Welcome to the Engineers of Valhalla

[Archie97]

Not traditionally no, someone in the thread had mentioned doing card for display thread and table reference purposes, which I think is a good idea. As it stands there are few enough terrain rules that no cards is fine, but hopefully we'll be changing that soon enough!

[Shiftrex]

Might as well have cards unless we plan on publishing psuedo rulebook expansions like the original game did fir terrain.

[Just_a_Bill]

Army cards make sense for Destructible Objects, but I don't see a need for cards for tiles, LOS blockers, etc., even if they have their own rules. Hasbro created plenty of terrain with special effects (heavy snow, slippery ice, lava fields, molten lava, Jungle Pieces, shadow spaces, battlements, bridge walls ... heck, even water and swamp water have their own special rules), but they didn't make cards for any of them.

And if we think about it, although we might have thought the reason Destructible Objects get an army card is because they have a couple of numeric stats, it's more likely that the card was created to meet the need of having a specific place to accumulate wound markers.

If somebody really wants a card for some non-DO terrain, they can make one; but since it differs from what Hasbro has always done we'd want to recognize that this would be at least a Tier II design choice and more likely Tier III. If the terrain piece itself were Tier I or II, then it should have rules defined the way Hasbro/WotC would define them, and those rules should be the official arbiter; there could also be an optional Tier III army card, but from an "authority" standpoint it would defer to the official rule.

I suppose there could also be some kind of "make a card for everything" project, where cards are created for slippery ice, swamp water, falling damage, height advantage ... personally I wouldn't want them (just more clutter) but others might.

[Shiftrex]

So, how are we going to format the rules for pieces of terrain?

Are we going to make a PDF that looks like a rulebook expansion, a post on heroscapers with a loose picture and description, a card... just saying that cards need to be a lower tier add on doesn't solve the problem. This is a question about what format the rules for any special terrain pieces or tiles need to be in. Like you said, there are rules for many types of terrain... these all come in rulebook expansions in lieu of having cards or other reminders made for them with the exception of D/Os.

If we are enamored with the idea of doing things like Hasbro (which I am not) then we need to create rulebook expansions for terrain pieces.

I think we need to figure out exactly what our finished product looks like, just so everyone has the same clear picture and then honestly start. I know that I'd like to start putting up some terrain and working through it instead of just talking about this for much longer.

[wriggz]

https://www.heroscapers.com/communit...ad.php?t=35087

I did cards a while ago. I find they work really well.

[S1R_ART0R1US]

Originally Posted by wriggz

https://www.heroscapers.com/communit...ad.php?t=35087

I did cards a while ago. I find they work really well.

This is awesome and exactly the type of thing I had in mind for this! I love the wasteland terrain, swamp plants, arcane portals, and cavern crystals. I think I'll use some of these terrain designs and do a bit of mapmaking for playtesting.

[Just_a_Bill]

This project needs a clear focus and guidelines that everyone can agree on, or it will either burn out or degrade into endless arguments. It's becoming more clear to me that "gallery of customs" is going to better deliver what folks want in this thread, rather than my goal of extending the game in a manner that respects the established design ethos. So I think you guys should proceed with making terrain and cards, and I will stop trying to shepherd a project that isn't looking for shepherding.

And hey, without my nagging perhaps TREX would consider contributing again.

[Shiftrex]

I value your suggestions, it is just obvious that you are approaching it from a weird angle.

Use of language like "shepherd" for example, implies that you are trying to guide things that don't know any better. I don't think anyone here really wants to be approached in that way, I'm willing to bet that a lot of us are professionals in our daily lives and don't have time for that. I know that I don't have time for that.

If I was going to rehash our goals, it isn't the "gallery of customs" that you seem to be talking about disdainfully. We want a process to workshop and approve customs, we want thought to go into them but we want accessibility for contribution, and once something is workshopped we want to be able to vote and put a seal of approval on it that it has not only gone through a process but it is a product that we believe is beneficial for others to use at their table.

Personally, I would think that once we build up a library we might approach a local TC (tournament coordinator) about using them. I know that I'd see if Utah Monthlies were interested in using EoV terrain once we got some stuff rolling. That's a side idea though and secondary to the one that I put out. If I'm crazy off course with what I thought we were doing then :P feel free to drag me back in.

Side note, the SoV evolved from a project that was a collection of customs in a gallery that a group of members voted on to induct into a hall of quality.


EDIT: To be clear, I wasn't trying to support cards or to bag on them. I wasn't trying to support a rulebook PDF done on heroscape stationary (though that sounds cool) nor was I trying to discourage it. I was asking, what we were going to do and trying to impart some urgency to figuring that out as a group. I'm not terribly interested in dragging a subject like that out for a month.

This project thread was started in May which is creeping towards the 2 month mark, I don't see any reason why we aren't nailing these things done and proceeding. I don't want to sit until 6 months before we do anything. That's all.

[Just_a_Bill]

And it is precisely because my "angle is weird" from the group perspective that I am stepping back. In my mind, it would go without saying that a project like this would do its best to carry on in the Hasbro design ethos, but that's turning out to be a minority view.

The phrase "gallery of customs" was chosen to sound neutral, not negative. (I think I even said earlier that there are plenty of positive customs galleries in the community.) But clearly that failed. "Shepherding" was also intended to be neutral, with all of us being the shepherds and the designs being the sheep. I guess you thought I was calling everyone else sheep, so again I failed to communicate what I wanted. Probably another indication that I'm in a room I don't belong in.

Should I object to the phrase "weird angle" and point out that my angle may be different from yours but is not necessarily weird? I suppose I could, but there's no point in starting up a cycle of being butthurt about word choices. The point is, people in this discussion want different things, and that's totally fine. Those different things can be pursued in different ways.

I'm not trying to run down the project; I'm trying to say that as my understanding improves, I'm acknowledging that it is not the type of project I'm looking for. If there is not an inherent consensus about trying to pursue "official looking everything" then my participation will not be helpful to the project.

Sorry about the wording choices.

[wriggz]

Sorry if I derailed the conversation. I only mosted my card as an example of what official looking cards would look like (you'll note I made cards for official terrain).

The c3g did the rule book model for the modified (read forgiving) lava rules and they looked awesome.

If you did a quick sand or wasteland terrain you could also get some of the more creative folks to create a senario which would be really cool. It would be awesome to get enough traction with an official design to get either an SoV terrain custom approved or C3V to create a custom.

I would be disappointed with a custom gallery, since some consensus on terrain is some what wanting.

[Shiftrex]

As a group, wouldn't the goal be to approve things ourselves? If all we are looking for is approval from SoV or C3V we could just submit them and talk to those people now.

It'd be ok to get input from someone over there but I don't think we should "fall under" anything like that especially since those folks specialize in units. We should get our process set, start up some work and get some quality pieces approved. Honestly, I'd be less worried about trying to get VC approval over anything as opposed to getting some play groups to start using and accepting it as official.

That'd be the real money maker for me, is to have people using the terrain not trying to get approval from a group of really busy people on the forum.

[wriggz]

So, I will throw down my 2 cents. One cent for a suggestion for process, one for my opinion

1. If this has been mentioned earlier, i apologize. If this was a project I was trying to get going at work this would be my focus, Start small with something to can prove your process with. I would create a Vote Poll to determine a simple piece to start with: Quicksand, Wasteland, AotP Cryptolith, and maybe a something like a well or obelisk from one of the many terrain lines out there. Pick one piece and have someone take point on determining the Rules and someone else the process of making it look official. The rest of the group chimes in on the rules (if any) and suggestions on the best walkthrough on basing/painting/where to find etc. When the design is as good as theory will take it, test the crap out of it. I mean consider every unit, and play a bunch of games. Vote to see if you are happy with the play tested design. When you are done with that get someone good with photoshop and make something that looks official to release. When that is done, vote to make it "official". Write down every step of the process and codify it. This is a ton of work, but you will have a polished piece at the end.

I would recommend this if you want consensus. IF you take the SoV route, you are basically just judging the works of other creators, which you could just start doing. Scan though this forum and pick some stuff out to highlight and create tutorials for. That is super easy. would be great bang for your buck and would be cool to look at. Would it ever be canon? No, but that might be okay and would be an excellent resource for people to go to get ideas for their own customs.

2. If you want community acceptance it should be a lot of work. trust me, I have played lots of games with my custom terrain and even ran a couple of mini tournaments with it in play. You will need to test the crap out of it if there are rules since it may not be fun or interesting once it is in play. Take Lava for example. It is so punishing it is basically a blank spot on the map.

I mentioned the C3V/SOV since that group is filled with pillars of this community. They truly love Classic scape and are a large enough group that they add weight to your design. Additionally they have collectively Thousands of hours of play time and will spot design problems quickly. If you cannot get that group's approval, I would try to get input from people that have the same "tenure" as people there. Just_A_Bill is an amazing member of this community and it would be a shame to not tap into that resource.

Things that are truly good take time, and you need a very robust process to ensure you avoid errors and pitfalls. Otherwise this does turn into a gallery of customs which is neat, but will never have the consensus that I believe is the point of this entire enterprise.