The Tournament-Worthy Asymmetric Map Workshop

[dok]

Originally Posted by dok

Along the same lines, you have to keep in mind what any primarily melee army is going to do if they get the castle. They can't properly take advantage of the height, and we're giving the other side better access to the glyphs.

One idea along these lines is that jungle terrain (a-la Forgotten Outpost) is probably a better bet than a defense glyph. This way, a castle-based melee army is on closer to even ground if they have to roll out against a ranged opponent.

Gorthan - how about stingers&rats&Q9 versus glads&blasts&Raelin? Boring, yeah, but any map that makes for an interesting game both ways in that fight has potential as a tournament map.

[gorthan313]

Originally Posted by dok

One idea along these lines is that jungle terrain (a-la Forgotten Outpost) is probably a better bet than a defense glyph. This way, a castle-based melee army is on closer to even ground if they have to roll out against a ranged opponent.

Gorthan - how about stingers&rats&Q9 versus glads&blasts&Raelin? Boring, yeah, but any map that makes for an interesting game both ways in that fight has potential as a tournament map.

Any ideas for army makeup for either army?

[dok]

Originally Posted by gorthan313

Any ideas for army makeup for either army?

Eh, I dunno. How about the top two GenCon armies?

4x Marro Stingers
2x Deathreavers
Raelin
Kaemon Awa

4x Gladiatrons (drop 1)
2x Blastatrons
Raelin

[KCU Master 2007]

I'm back, and I bring a battle report with me, along with some changes (small structural changes) and one proposed change (need some advice).


First, the battle report. My fiance and I played 2 games tonight, both on Forgotten Outpost. Both games our armies were the same; I played 3x 4th Mass, Nilfhiem, Rotv Raelin, and Tarns (need just a few more points and don't have another set of 4th, guess I could have proxied) vs. 2x Minions, 2x Snipers, Sotm Raelin, Isamu (my 3rd place army from NHSD with Isamu added).

The first game I was in the red start zone (attackers). I positioned my Raelin behind the bush by the attack glyph then began moving my 4th on to the hill. Her snipers picked off a few of them and I just made sure to stay out of range. I also sent my Tarns forward to try to draw out the minions and it worked. After a whole volley of 4 attacks or 3, I didn't kill a minion. We repeated that for a bit then I decided to move Nilfhiem forward to try and get the Minions while they were locked down. Her Snipers didn't do much damage to him. After Nilf went down I moved my 4th up the hill killing her 4 snipers in the tower leaving her with 2 left in the Castle. I claimed the move glyph and used the road to help move a whole squad of 4th into the castle killing Isamu and 1 Sniper. Raelin engaged 2 of my 4th and killed one then I put wounds on her. In the end my last 4th entered the Castle (I had 1 Tarn on the attack glyph and my Raelin was dead) and shot the sniper to end the game.

The second game I was defending and loaded the walls up with 4th Mass. and put the Tarns behind the outer wall (hoping to use the road and move glyph to charge onto the bridge and kill some Snipers or Minions). We exchanged fire and I managed to get her down to less than a squad of snipers (she still had all her Minions). I moved Nilf out and killed another Sniper, 2 Minions and put 2 hits on Raelin before he went down. My 4th shot the last sniper (he had to move into range to get a shot). She set up her Raelin and Minions so that I couldn't hit Raelin and her Minions would be protected till the were on top of the wall (I had Raelin, 1 Tarn, and 1 squad of 4th). Managed to kill all but one Minion before my 4th went down. Realin finished him off then her wounded Raelin. Her Isamu came out and finished put 3 wounds on my Raelin (killing her) and then killed the Tarn after vanishing from one attack.


These results are exactly the opposite of what I expected. I was expecting a close win in the defenders favor (she probably would have won the first game when she was defending but made a few mistakes). I don't know what to make of these, I mean I had some poor dice rolls but she made some mistakes.


The changes:
I just changed a couple of the wall pieces so they would fit together a little better, but the wall remained essentially the same (the inner ladders are both on the ends of the wall now though).

The bigger change though is the ruins. I forgot to put them on and think I stumbled across a happy mistake. If the ruins had been on the board the defenders wouldn't have been able to get a good shot at the attackers coming up the hill till it was too late. That coupled with the attack glyph would break the map in my opinion.

I think we should eliminate either the large ruin or both ruins. But I want some feedback before I make that decision.

Edit: Sorry about the length.

[KCU Master 2007]

Didn't see the new map, so sorry for the double post but these should probably be kept separate anyway.

Where the Road ends.
When I first saw this map in Long's thread I was skeptical about it, and I still am now. The side starting in the sand (I'm assuming sand and rock are the start zones) has a huge advantage over the side starting in the rock in terms of mobility, glyphs, and height. The fact that the exposed glyph is the attack glyph makes me even more skeptical.

The side in the rock has limited space to move, no easy way to height even though its just outside their start zone, and no easy access to glyphs; not to mention, one set of trees does not provide adequate cover from ranged attacks.

I really just don't see how this map could be tournament worthy, not without a big overhaul. However, given his status, I'm sure that there's something I'm not seeing. I find it very hard to believe he would post a map without play testing it extensively first.

[nyys]

Concerning the glyphs on Fort Lannister, the ones I used and their placement I'm sure will be changed extensively (I encourage moving them around, even changing the ones used in the interests of balance).

My thinking with the four I used is that they would be the most beneficial to the attackers, but at the same time I didn't want to make it easy for them. I may have made it too difficult to keep the glyphs though and I also hadn't though about the number of figures needed just to hold them.

Another thought just came to mind, and that is the Hive. As is I'm not sure if it will fit in the castle, which is a requirement for the BoV (that the Hive can fit somewhere in either start zone).

I'm chomping at the bit to get some of these maps set-up and give them a go. The weekend can't come soon enough.

Originally Posted by dok

I like the broken wall feature of Fort Lannister. It makes it possible for the attacker to jump inside and go after heroes, which is nice. One specific criticism to that map - currently a double-spaced figure can only start on one side of the battlements.

I'm not sure I follow. There is room for a double spaced figure on either side of the castle, or do you mean the ability for a double spacer to climb up top?

Note: If you are the defender you can start a Q9 on top, there's just no way down without rolling for falling damage in some spots.

[S1R_ART0R1US]

Dok, for armies you may want to check out this. I think this is a really cool idea, and I think incorporating lesser known gylphs is a good idea, especially if TDs are selecting symmetrical maps that use random gylphs. It would be easier to have the right gylphs so that a whole pool doesn't have to be supplied for each map and resources aren't wasted.

Good luck guys!

[KCU Master 2007]

Originally Posted by nyys

Note: If you are the defender you can start a Q9 on top, there's just no way down without rolling for falling damage in some spots.

This just makes me cringe and could, in all reality, break the map nyys, which is something I really don't want to see happen here.

I'm hoping to have the updated PDF and pic up for Forgotten Outpost by tomorrow night. If not then expect it Thursday evening.

[dok]

Originally Posted by nyys

I'm not sure I follow. There is room for a double spaced figure on either side of the castle, or do you mean the ability for a double spacer to climb up top?

Note: If you are the defender you can start a Q9 on top, there's just no way down without rolling for falling damage in some spots.

What I mean is that Q9 can't start out on top of the wall on the left side (looking down); just the right side. You don't have two adjacent hexes on the left wall that are listed as start zones.

[nyys]

Originally Posted by KCU Master 2007

This just makes me cringe and could, in all reality, break the map nyys, which is something I really don't want to see happen here.

Possibly, we'll have to let the playtesting tell us for sure. Limiting a figure like Q9 may be a good thing IMO, or are you cringing becasue he can start on top and rain fire immediately?

Originally Posted by dok

What I mean is that Q9 can't start out on top of the wall on the left side (looking down); just the right side. You don't have two adjacent hexes on the left wall that are listed as start zones.

Ah, I see, didn't catch that. Looks like Ollie is right in his assesment that this is going to take a pretty massive effort to get a map of this nature to work. Keep the feeback coming, this is all stuff I (and anyone who tries the map out) should try to keep in mind.

[dok]

Originally Posted by nyys

Possibly, we'll have to let the playtesting tell us for sure. Limiting a figure like Q9 may be a good thing IMO, or are you cringing becasue he can start on top and rain fire immediately?

I think we need to provide a way for Q9 to get down, and, conversely, a way for Krug/Cavalry/Hounds/Stalkers/Giants/Dinos to get up. Some sort of "stairway" seems like a possible solution. the minimal stairway would be a double hex at height 4 and another double hex at height 8. Still, this has a couple issues, notably:

• A smart defender can hold up a charging Krug by putting one figure on the bottom step each turn. Sure, that figure dies, but unless there's an initiative change Krug never moves up a step.
  
  A possible solution here is to make the steps bigger (say, 4 hexes wide each) so that it's harder to block advancement.
  
  
• 4 hex tall steps can't be used by slower figures. There are no 4 move large or huge figures, but knights and zombies won't be able to take advantage of the "stairs" to move large groups up into the battlements like faster figures could.
  
  Along the same lines, short figures (Gruts, Agents, Aubriens, Blastarons) wouldn't be able to bound down the steps like height 5+ figures could.
  
  EDIT: Now that I think about it, double-hex figures need 6 move to climb a 4-high stair, so Grimnak, Krug, and Gurei-Oni would be unable to climb. So it's a non-starter.
  
  The solution to both of these issues would be to make the steps in increments of 3 or less.

The net implication of the fixes to these problems would be to devote more and more hexes to the "stairway". This almost demands a re-imagining of the entire scenario. In stead of a complete "fortress", you have something like a half-built motte-and-bailey structure, or something altogether different like a cliff or a dam or a retaining wall. So... it's a whole different concept, but it could make for an interesting and decidedly asymmetric scenario.

I must emphasize that I am really, really terrible at map construction, but I might play around with this a little this weekend and see if I can come up with anything. Whatever I come up with will almost certainly be ugly/flawed, but it might serve as a springboard for further design.

[Gomolka]

Edit: The map I posted was pseudo-symmetric, which doesn't follow the theme of this thread.

I'm going to play test one of the maps tonight. Probably Caught In The Middle. I'll report back later tonight.