The Tournament-Worthy Asymmetric Map Workshop

[dok]

Originally Posted by Gomolka

In the matches I played, the split starting zones only presented to be an advantage. I was able to move my rats from both sides, and hold glyphs on both sides with the KMA/Q9/Laglor army. However, as dok said, I had to put KMA/Laglor/Q9/Raelin all on one side in order to get the benefits from Raelin and Laglor's auras, and I just put some Reavers on the other side. With the 4th army, the split sides was even more of an advantage, since I was able to post 4th up on both sides on height with WTF to defend the glyph.

Both of those armies are able to handle the split in an elegant way. For the former army, all the synergy fits in 12 hexes, while the rats can operate independently. In the latter army, there's no auras or synergy to use. But a Raelin/Glad/Blast army would face a difficult situation, as half the army would be forced to operate without Raelin's aura.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by dok

But a Raelin/Glad/Blast army would face a difficult situation, as half the army would be forced to operate without Raelin's aura.

On Fort Lannister that may actually be a good thing. As is, it looks like too big an advantage has been give to the attacker, but we'll see, two games is hardly enough to draw conclusions.

This example though is exactly why I brought up the 'more start zone options' argument in the BoV thread. The armies would still be limited to 24 figures, but we could give them more places to deploy in order to maximize the build.

If able to do this (give more options), on Fort Lannister I would most likely give the entire 24 hex rock pieces on either side as places to deploy for the attacker.

It may turn out, in the interests of balance, this BoV rule may have to be ignored and though it would automatically take FL out of the running for induction, it would give another balanced map choice to Tournament Directors (if that's what it took to put FL over the edge as balanced).

[dok]

Originally Posted by nyys

On Fort Lannister that may actually be a good thing. As is, it looks like too big an advantage has been give to the attacker, but we'll see, two games is hardly enough to draw conclusions.

This is a tricky path to follow. As Gomolka's games demonstrate, the split start zones are not a major detriment to certain armies. It doesn't do us much good to weaken the Glad/Blast/Raelin build, if other powerful ranged builds (stingers, 4th mass, Raelin/Laglor/Q9/KMA, etc) are not affected at all.

Originally Posted by nyys

This example though is exactly why I bought up the 'more start zone options' argument in the BoV thread. The armies would still be limited to 24 figures, but we could give them more places to deploy in order to maximize the build.

If able to do this (give more options), on Fort Lannister I would most likely give the entire 24 hex rock pieces on either side as places to deploy for the attacker.

It may turn out, in the interests of balance, this BoV rule may have to be ignored and though it would automatically take FL out of the running for induction, it would give another balanced map choice to Tournament Directors.

I agree completely with all of this.

[dok]

Originally Posted by ollie

I don't think attack/defence glyphs are such an issue in the split zone approach to asymmetry; Caught in the Middle specified random glyphs and I'm inclined to stick with that for now.

Oh right, my mistake. If we're using random glyphs, then sure, we should keep attack and defense in the pool. We just probably need to balance access to the glyphs a bit.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by dok

This is a tricky path to follow. As Gomolka's games demonstrate, the split start zones are not a major detriment to certain armies. It doesn't do us much good to weaken the Glad/Blast/Raelin build, if other powerful ranged builds (stingers, 4th mass, Raelin/Laglor/Q9/KMA, etc) are not affected at all.

That's a very good point. My heart certainly wouldn't bleed for a Glads/Blasts army that had a handicap, but if the build only affected them this way, that's definitely is not fair.

[ollie]

On Caught In The Middle I think I'm going to work on the assumption that having your start zone split is equivalent to the disadvantage of having most of your start zone on level 0 and work from there, aiming to balance access to height, glyphs and cover equally. Sound like a good working hypothesis?

[dok]

Originally Posted by dok

I've completed a new version of "halfway up the downs" that legally arranges the TJ pieces (or at least I think so).

Looking at this map a bit more, I am thinking that I would like to move the smaller ruin (the one on slightly higher ground) one hex to the right. This will slightly widen the middle gap, but narrow the right side gap, and in total it probably blocks LOS a bit more effectively.

The basic goal of the ruins there is to obstruct ranged engagements, particularly in the first turn or two. This disadvantages a primarily ranged army on the high ground, but is an advantage for a primarily melee army on the high ground. Both of these things seem like good effects to me.

[Gomolka]

Originally Posted by ollie

On Caught In The Middle I think I'm going to work on the assumption that having your start zone split is equivalent to the disadvantage of having most of your start zone on level 0 and work from there, aiming to balance access to height, glyphs and cover equally. Sound like a good working hypothesis?

Sounds good to me.

[dok]

Originally Posted by ollie

On Caught In The Middle I think I'm going to work on the assumption that having your start zone split is equivalent to the disadvantage of having most of your start zone on level 0 and work from there, aiming to balance access to height, glyphs and cover equally. Sound like a good working hypothesis?

I would say yes, with the probable caveat that, as nyys suggests, this sort of map might only work with a "24 hexes out of this larger area" start zone arrangement. If someone decides to put their entire army on one side, then they begin with a small height advantage, but effectively concede one of the glyphs.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by dok

I would say yes, with the probable caveat that, as nyys suggests, this sort of map might only work with a "24 hexes out of this larger area" start zone arrangement. If someone decides to put their entire army on one side, then they begin with a small height advantage, but effectively concede one of the glyphs.

I'm going to resist that for a while on Caught In The Middle. I think it's more pressing on Fort Lannister because of the proximity of the start zones. If the consensus is that it will really help (once the next draft has had a couple of games) then we should think about it. One fear is that it will have to make either the map longer or the start zones closer together, two things I'm trying to avoid.

EDIT. A question about random-glyph protocol. I know of two systems in common use:

1. Place armies, reveal glyphs, roll initiative for the first round.
2. Don't reveal until they are stepped on.

Does anyone play that they are revealed before army placement? I'm assuming, and hoping, not.

[nyys]

I'd like to get a bunch more games in on FL V2 before making further changes (like the 'bridge' and start zone options), but definitely things to consider.

I've always played glyphs are not revealed until stepped on.

[dok]

Originally Posted by ollie

No-one seems to be biting on Watchtower. My guess is that is because the active developers are more inspired by the other maps rather than because it's not worth pursuing. Unless anyone (MI_Tiger?) volunteers for some play time on it in the next day or two I'm going to create a new category "Backburner" where promising maps that are not under active consideration can hang-out until someone revives them.

My issues with that map:

- As pointed out by MI_Tiger, it's only an asymmetric map in the sense that one start zone is closer to the tower. If one did move forward with trying to make that a regular tournament map, the first thing you would do would probably be to rearrange things so that both start zones are equidistant from the tower. At that point it is basically a symmetric map.

- Although the winding stair idea is really cool and beautifully done, it runs into all the double-spaced figure problems we've seen elsewhere, and if anything, they're even worse here.