Nomad - Sacrifice is pleasant to look at on the table with a nice footprint and full use of tiles in the Swarm master set with the Jungle expansion. But, after a couple of battles on the map, some issues in game play emerged:
1) The map has a number of hillocks that dragons and ranged figures love. Braxas was a killing machine, flying from elevation to elevation across the map. I also worry about Zelrig bombs. In a single move or two, ranged squads can get height and fire away.
2) Given the number of hills and the bumpy pathing across the map, melee figures are at a distinct disadvantage to engage and not get showered by bullets, arrows, and ray guns.
3) First play-test was over on the first OM of round three resulting in a huge blowout. The second test barely made it to the 5th round, only because the losing team had 18 figures of melee to be decimated.
Perhaps the map can be cleaned up to improve the experience. I like the start zones, the central hive hill, and the placement of jungle and water tiles. As is, I vote for Sacrifice.
----- Flash_19 -
First off, I appreciate the attempt to create a tournament map with not much terrain to work with. I do also like the aesthetics of the map - it looks really cool.
Unfortunately, there are a couple issues with Sacrifice:
1) Podding Potential - there's a little too much height too close to the start zone on the left side in relation to how height is distributed through the middle side parts of the map. The glyphs on the side are really exposed - actually too much so considering the podding potential of that left side. You want to dare take that glyph? Range don't care - they'll just shred you from an easy height position to obtain and maintain throughout the game.
2) The two level 0 inverse speed bumps (on the edges of the level 3 swamp terrain) hurt melee way too much - in games I played, those single hex dips along that path made all the difference in preventing some key engagements.
I really love the clear start zones, and I overall like the pathing options out of the start zone. With so little terrain though, I might try to reduce the amount of level 3 height in order to smooth out a couple of the speed bumps - including the middle side areas around the glyphs. If you're fighting a ranged army, sending any units down into that area is a death sentence.
Sir Heroscape - This map suffers from having a small footprint, which can be concerning for start zone bombs as well as congestion in general...but I think it does enough things right to make it work.
1) Development is easy and fast. While Range has a nice double hexer to work with, they got just 1 turn to get into position, cause the map is setup really well so that by OM2 your opponent can already engage and attack.
2) Glyphs. Well placed and low power. They're not in the way. They have a natural spot and they give a fair bonus. Not using them doesn't feel like a waste, and using them can give you just enough of an edge. I really like the choices...especially because they are less likely to "Break" the map with this selection of glyphs
3) Height. There is really only 1 good spot for any Dragon, Raelin or range and that's the 2hexer immediately out of the startzone. But that's okay! The rock is actually pretty well postioned so you can hide behind it one turn and then run around the next to engage the height. Also, the fact that the opponent has to basically stay in the same spot to get the bonus makes it easier for melee to plan on how to engage and attack. I'm okay with this. Range already has an inherent advantage...so while they can get earlier attacks in, it'll likely only last 1 turn before they have their teeth punched in.
4) Aesthetics don't determine balance...but this is a beautifully designed map. It looks great, the title is fitting and the build is resourceful and efficient with the sets being used. The map is surprisingly free flowing and open and I enjoyed every game on it.
Overall, I feel like this will be a staple of my go-to maps. It goes against normal builds that give players more time to set up, and that's a good thing in my book. It encourages quick engagements and furious, close battles. for me.
----- Nomad - A very attractive looking map when set up on the table. Small? Choke points? Two hex height that can rain down with range on approaching melee?
After 10+ tests, Drider has a big from this humble judge. It is not that it took us that many tests to determine whether or not it was worthy of joining the ARV cannon - we just enjoyed playing on it so much that we didn't want to take the map down. Drider will become a staple go-to for future in-person tournaments.
The action is quick and the battles are close - who cares about the small footprint. The potential choke points were not a factor because of the quick flanking ability and great LOS blockers. The two height hexes were only good for one attack - melee armies were able to engage and destroy quickly.
I really dig Drider. Give it a go and buckle up. Well done Ulysses!
----- Flash_19 - I’m torn on this map. I love the look of it, and I think it’s very well done considering the terrain limitations for the map. As much as it pains me, I am going to go with a though.
The main problem for me is the highest plateau in the center of the map. Battles typically consisted of a rush to take and control it because it is such a good position. This meant that the majority of conflict centered around this point. With such a small map, I feel like there has to be a greater draw to other portions of the map. The initiative glyph at the bottom didn’t seem to pull focus away from the main plateau as much as was necessary. This mad rush for the central hill caused the map to feel stale with repeat games.
Unfortunately, it can also be too easy to hold that plateau for a strong bonding army like a dragon with greenscales. The way that the map is constructed limits the number of attacks that can be made on the position a little too much in my opinion. Personally, while I love the aesthetics of the single hex rock outcrops adjacent to that position, simply removing the outcrops and leaving their bases as shadow tiles would go a long way to make assaults on that area easier (and this change would be sufficient to make me rescind my downvote). While it is possible for units to come down along the edge of the plateau near Lodin, the dip down to level 0 shadow, then up to level 2 can hurt slower moving figures trying to get into position.
It is also worth noting that because of the small size, it doesn’t take much range to threaten a significant portion of the map. Nilfheim, for example, can sit comfortably on that plateau and hit many units trying to skirt around the large 3-hex rock in the middle.
Great work on this map – it is very well done overall.
Nomad -It took a full five battles to come to a conclusion - even then, it is a teetering conclusion. We thought the map was pleasing to the eye and that the concept behind the build was quite engaging. We even had a couple of very tight battles that came down to a figure or two per army.
There are a number of strategies to choose from at the onset: An army can shoot up the jungle valley and make an immediate impact on your opponent's start-zone, send runners along the edges of the maps to gain the glyphs, or begin the ascent up the hills on either side.
We all know height trumps all in heroscape, so that became the dominant strategy. Even if your opponent gained a glyph - good luck holding it if you happened to occupy that hill.
But here is where the map fell short, at least for us. Each game eventually turned into your-hill/my-hill warfare. The army that was ahead ended up turtling on height to wait for the opponent to cross the valley. And, if they had range, the army crossing the sand would suffer a couple of attacks before they could engage. Range tended to have a distinct advantage overall, even with the jungle coverage in the middle of the map.
We enjoyed playing on Island of Nazibarr, but given that bit of imbalance favoring ranged figures and the inevitable turtling at the end, I have to vote to induct into the ARV list of tournament approved maps. The map can be fun . . . maybe some work-shopping might help it meet the standard fully.
----- Sir Heroscape -
I really wanted this one to work, but it's going to have to stay in the "casual" gaming category.
The glaring issue here is really just the 2 hills. While the design does a good job of allowing gradual development on each side, and actually pretty good development overall, it's significantly hindered by the amount of "steps" you have to take to get to the top to contest any type of range. Honestly, range doesn't even need to get to the top, they can get to the first level or two and shoot you while to ascend and then run away to the other hill. That's also another issue is that melee has to split up forces to try and cover 2 hills at once to keep range from taking the advantage.
Melee does have jungle and does have the low ground center...but I felt like the trudge up the hill to develop was just too much to overcome. It's really hard to invest that much development onto hills and then have to come off it to attack, then have to go back up...which with fliers or range will happen constantly. I will say that I think this map is close though. I think if it's 1-2 levels lower and doesn't have as many elevations changes, then I think it's significantly better...but for now it was just too good for range and/or flying and/or flying range.
officially...but would love to see some slight adjustments and a resubmit.
Sir Heroscape - This map for me was a bit of a gamble. I wasn't sure about it going in, but felt like we should give it a chance. That said, some of my fears were confirmed after playing on it:
1) While not the most important, the aesthetic appeal isn't quite there for this map. When I built it, I wasn't looking at it excited to find out what intricate game decisions I'd have to make. It just looked, well...bland. That leads me to #2
2) The gameplay. There are really only 2 levels on this map. Ground level and then level 2. Having such a flat map really makes the dynamic of play rather boring. I didn't find game decisions being very hard or engaging. Of course this comes with the fact that 2 of the thinnest sets (terrain wise) were used to build the map, but I still felt like more could have been done. Even if it were a smaller, more narrow map...I still felt like more careful design could have at least given us 2-3 level 3 hexes to spice things up.
3) Startzones. I had to constantly check the build instructions to see what they were. The terrain wasn't placed in a logical way, and the spaces selected were kinda wonky, which made it difficult to remember. For example, the sand and rock hexes were split up, when the SZ on one side could have had 3 sand hex and the other 3 rock hex and then the rest could either be road and/or water.
Overall, the map just didn't feel "complete". I do like the asymmetrical aspect, but with these 2 sets, it will take being a lot more meticulous and careful in design to make the map work and I just didn't feel like this measured up to what we're looking for.
for me
----- Nomad - No, Goat Path is not the most aesthetic of maps, but after setting it up and playing on it four times, it kind of grows on you. Obviously the asymmetrical design of the map is a delight and very well thought out. Two of the battles were thrillers, one was OK, and one was a blow-out. There is enough here to make me think real hard about ARV inclusion.
Ultimately, I am going to give Goat Path a for two reasons:
1) Each of the four games were very, very similar. Both armies would go for the "plateau" of two spaces high. Control of that plateau and the adjacent glyph was of single importance. The wide open spaces were really only used to access the plateau, or if it was too crowded, the occasional squad member would try to threaten the opponent's start zone.
2) All four battles were won by the army that started in the start zone on the right when looking at the map image. It could be coincidence, but in analyzing the map more closely, I found that the army on the right needed fewer moves to access the plateau. This was the deal-breaker for me.
Nice effort on the map considering the terrain limitations for these two sets. Perhaps balancing access to the plateau and providing for more strategic options would lend itself to another consideration.
Nomad - We got in five battles on this map. Building a quality tournament map with a small master set like Battle for the Underdark can be tough. This map proved to be tough. Congratulations for making the very tough effort AYP, but I vote for ARV induction.
The map is too short, start zone to start zone. Zelrig bombs on OM1, oh yes, and the dragon is covered by Raelin while she is still in the start zone. Deathwalker 9000 moved up a few hexes and rained explosion-attack-havoc into the opponent's start zone from the outset. Generally, a ranged army who wins initiative on OM1 of round one has a great advantage.
After a couple of battles, my nieces and nephew where complaining before the battle even started, "Oh no, the really small map again!" We did have one close battle, but the rest were quite lopsided. We started discussing how to improve the map (moving the start-zones 90 degrees, then rotating the glaciers, and then ...) but determined it wouldn't be a tweak or two, but a total rebuild.
----- Sir Heroscape - I'm going to have to give this a
I actually really liked this one, but after building it and playing first hand I realized just how small this map actually is. It's aesthetically pleasing, and I like that the glyphs push you to the edges, but the map is so short from start zone to start zone. I quickly realized just how detrimental that can because even within just 1 turn you can secure a strong position in the center, block off key pathways and gun down opponents, or just slog the game out with chokepoints. I also realized that the edges don't really work as a way to route the opponent because of the horizontal orientation of the ice. It makes it extremely difficult to run around and even then, the edge is only a 1 hex gap (glyph acts as a chokepoint)...so it's easily clogged up as well. Overall, I really just couldn't pass this with those errors. That said, when I looked at it, I think with a few adjustments this map might work if the startzones were switched to the "glyph sides" and glyphs were moved to where the start zones are. That, and/or flipping the orientation of the ice mountains.
Sir Heroscape - The map itself I've always liked the look of, but the gameplay showed some issues. Here they are:
1) Except for games where I forced myself to develop/play to the right of the map, it was always more beneficial to go to the left to take "my hill". That left gameplay rather one-note.
2) This is a "Your-hill-my-hill" map and it's compounded by the fact that glyphs are on each hill, and the better glyph (random glyphs remember) will prove to be a big advantage to the player who get's it and forces the other player to fight uphill for it.
3) The glyph positions are easily defendable and practically impenetrable if you set yourself up right.
4) The lateral movement is really hard to move around for going from one hill to the other. Your-hill-my-hill maps can be balanced if lateral movement is easy between hills in order to contest an opponents position...but the hills are VERY defendable and easily reinforcable from the startzone
5) The Road never got used. Literally. I didn't have a game where the road was ever useful (except when I forced myself to use it, just to see if it was useful). Because development is so natural going to the left, the road doesn't really pose useful. The road primarily starts and goes from the right side to the opposing right side, but the gameplay is almost always on the left. What's more the extra road hexes going laterally in the SZ make no sense in gameplay. I can see the intent, that is, to jump units on the road to speed them up through the center...but combat almost never occurred in the middle and it was always more useful to just have them move to the left through the map then to try and speed them along the road on low ground.
Overall, I just see a lot of issues with the gameplay of this map...which aren't/weren't immediately noticeable in theoryscaping or looking at the map. But they were pretty obvious once I'd played a handful of games on the map. Definitely a from me.
----- Flash_19 - This map was the focus of a map talks done by BiggaBullfrog and I, and that video highlights the main issues with the map very well. Here's a link to the video:
The largest problem with the map is the podding potential brought about by how the map favors development to the left of the start zone. This ideal podding location can also be covered by a Raelin in the startzone – no order marker is required to move her to a very solid position. Range versus melee battles seemed to always consist of range establishing a dominant position on the level two area outside of the startzone and proceeding to shoot at advancing melee units to their heart’s content. In a range versus range match up, the game turns into the classic “two hills” scenario where each army claims their side and tries to snipe the other army on the other hill – if the glyphs are slightly mismatched at all, this can lead to a serious advantage to one side – because development to the left is easier, it is easy for a player to establish firm control over the glyph on their left side.
The map does have pretty good LOS blockers, and I liked the attempt to ease development to the right of the start zone with the use of ladders.
Nomad - Honestly, I had some reservations about Trashing the Camp after building it. The two hills, the bit of perched height in the middle of the map . . . hmm.
After a few tests, we were pleased with the close battles and fun we had. Not enough to be convinced, we tried many iterations of figures and army builds to try to break the map. Couldn't do it.
Trashing the Camp earns my for ARV induction. I would not hesitate to throw it in the fray in future tournaments. It is balanced, well designed, and strategic in determining best play for your army. It can get congested in the middle. I would encourage that a couple of glyphs be placed on the edges of the map 7 to 8 spaces away from each start zone, but that is up to tournament directors. The battles seemed to flow a little better and reduced the congestion in the middle with that option in my opinion, but still, the glyphs were an afterthought compared to gaining center high ground.
Another well designed map by Superfrog. Thank you.
----- Sir Heroscape - This one, unfortunately, I have some issues with, and it will be enough to warrant a from me.
While generally speaking I'd prefer maps to have glyphs on them, this map is compact enough and has enough going for it to keep the battle moving...in most cases. I like the aesthetic and the simple map build as well as the center which does good at making it hard for dragons to perch mid-map.
That said, no glyphs also hurts this map and causes campy strategies. While running through the fast middle isn't too hard, my main issues with this map are the 2 hex just outside the SZ and the 3 hex to the right of the startzone. Good counters to these positions are that 1) you can get height on the hill and fire down, and 2) those positions don't have jungle cover. While good, what about going against melee? for example, Nilfeim, Greenies, Raelin absolutely love this map. from the Startzone Raelin can cover the 2hex AND the 3hex positions without having to move. This means no turn spent on developing her. Greenies are able to block routes to either location while Nilf jumps between those 2 spots, moving anytime someone gets too close. Agreed, the ruins are able to help melee or range units hide until they're ready to attack, but for melee, it's just delaying the inevitable end scenario of having to attack up on that position.
Again, the compactness of the map and speedy middle helps melee get to the fight while protected by jungle, but I felt that Nilf, Greenies and Rae...or Q9, Rats, Rae (or whatever Range you want really) was just too strong due to the simple 1 move development for the units to height, all while not having to move Raelin. Melee games on this tend to be pretty even and work out fine...but add in range and I'm afraid the positions so close to the SZ are just too strong. and as I mentioned earlier, some glyphs could help force those campy strategies to come off and fight a bit. Specifically I think wannok would be a must and maybe Kelda, or even Def +1. Something to help give the edge to whoever has to assault those positions, but for now, this is a for my vote.
----- Flash_19 - I really like the look of this map. Overall, it is a pretty solid map, but there are a couple significant problems that hurt it.
Oh Raelin, how you ruin maps.
Unfortunately, the curse of Raelin is a little too much for this map. Raelin, while sitting in the start zone, can cover the 3-hex on level 3 to the right of the start zone, and the 2-hex on level 3 immediately in front of the start zone. This creates fantastic podding potential that can be very difficult to fight against. The jungle is placed well throughout the map to try and help alleviate this issue; however, it’s not quite enough in my opinion.
The problematic nature of this spot seemed to be enhanced if a ranged army is playing the side of the map where the large ruin is to the right of their startzone. The large ruin seems to exacerbate the range advantage by limiting the flow of units along the outside edge of the map, particularly if ranged armies utilize a screen.
A few other thoughts:
- Fast moving range, particularly the Krav, are pretty strong on this map considering they can hit the enemy startzone on turn one. Obviously this means Zelrig can bomb the start zone on OM 1 as well.
- I would like to see glyphs on the map (likely on the outside edges) as I feel they would make the map more dynamic. This would require a little reworking on the outside edges.
I don’t think this map needs much reworking to be successful. I do like it quite a bit, but a few tweaks will make it shine even more.
Nomad - Three battles were conducted on Refraction - enough to give a verdict.
This map is designed beautifully and after building it, we were eager to give it a whirl. In theory-scaping, I felt this would be one of the best VW-RotV maps created.
Well, it is close. But not close enough for me to vote for induction. Here are my issues, as minor as they may be. In three battles, only one figure happened to cross the lava rock plateau between the ruins, and that was in the end game. Too many elevation changes for melee figures to progress across the map to have a fighting chance - or they get tied down by the lava plateau. Here are the two biggest issues: 1) the single rock hex on height just above the Kelda glyph. In two of the three battles that was the key and dominant hex on the map - everything else was superfluous after round three (and in the other, flyers pinned down their opponents army before they could make an effort); 2) The lava-rock plateau - it divides the map into two narrow battlefields. Generally, lava only works when it sparsely placed throughout the map, not one big section of the map. Just not enough pathing.
OK, all of that said, I really don't think it is too far away. I would keep the basic structure, provide a little more non-lava in the region between the ruins, and swap out that single highest elevation rock hex with a lava-rock hex. And, perhaps provide a lane of less bumpiness for melee to develop.
The map is wonderfully designed and beautiful to view. I do think it is better as is than many maps that use the same combination of terrain ... but it could be better. Game play could be better, especially when considering the two separate narrow battlefields on each side of the map.
for my vote for ARV induction ... but if the other judges love it, I could change my vote (hmm, no I won't. I just can't get over the two divided battle zones).
----- Sir Heroscape - It became pretty apparent during playtesting what the issues with this map were:
1) Glyph choice/position
2) Lack of use of the map on the Lava-side
3) Range vs Melee matchups
4) double-spaced denial on the lava side glyph.
All of these issues very clearly represented themselves as I playtested...here are my thoughts:
1) Kelda isn't a great glyph to pull a conflict. It's a nice glyph nearing the endgame for a hero, but it doesn't pull the conflict for control during the game. It's also a glyph that you likely won't want to go that far out of the way to get. I think Kelda on the low-ground location, offset by Wannok or Valda might be a nice change.
2) It's not really advantageous to move and develop on the lava side of the map. It takes to long, and you can gain better position by avoiding it altogether and just going down the "water side". Battles aren't fought on the lava side.
3) Range is SOOOO strong on this map. i didn't realize just how good until I build the map and played on it. the central hill that holds the single lava hex on the water side is incredibly powerful. Range can sit back behind that hill and ping all day long on advancing melee. and if they have a screen, they can throw the screen up on the hill to just tie things up. This map would need to eliminate that barrier if it wanted to give melee a better chance.
4) this came up in an endgame scenario where I had a single-spaced range unit vs a double spaced melee unit. the 1-hex range unit grabbed Kelda and then could sit there and fire without ever taking an engagement from a double-spaced melee unit. It's impossible from that position to get engaged by a double-spaced unit. and that alone imo breaks this map. no location on a map should be build in such a way that a figure literally has no way of attacking its opponent.
Sorry to sound so harsh on this one, I don't mean to. This is a good start, but still has some work to go before it's tournament ready. for me.
August 22nd, 2021, 09:00 PM
Switch to Linear Mode
Switch to Hybrid Mode
Threaded Mode
Similar Threads
for Sacrifice.
for me.