away at your opponent and even if you control it for just 3 rounds, that's 3 (for 1) or 6 (for 2) wounds that could be heaped up on a hero or soaked in the squad ranks. Keep in mind that games on average last anywhere between 6-8 rounds and if an army is able to keep hold of those Wannocks would decimate the opponent. Even if Wannock may speed games up, that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Faster games would likely come from one army holding both and winning by simple, slow attrition. My main qualm comes with the endgame though. The endgame can be one of the most exciting times while armies fight to the last man, but Wannock can really make that lackluster while players try to fight over who can hold Wannock to outlast the opponent. I've won a lot of games by simple holding Wannock in the endgame and forcing my opponent to try and take me off of it. 1 is fine imo, but 2 can just be too one-sided if the right army has the power to hold them.

[rednax]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

Well, random Glyphs do depend on what glyph pool you are working with. Competitively I agree that Crevcor and Astrid are OP and should not be in a glyph pool. I also agree that Valda doesn't lend much use here because it's an already small map and road heavy one at that. Be careful not to underestimate the power o insta-wound (let alone 2) upon your opponent's army. Wannock slowly eats away at your opponent and even if you control it for just 3 rounds, that's 3 (for 1) or 6 (for 2) wounds that could be heaped up on a hero or soaked in the squad ranks. Keep in mind that games on average last anywhere between 6-8 rounds and if an army is able to keep hold of those Wannocks would decimate the opponent. Even if Wannock may speed games up, that doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Faster games would likely come from one army holding both and winning by simple, slow attrition. My main qualm comes with the endgame though. The endgame can be one of the most exciting times while armies fight to the last man, but Wannock can really make that lackluster while players try to fight over who can hold Wannock to outlast the opponent. I've won a lot of games by simple holding Wannock in the endgame and forcing my opponent to try and take me off of it. 1 is fine imo, but 2 can just be too one-sided if the right army has the power to hold them.

Those are fair points, and I'll try playing more games on this map to see if I notice what you're talking about. I'm still not totally sold on random power glyphs, though. If you had to choose two static glyphs for this map, are there any you'd recommend over two Wannoks?

[Sir Heroscape]

Truth is, sometimes I prefer really weak Glyphs being used so that the focus can be on the maps features being used for the advantage of battle rather than fighting over a glyph. Initiative, Unique Attack +1, and D20 +1 would all be fairly weak Glyphs that I think would be fine. Defense +1 is sometimes a good counter to Wannock because "you may give me a wound, but I have extra defense", but with the glyphs so close, it could be fairly easy for 1 army to grab and hold both and that would make the defense glyph OP on this map.

[rednax]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

Truth is, sometimes I prefer really weak Glyphs being used so that the focus can be on the maps features being used for the advantage of battle rather than fighting over a glyph. Initiative, Unique Attack +1, and D20 +1 would all be fairly weak Glyphs that I think would be fine. Defense +1 is sometimes a good counter to Wannock because "you may give me a wound, but I have extra defense", but with the glyphs so close, it could be fairly easy for 1 army to grab and hold both and that would make the defense glyph OP on this map.

Interesting. I definitely understand the frustration when a game becomes more about glyph-grabbing than the actual terrain. But I still feel that glyphs are such useful map-making tools to ensure that certain parts of a map see play. Or perhaps they're a crutch map-makers rely on.

I'm thinking about starting a thread for map-makers to discuss the use of glyphs in map-making. I think there are a lot of interesting opinions about which glyphs to use and how they should be used, and I'd love to get more people in on the discussion.

[rednax]

I've got two new maps to share today!

Bridge May Be Icy


Requirements: 1 SotM, 1 TT, 1 RttFF
Glyphs: Wannok, Valda
Notes: Normal Snow, Normal Ice

My reason for creating this first map was because I wanted to make a map that used the Thaelenk Tundra set and one that included an elevated bridge, neither of which I've really done before. I know that bridge setups like this can be biased towards range, so I tried to counteract that with lots of line of sight blockers and glyphs to draw attention away from the bridge. I was worried about the line of sight blockers creating choke points, but I think I found a good compromise.

Jungle Fever


Requirements: 1 SotM, 1 VW, 1 TJ
Glyphs: Dagmar, Valda

This second map serves as a response to my last lava map, Forest Fire. There was simply too much terrain to use with the VW/RttFF combo on a map of such a small footprint, and it ended up creating a lot of choke points. The VW/TJ combo felt a lot better for me, as I was able to essentially build a map just around the VW and then add in the TJ later, rather than having to design VW and RttFF together. My other goal with this map was to avoid having lava dominate all the height as I tended to do in previous maps, and I think I found a good balance. This is also my first map in a while not to use a wound glyph, as I'm sure some of you will be happy to see!

As always, I look forward to any suggestions!

[Typhon2222]

I REALLY like the looks of Bridge May Be Icy! An inspired design, I think, just glancing it over. I like the clever and uncommon bilaterally symmetrical design (much harder to pull off than the typical radially symmetrical map). Great pairing of Hive and 6-hex glacier, despite the fact that their footprints can't be mirrored. Great hemming in of the bridge with massive LOS blockers. And capping it off, gorgeous aesthetics. Big thumbs up.

[rednax]

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

I REALLY like the looks of Bridge May Be Icy! An inspired design, I think, just glancing it over. I like the clever and uncommon bilaterally symmetrical design (much harder to pull off than the typical radially symmetrical map). Great pairing of Hive and 6-hex glacier, despite the fact that their footprints can't be mirrored. Great hemming in of the bridge with massive LOS blockers. And capping it off, gorgeous aesthetics. Big thumbs up.

Thank you so much Typhon! I've always been a huge admirer of your maps, so that means a lot coming from you.

I love bilateral maps because every point along the axis only occurs once, whereas on a radially symmetrical map almost every point has something that mirrors it. Bilateral maps are a great opportunity for those terrain pieces that you only get one of like the big tree and the bridge.

Thank you for also noticing the Hive and 6-hex glacier combo. I think if I had made this map a few years ago, I may have been compelled to add a tree or 1-hex glacier next to each one to make them perfectly symmetrical. Now I recognize that the LOS blockers are almost functionally the same, and to add a tree or glacier to even it out would be a waste of a piece as well as less aesthetically pleasing.

I knew that the bridge was gonna be a powerful location, so I figured it only fair to have LOS blockers galore. I think they're fairly successful in practice.