Battlefields of Valhalla Discussion Thread

[Matthias Maccabeus]

I've run 3 tournaments now and every time I included a Marvel Map. I even included one in the annual Nebraska Skirmish this last year.

I've used -
HopScorch by Elstree (which is probably my second favorite map of all time) Marvel + 2 VW
Hide N Seek by Gamebear Marvel + RttFF + TT
Tempered Flares by Gamebear Marvel + TJ + VW

I enjoyed playing on all 3 maps. When I run tourneys I try to use one map from each Master Set. I'm running one this upcoming weekend and have a DnD, Marvel, and SotM map. No RotV!

I understand that RotV has more hexes than any other set. But form a TD perspective, the less sets you use the better! I don't enjoy grabbing 4 or 5 sets of terrain to just make one map. I'd rather make 2 or 3 maps out of that many sets of terrain.

[xraine69]

Originally Posted by Shades fan

But not competitive tournament rules!

Correct me if I am wrong, but unless I missed it, WOTC has yet to put out official tourney rules which means things can be changed right now. I'm sorry, not trying to start an argument or step on toes, but BoV was started 3 1/2 yrs ago and there are only 20 maps. I would just like to see a larger selection. Just because a map has a high set build, doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. TDs that do not have enough sets can skip that map as a choice and TDs who have mega sets have the choice to use them. I just suggested weather conditons could be used by the BoV when they see a great map, but when it is overbalanced, just to help balance it. Not suggesting we build maps with the conditions in mind, just that the BoV could say, "this map is too range friendly, it is played in fog so subtract 1 or 2 from range." Just really want to see more maps. Good gaming everyone!


By the way, is there any news from WOTC on official tourney rules? Is IAN still heading this up?

[nyys]

20 maps sounds about right to me. Best of the best. If it were easy to get in, then everyone would do it.

All maps are considered as submitted. We of course can make suggestions for improvements, but judges making changes would not only create a huge amount of work (considering changes would have to be tested, and in turn creating a further backlog), but a consensus would have to be reached amongst the panel (for what changes to make), and the BoV itself would no longer be the BoV as we know it.

Instead it would be a panel you submit a map to (that you worked hard on), that we tear apart and do with as we see fit... no thanks.

I'll reiterate, the BoV stays within the rules of HeroScape. Adding something that is not in the rule book (like a fog of war) is a house rule. If WotC were to add Fog of War rules to the next release, then it would of course be considered if a map maker were to use it in his/her map.

--

Right up until the D&D set was released there were no hexes a figure could stand on where the hex itself would give +1 defense (not including height advantage). Would that have been an interesing an useful feature to use in balancing a pre-D&D release map submitted to the BoV? Definitely. But up until that featuer became an official rule it was nothing more than a house rule.

Were the BoV to start adding rules, not only would it get potentially confusing for a new TD to figure out how all the maps work, but where would it end? Eventually you'd have nothing but a bunch of maps that you'd need a separate rule book just to play on them.

[xraine69]

Originally Posted by nyys

Both heavy snow and slippery ice are outlined in the Thalenk Tundra rule book, and therefor official Heroscape rules. Turning rock hexes into difficult terrain to restrict movement (for instance), though interesting, is not an official rule/option and therefore outside HeroScape rules.

3 examples and then I will let you all do your jobs.

1. Heavy winds, flying and parachuting not allowed
2. heavy rains have turn sand to mud, count 2 movement on sand
3. Wet marshy ground, 2 movement on sand tiles

Paraphrased from 3 scenerios printed within the rule book and I have not even checked all official scenerios. Seems to me to be well within official rules.

[nyys]

#1 (minus the parachuting) is accomplished by placing a wind glyph on the map (SuperSonic actually did this on Paved Paradise), and all of them are outlined, as you said, in scenarios.

Nowhere does it say in the RB that sand tiles hinder movement, only in a scenario (which is at the end of the book and explained after all the chapters with actual rules) does that come up. It's not a rule that encompasses all sand tiles on all maps, its a rule specific to the scenario.

If, like in Thalenk Tundra (in the rules section, not scenario section) it specifically stated that you could play it as normal sand or wet sand (like normal snow and heavy snow), then that would be considered and official rule.

Maybe I'm alone here, am I unique in this way of thinking?

I'm not saying scenarios are not a good idea. In fact the 'tourney' I just announced (Battle at the Border III) in April, is doing exactly that, running scenarios, with scenario specific rules.

Having BoV maps at my disposal to use is great for this. I know going in that these 20 maps are balanced within the scope of the official rules.

Now I can add something new here and there and all I have to worry about is making sure what I have added is also balanced.

Less is more in this case IMO.

[1Mmirg]

You are not alone.

I love scenarios and use them for game days, etc. However, the purpose of the BOV is to represent the best of the best, maps that can be used for many different purposes and require (but can receive, if desired) no additional tweaking.

For years, and long before being a judge, I turned to the BOV for stable, well balanced, fun, and accessible maps for events of all kinds.

I've tweaked them for many uses, but what makes them excellent is that they do not require tweaks, though they respond well to scenarios and work for casual and tourney play, game days, quickie maps, or anything else where a small, easily assembled map can serve well. (I've even used them for 2v2 games, often without the need to change anything.)

EDIT: The BOV are in no way the end-all or be-all of maps. They play a specific and limited (though quite flexible) role. There are many sources for a variety of excellent maps on this site for many other uses.

[bunjee]

As a number of other people have said, if a TD is only looking at the BoV inductees to develop their map pool, that is a mistake. Not only are there plenty of maps that are good or great but that haven't been nominated, there are also plenty of very good maps in the nominated but not inducted list.
The BoV was largely started to provide some proven maps for people to grab when they want something without having to do their own research. Any good TD will do research on maps and put together plans to improve the overall quality of their tournament. This is not the "Tournaments of Valhalla" thread.

Scenario style rules that differ map to map have shown to be very problematic for tournaments. Having a rule for the entire event is simple enough that it works out well, but the judges have pretty consistently agreed that the maps should stand well without complex rulesets. Even the Tundra has caused problems when people are unclear about how snow should be treated on any given map.

So yes, please, encourage your favorite map makers to design maps that fall outside of the BoV guidelines. Use those maps, prove those maps come back and plead the case for those maps. But please keep in mind that the judges do discuss at great length and take into account things said by everyone.

[xraine69]

Thank you Bunjee.

[dok]

I apologize to those who thought this topic had died a merciful death...

Originally Posted by Matthias Maccabeus

I understand that RotV has more hexes than any other set. But form a TD perspective, the less sets you use the better! I don't enjoy grabbing 4 or 5 sets of terrain to just make one map. I'd rather make 2 or 3 maps out of that many sets of terrain.

I agree that number of sets is a meaningful measure. I definitely agree that BoV maps should be measured in terms of how many sets of each type they require to build. After all, this is how each of us measures our own collections. Set requirement measures allow us to figure out whether we can build a map, and it allows a TD to figure out what they can build and/or what others can and should bring.

But unless you store your terrain differently than anyone else I know, you don't pull out 4 sets of terrain and then make a map. You have all your terrain stored together, and when you build a map you just pull out the stuff you need as you need it. As such, the amount of actual material required is a meaningful measure. Whether or not a map can be broken down and stored in a small box for transport is a meaningful measure. Whether a map takes a long time to set up or sets up relatively quickly is a meaningful measure.

And for all of those things, the fact that Marvel is a lot smaller than the other master sets is significant. I wouldn't be able to fit BftU+SotM+TJ in a box to transport to the tournament on Friday, but Jack of Spades (BftU+Marvel+TJ) fits nicely in a D&D master set box.

Besides, if the number of sets really is the thing that matters, then why count any set as a double? Why should Marvel count the same as two Tundra sets, if it's the number of sets that matters? I see an inconsistency here. Either the size of the set matters (in which case RotV>SotM>D&D>everything else>TJ&RttFF) or the size of the set doesn't matter (in which case everything is equal). The current rules seem to be dividing things based on whether the words "master set" are on the box.

And just to reiterate what I've said before, I'm not arguing that we need Marvelx2 maps. It's certainly true that lots and lots of people only have one set. The old rules counted Marvel the same as other expansions, but stipulated that you could only use one Marvel set. That made perfect sense to me.

[Matthias Maccabeus]

Originally Posted by dok

I apologize to those who thought this topic had died a merciful death...

I agree that number of sets is a meaningful measure. I definitely agree that BoV maps should be measured in terms of how many sets of each type they require to build. After all, this is how each of us measures our own collections. Set requirement measures allow us to figure out whether we can build a map, and it allows a TD to figure out what they can build and/or what others can and should bring.

But unless you store your terrain differently than anyone else I know, you don't pull out 4 sets of terrain and then make a map. You have all your terrain stored together, and when you build a map you just pull out the stuff you need as you need it. As such, the amount of actual material required is a meaningful measure. Whether or not a map can be broken down and stored in a small box for transport is a meaningful measure. Whether a map takes a long time to set up or sets up relatively quickly is a meaningful measure.

And for all of those things, the fact that Marvel is a lot smaller than the other master sets is significant. I wouldn't be able to fit BftU+SotM+TJ in a box to transport to the tournament on Friday, but Jack of Spades (BftU+Marvel+TJ) fits nicely in a D&D master set box.

Besides, if the number of sets really is the thing that matters, then why count any set as a double? Why should Marvel count the same as two Tundra sets, if it's the number of sets that matters? I see an inconsistency here. Either the size of the set matters (in which case RotV>SotM>D&D>everything else>TJ&RttFF) or the size of the set doesn't matter (in which case everything is equal). The current rules seem to be dividing things based on whether the words "master set" are on the box.

And just to reiterate what I've said before, I'm not arguing that we need Marvelx2 maps. It's certainly true that lots and lots of people only have one set. The old rules counted Marvel the same as other expansions, but stipulated that you could only use one Marvel set. That made perfect sense to me.

I store my terrain just like that. I pull out X number of sets and build the map. It's the most efficient way I've had to build maps and store terrain. It works great. You should try it.

It's only significant to you (and maybe others) that Marvel is smaller. Like I mentioned I've played on (and enjoyed) maps in tourneys that only had Marvel as it's MS. The maps worked great. I'll be doing it again this weekend.

[1Mmirg]

Guess I'm crazy too, but, yes, I store my terrain as sets and only pull out the sets I need to build a map.

[dok]

Fair enough. I do see the logic of storing things that way. Maybe I'll try that when I set things up at my new place.

That said, if that's how you approach things, then why count it double? Why is one set different than another? Either size matters, or it doesn't. I personally think it does, which is why I'm comfortable counting RotV or SotM as more terrain than Marvel. But if you don't think it matters, then why should anything count differently? Why should Marvel count as more than TT? You could build a decent map with just TTx2 and some RttFF, after all.

While it's cool that there are some good Marvel maps out there, I don't see how that's relevant to the question of whether Marvel should count as one or two sets when it's thrown in with another master set on a map.