dok's maps - updated 7/24

[dok]

Another test of the newfangled swamp helix, and another surprising win for those pesky elf wizards.

Ulginesh
Jorhdawn
Emirroon
Arkmer
Kyntela
Raelin RotV

vs.

Kaemon Awa
Stingers x4
Deathreavers x3 (sit a rat)

The wizards conceded all the glyphs to the rats, but despite this the elves ended up being far more effective. Emirroon had the army up on the platform in one round. Jorhdawn only had one chance to hit more than two figures with a flame attack, but made the most of it by rolling three skulls and knocking out a full squad of stingers. The stingers kept bringing figures up, and the elves kept beating them back. With Raelin stashed in the back, the stingers had to go against pretty hefty defense, and Astrid wasn't enough to overcome lousy rolling. By the time the stingers and rats were down to less than 1 squad each, only Kyntela had gone down. Still Kaemon Awa managed to drop Jorhdawn, Arkmer, and Raelin before Ulginesh finally took him out. Emirroon and Ulginesh were able to clean up.

Again, I find that this is more of a hero-friendly map than a flyer-friendly map. I might try the same elf army against an army with Cyprien or TKN or Nilfheim - I'd expect a very different result.

[dok]

More test games. This time, I played super-duper what-if, and pit the unusual army I would have strongly considered for GenCon against the Army that Mattsertruckrally rode to the title.

Tor-Kul-Na
Marrden Nagrubs x3
Major Q9

vs.

Deathreavers x3
Braxas
Airborne Elite
Marro Warriors

This is obviously a pretty terrible matchup for Braxas, as she can't instakill anything except the cheap little nagrubs, and she loses pretty soundly toe-to-toe against either of the opposing heroes.

The AE dropped first turn and took safe spots on the platform. The AE won initiative, but chose to shoot from the middle of the platform rather than expose themselves by running to the top of the opposing stairs to throw grenades. In the first turn, they put 4 wounds on TKN, so things were looking pretty good. However, TKN's defense dice turned, and by the end of the round Q9 was in range for Queglix and dispatched the AE shortly thereafter.

The rats claimed both glyphs in the next turn, but TKN stomped on Astrid (he just barely fits under the platform). Q9 pretty much reigned supreme from there, killing Braxas in the start zone. When the Marro fled under the overhangs, Q9 jumped into the swamp water to continue the killing spree. TKN got back into the game and squashed most of the remaining rats. The Marro kept running, but they couldn't clone, and before long the big boys hunted them down. The only losses were ~4 nagrubs. A total slaughter.

Given how obviously slanted this matchup was in favor of one army, and given that the AE (who were really their only hope) crapped out in the early gambit to kill TKN, this one pretty much went to script. I like how the new layout of the map keeps the AE from using grenades on the opposing start zone without exposing themselves.

[dok]

To be fair, I couldn't just play my hypothetical GenCon army against favorable matchups. So, I dipped into my own custom thread, and gave this a go:

Tor-Kul-Na
Nagrubs x3
Major Q9

vs.

Roman Legionnaires x3
Marcus Decimus Gallus
Marcus Agrippa
Roman Archers x2

As mentioned in my strategy guide, TKN and Q9 are exactly the sort of figures you want to be using arrow volley against, and Marcus Agrippa's command power (basically, allowing you to activate legionnaires and archers on one order marker) vaults the Roman Archers into playability. (Note: this idea is originally not mine - bee came up with it.)

The game started out with the Romans winning initiative, and seizing both key glyphs (with no flyers, Rannveig was just a speed bump). TKN stomped them off Astrid, though, and the Romans swiftly decided that discretion was the better part of valor and fled for less trample-prone spaces.

Meanwhile, the Roman Archers got a squad up onto the platform, along with one legionnaire as a vanguard, and managed three wounds on Q9 with one devastating arrow volley. But Q9 killed the legionnaire, and swiftly Queglixed his way through the archers, despite their height advantage. The second squad of RA's was held in reserve until Q9 was safely tied up with Legionnaires. Q9 took out quite a few, but in the end arrow volley managed to pierce his armor and take out that final wound.

At that point, it was just a matter of dealing with TKN. The Archers pecked away at adjacent nagrubs, and went for arrow volley when there weren't any. TKN managed to kill all the remaining legionnaires, and put three wounds on MDG, but a final arrow volley brought the hivelord down.

Again, this was a game that was easy to predict and went as predicted. That's a good thing, I guess, in that the map didn't produce any obvious weirdness. The only issue I would note is that the Romans were really able to concentrate on Q9, because TKN was stuck below on the glyph and couldn't threaten the archers. Still, that's not too different from any map with several different theaters of combat.

[dok]

One last test of 7.0

Marro Stingers x4
Deathreavers x2
Raelin RotV
Kaemon Awa

vs.

4th Mass x3
Sir Gilbert
Knights of Weston x3 (drop a knight)

The stinger army won initiative, and Gilbert rolled poorly on dispatch early on. As such, the rats managed to claim move and attack, and were able to force the valiant army to grind through the rats to clear the glyph. By the time the rats were gone, the stingers were on the platform and had already gotten a big head start on killing knights and minutemen. Astrid-enhanced minutemen mounted a late comback, but the stingers managed to quash that. One rat, 5 stingers, and Kaemon Awa were left at the end.

While I thought the map played fine, a way to improve ladder layout (and, consequently, access to the platform) occurred to me, so I'm going to make a small update shortly.

[dok]

As I said, I've decided on a some small changes, reflected in Swamp Helix 7.1:



The main difference is that the ladders on the sides have moved up the sides, so that they put you at the elbow of the platform in stead of at the top of your steps. This also required a slight re-arrangement of the ground terrain around there - the water flows on a different path now.

This change was made for a couple reasons. First, I noticed both those corners of the platform, and the area under the new ladder location, were getting relatively little traffic, so I wanted to direct figures there. Secondly, I wanted to make the ladders on the sides more contestible, as opposed to just being an augmentation to the stairs. Now it's much easier to flank an opponent's position on the platform by going around the right edge.

[dok]

Big picture thought on Swamp Helix, which I would love some feedback on:

Should I rip out all the battlements?

Aesthetically, they're nice. But the more I think about it, the more I think that they do more harm than good from a gameplay perspective. Giving battlement LoS to figures on the platform allows ranged figures to be more effective, and allowing them to hide behind those battlements makes ranged squaddies more powerful, too.

The only figure that really has trouble squeezing in between the battlements is Nilfheim. But even when wind is active, he can manage to waddle across the platform with some extra twists and turns and some mid-move flips.

Thoughts?

P.S. I'm 90% finished with a FotA/RttFF/M:TCB/DnD version of the map, but I'm not going to release it until I know what the effects of shadow tiles are.

[ProtoFury]

I've not played on the maps, but I've taken a good look at them. Nice stuff here! +rep.

That being said, I don't think you should take the battlements out. However, if you think they're too annoying, an in-game removal may work. In my map Gransoth Falls, which sadly never wil be posted because my cmputer deleted everything but the images, I had enacted a rule called Old Fortress. Basically, if any figure was in range of a battlement, as long as no figures on th card attack this turn, you may roll a single attack die against a battlement. If you roll a skull, you have destroyed the battlement, and may remove it from the game.

This adds a little extra depth to a game, because a spot that was advantageous for aranged figure can become a disadvantage later on in the game.

That may be a good compromise between aesthetics and playability for you. Just an idea!

But, nice maps overall. I'll have to try some soon!

[KCU Master 2007]

I have often had the same debate on any map I build with battlements. The conclusion that I usually come to, and you could probably use here, is sort of a compromise. While ripping out all of the battlements would not only hurt the map aesthetically, it would also expose melee figures taking advantage of the high ground.

Instead of removing all of them, remove about half from each side but do it in such a way that you have 2-3 battlements and a gap, 2-3 more battlements and a gap. This way, you reduce the strength of ranged figures hiding behind them but also provide a decent amount of cover and LOS blocking.

[dok]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

if any figure was in range of a battlement, as long as no figures on th card attack this turn, you may roll a single attack die against a battlement. If you roll a skull, you have destroyed the battlement, and may remove it from the game.

This adds a little extra depth to a game, because a spot that was advantageous for aranged figure can become a disadvantage later on in the game.

My goal here has always been to create a balanced map that uses most of the columns of a FotA map, but is acceptable for tournament play. As such, I'd like to avoid adding any house rules to the map. Cool idea, though.

Originally Posted by KCU Master 2007

I have often had the same debate on any map I build with battlements. The conclusion that I usually come to, and you could probably use here, is sort of a compromise. While ripping out all of the battlements would not only hurt the map aesthetically, it would also expose melee figures taking advantage of the high ground.

Instead of removing all of them, remove about half from each side but do it in such a way that you have 2-3 battlements and a gap, 2-3 more battlements and a gap. This way, you reduce the strength of ranged figures hiding behind them but also provide a decent amount of cover and LOS blocking.

Interesting compromise. I should give it a try.

I guess I should note that I haven't actually looked at the map without battlements. I know I like the way it looks now, but perhaps I would like that look as well.

[Bonecrusher]

I think that the battlements add little desirable gameplay effects.

And by the way, are you making that revised version of Birnam wood?

[dok]

Originally Posted by Bonecrusher

I think that the battlements add little desirable gameplay effects.

Yeah, I think you're right. I'm probably going to yank them.

Now, I do think battlements can have good effects near ground level (see Embattled Fen, et al) but that's not the same as battlements on a wall.

Originally Posted by Bonecrusher

And by the way, are you making that revised version of Birnam wood?

...yeah, that sort of got pushed to the back-burner. I'll try to get on it sometime soon. I am still planning on making a new version.

[Cyborgs Gaming]

I think removing about 1/2 to 2/3 of the battlements would be good. Keep the castle look but remove some of the huge benefit of the high ground. keep the battlements in the places where they are the least helpfull but still look good