Ruins of Valhalla: Map Reviews

[TheEpicAlpaca]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

In the process of playtesting Arbadshate's Pathway. So far seems like a great map.

Awesome! Excited to hear what you think Sir Heroscape

[Sherman Davies]

I got my new set of black order markers today and I love them. Thanks again for the fun contest!

[Sir Heroscape]

Arbashate's Pathway by @TheEpicAlpaca
Really like this map. Aesthetically pleasing and overall looks very balanced in elevation, size and open area and also has enough LOS blockers. Glyph placement is well balanced and takes 2 activations to reach - for just about every figure.
Gameplay
The full map was used and game flowed well with little bottlenecking. Though this map could be prone to some of that near the bridge/ruin area. This creates a bit of a clogging effect, but didn't last too long b/c figures could move around the other side of the ruin or use the bridge. This map isn't too strong for ranged - and that's okay. To gain elevation for a ranged figure one has to move centrally, near the glyphs, or on the bridge which puts you a little too close for comfort...but that helps even the playing field. The roads are well placed and really get all the figures involved. Close to the start zone, they really help the development of the army, and games were faster paced and armies were clashing within the first round by turn 2 and 3. I like that about the map. Glyphs could be a little bit of an issue just b/c they're on the very edge and can be somewhat protected if you place your figures right, especially for pod armies. But, glyph control for the most part during my games was never a huge issue, but could be if people "played their cards right". Overall, great map. Very please with the gameplay, well balanced and fun to play on. Aesthetically looks great and I think would make for a good tournament map.

[TheEpicAlpaca]

@Sir Heroscape
Thanks for your detailed review and feedback on the map. I'm glad that you enjoyed the map and that it looks aesthetically pleasing. Thanks for spending time play testing it and hope to hear more on it after the tournament.

[Sir Heroscape]

Announcement

As you may have noticed, tomorrow is our NHSD tournament using the 10 selected maps from this contest! We're all really excited to use your maps. Just so you know, I'll have an evaluation sheet at each map location for each player to give a rating of the map after each game played on it. I'll be compiling the information here and presenting it to you for your convenience as map makers and tournament directors. Hopefully it will be helpful and welcome. So stay tuned

[Tiranx]

Just played on a lot of these maps. There is more than one that I think is tournament viable. My favorite game was on Ruined Pier. The more I get of that map, the more I love it.

[Sir Heroscape]

Busy Busy Busy. For those of you waiting...have no fear...reviews on the maps are coming from our tournament. I'll be working on mine here pretty soon and also giving out the evaluation for each map according to the evaluations we received during the tournament.

I imagine @Tiranx and @TREX will chime in here as well with map evaluations for those maps they played on during the tournament (that they haven't already written a review for) as well.

[Sir Heroscape]

Alright...the time has come for some reviews!! Just so you are all aware, our NHSD tournament at the beginning of this month was a blast and we all enjoyed seeing new maps and pitting our armies against each other on these unique and fun maps. With that said, there are some that are simply not cut out for competitive tournaments and others that are. I hope the following reviews will help your selection of worthy tournament maps easier.

To be honest we were only able to build 7 of the 10 maps because we had a smaller showing than anticipated. The 7 maps we selected to build were:
-Desecrated Mine
-Arbarshate's Pathway
-Ruined Pier
-The Ruins of the Great Wall of Valhalla
-Hephaestus
-From the Ashes
-Stalwart

The remaining 3 maps that were unused during the tournament, I still wanted to have used and tested and so I included the remaining 3 to be the maps used in my subscriber tournament I held for my YouTube channel. You can find a video review of the subscriber tournament here. The 3 remaining maps used were:
-Forsaken Cloister
-By a Common Barrier
-Valda Keep

Reviews
Desecrated Mine by @Rÿchean
Not much to be said here. The map is beautiful, balanced and very much tournament ready. It was played on over 4 times throughout the tournament and received high marks by all who played on it. I ended up playing on it 3 times throughout the tournament and was very pleased with the playability of the map. I think it's agreed this is a map ready for competitive tournament play.
Tournament worthy?

Arbarshate's Pathway by @TheEpicAlpaca
I've already given my review on this map and I feel it is ready for tournaments. Having gone through the tournament, it has held to that review. Players gave it high marks as a tournament worthy map and the balance was well designed. The only concern voices was that road spaces might be a little too close to the start zone, creating a very fast developing melee army.
Tournament Worthy?

Ruined Pier by @Dad_Scaper
I have not gotten around to playtesting this map yet, so I can't offer my personal review yet, but the general consensus from the other two judges and players who used the map was high marks. All players (save 1) felt it was balanced and worthy of tournament play. It did not seem to favor one team over another and games played fairly with numerous different armies. It was generally agreed that this map was fantastic.
EDIT: I have now playtested this map: fantastic @Dad_Scaper . Games were fun and exciting. Army development was quick and the use of strategy on this map is very apparent: run in the middle for the glyphs and rush your opponent, or take your time developing up the hill to hold the position (but give up the glyphs). The only two concerns I have with this map are mostly practical ones: 1) there are 23 required water hexes on this map and the RotV set only has 21. I suggest the simple fix to this would be to take off the last water hex on each end of the startzone to meet the maximum of 21 water hexes. 2) The battlements placed on the hill restrict too much development to the top. I was demotivated to develop my army on height when there was only 1 hex to go through on my way up. I think this is a simple fix as well, I think only the last battlement (closest to the startzone) needs to be removed. This allows the development up the hill to involve 2 hexes rather than bottlenecking on one. This also helps armies with double spaced figures to have an easier time of getting up the hill..whereas in it's current state, double spaced figures have a really hard time. I'd still recommend for tournament play because it wasn't too unbalanced, but I feel those changes would be necessary for higher level competitive play.
Tournament worthy?

The Ruins of the Great Wall of Valhalla by @TheSparkleInYourWater
I've already given my review on this map, and I did play on it again in the tournament. At the tournament, general consensus was so-so. Some felt it did offer some merit in tournament play, but the judges unanimously feel it is not appropriate for tournament play. Glyphs are 5 spaces away and can be obtained on turn 1 by the majority of playable figures. The map is rather large and game play tended to involve one side of the map rather than the whole map (even with the spread out startzones). While aesthetically this is the best of the bunch (in my opinion), competitive play is low and while it did receive some high marks from other players, collectively as the judges we fee it is not ready for tournament play.
Tournament worthy?

Hephaestus by @Robber
I had the opportunity to play on this map twice during the tournament. Aesthetically, looks very cool, especially with the cleverly designed LOS blocker in the middle with the battlements. It's a pretty good sized map, so army development doesn't take too long and elevation isn't too difficult to move through. I also liked that the whole map was used during play. BUT there are some fundamental issues. I feel that glyphs need to be very carefully placed for competitive maps, and glyphs on lava field in my opinion is a "no". Granted the BoV approved a map with glyphs on lava, but it has been my experience that glyphs on lava take away from a game more than give to it. BiggaBullfrog did manage to operate the glyph on lava using his Glad/Blast build pretty easily going on turn 1 and 2, off turn 3. But for most armies, that will not be worth the risk (depending on the glyph as well). Besides being on lava, the glyph position also has height with little opportunity for attackers to get above and attack down on glyph holders. Glyphs on height is a major issue for me (All of us judges included) on a tournament map. Another issue brought forth by @Tiranx was the open placement of molten lava tiles near the center of the map near the road. While map judges were overall not too fond of giving this a tournament worthy stamp, this map did receive high marks by other players for its playability. From our perspective though, there seem to be some issues with the map that need to be adjusted before it's ready for tournament play.
Tournament worthy?

From the Ashes by @BiggaBullfrog
This is one I have yet to play on and playtest, but from the general review players were very pleased with the design. To them the map was balanced and fair, looked great and played strategically with different armies. Again, I don't have anything from my end to add yet, but from the general experience, players felt it was a great map.
EDIT: I have now playtested this map. Very impressed with its design @BiggaBullfrog . The lava is wonderful! It is placed well enough that it doesn't hinder army development, but rather makes for some very strategic moves and decisions when looking for height advantages or safety behind battlements. It was never a game-changer like sometimes lava is, and really made the map fun. Glyphs were well placed midmap and on lower elevation. The only downside to the glyphs is the ease by which flying figures can reach them...but that's always a struggle to meet that qualification...and for the majority of armies that do not have flying, it still took two activations to reach. Battles used the whole map and conflict happened quickly. I can now fully suggest this as a tournament worthy map.
Tournament Worthy?

Stalwart by @Dignan
This map I have not had the opportunity to playtest, but going off of the reviews, it was so-so. Players felt it was generally a good map, but there were some who felt it not ready for tournament play. It received partial marks in most categories, never really excelling. Without having played on it yet though, one concern I have (and that was voiced by others) is that there are 4 power glyphs on the map. That element alone causes me to turn away from it's tournament readiness because of the effect that has on gameplay. Competitive maps can use up to 3 power glyphs (if designed appropriately), but any more than that is too much. The position of the glyphs (2 on each opponents side) also lend to a my-half your-half mentality. If one side has 2 really good glyphs, it's too much of an advantage and camping can be too easy. Glyph placement needs to be reworked in my opinion on this map if it is to be ready.
Tournament worthy? (for now)

Forsaken Cloister by @All Your Pie
I played on this map during my subscriber tournament. I played multiple times and with a large variety of armies. Aesthetically this map is pleasing. It looks really cool, and is very well designed for it's purpose in the contest. As a competitive tournament map though? It is lacking. Before the games I played started, I anticipated that the majority of conflict would be the one defense glyph near the low road. I was very right. EVERY game (as much as I tried and wanted to use the rest of the map) was clogged along the low road near the glyph. In a matchup, you want to reach your enemy fast, gain the advantage and push through their lines. Even though the high ground could allow flanking and height, it takes too long to develop troops (even with the road) and it's more worth it to try and take control of the defense glyph and push forward than to move up on the high ground. Even when I did attempt to develop my army through the height, I was drawn back to the low road and the conflict over the glyph. This map was not fully used and bottlenecks way too much along the low ground. There is really only one thing that I feel needs changing: Add a glyph on the high ground, opposite of the low ground glyph. I know, I can't believe I'm saying to put a glyph on high ground. BUT I think this map is an exception. Even though it would be technically elevated, the high ground is very flat...thus when being attacked, the glyph holder would not likely have a height advantage. The reason I offer this change is because there's no motivation to move up through the high ground other than to get height, and that's no enough for this map. With a glyph up there though, you'd pull the conflict both ways and motivate players to seek control of the high flatland even if it took some time to develop the troops. If that were the one change, I think this map would be much more ready for competitive play.
Tournament worthy?

By a Common Barrier by @master4sword
This map was also played on in my subscriber tournament. The one thing we judges liked about this map was that it looked fun and it defied the "cookie cutter" map design. But sometimes when you go out on a limb, the branch breaks. In this case it broke pretty hard. This map is not a tournament worthy map for 4 very fundamental reasons. 1) the glyph in the castle section has height when melee attackers try to engage. It's an easy choke point to defend, and takes too long for opponents figures to go around the back to try and get a height attack.
2) The entire map has difficulty being used. Even though glyphs are out, your opponent is very close and often you would rather get in an extra attack then try and send a figure off to take or fight for a glyph. I often ignored the glyphs just to get extra attacks on my opponent, therefore the conflict stayed very central rather than using the whole map.
3) 4 height figures cannot engage while in the water when next to the battlement of the opponent startzone. Similar to Ruins, both figures must be higher than a castle battlement in order to be engaged. Figures with 4 height are not (according to the rules) engaged when attempting to attack an opponents startzone.
4) More than any of the other points, this is the deal breaker...hands down. Dragons can see over the uncapped castle pillars into the opponents startzone. For this reason the map is broken and cannot be used competitively. Any dragon army can surround it's dragon for protection while the dragon has clear vision into the opponents startzone over the pillars and use special attacks to decimate the forces starting turn 1 of any game. For the others reasons and mainly this one, this map cannot be used in tournament play.
Tournament worthy?

Valda Keep by @master4sword
Again, this was used in my subscriber tournament. Games on this map were awesome! Very pleased with this map. The split startzones i originally thought would be an issue, but it's very well done. The conflict starts turn one over the move glyph to see who can get their army in on the action faster. The startzones near the 7-hex height looks like a potential problem, but even when ranged figures took position, it wasn't very hard to engage with figures from the main startzone that's nearby and can use ruins to hide behind on the way to engage the opponent on height. The startzones are also close enough to the center "Keep" so that armies are engaging with their main forces by turn 2 and 3 of the first round. This lended to some very exciting games, and some strategic moves. The whole map was used, and the low glyph made it tricky to fight for b/c of the engagements from troops coming in and attacking over the central battlements. The only downside to this map is that it is very large and takes up a lot of space, but like i said, during my games on it, the whole map was used, and I was very pleased with its playability.
Tournament worthy?

Well...that's what I've got for you folks today!! Hope that helps. I'll get around to adding these reviews by the judges to the OP eventually for your convenience...but for the time being bear with us while we still playtest them and give reviews.

[master4sword]

Glad to hear the feedback! I may keep working on the "split by a wall" idea - a different map layout outside the starting zones plus a taller wall should cover most of the issues, in theory at least. Then the trick becomes encouraging players to venture out - perhaps only having one direction to exit the start zone rather than two, combined with a couple of glyphs out there. Dunno. Guess we'll see if I can come up with something better.

Glad to hear Valda Keep played well at least!

[BiggaBullfrog]

Originally Posted by master4sword

Glad to hear the feedback! I may keep working on the "split by a wall" idea - a different map layout outside the starting zones plus a taller wall should cover most of the issues, in theory at least. Then the trick becomes encouraging players to venture out - perhaps only having one direction to exit the start zone rather than two, combined with a couple of glyphs out there. Dunno. Guess we'll see if I can come up with something better.

Glad to hear Valda Keep played well at least!

I've seen a few similar maps that use the "split by a wall" concept through the years, but in the end I believe all of them fell short of being considered "tournament worthy" for various issues. Which I don't say to discourage, just that it's a big hill to climb. But that does also mean that if you dig them up you can find where they fell short and work on ways to improve on the concept.

There's another similar concept of "split by a void" that I've also seen a few times, like this guy:

which might be another thing to consider as you work on it.

Good luck! I hope you are able to make a great map with the concept, because I think it would be cool to see one that actually works.

[Dignan]

One thing to note on Stalwart, those are SET glyphs. The intent of the map is not to have 4 random glyphs on the map. I would agree with the assessment that having 4 random power glyphs could easily imbalance the map in tournament play.

However, I feel that using the two set move and wound glyphs (two relatively weaker glyphs) on the map pulls action to the far edges without being overpowering. The move glyph is also important to help melee armies.

[Sir Heroscape]

Originally Posted by Dignan

One thing to note on Stalwart, those are SET glyphs. The intent of the map is not to have 4 random glyphs on the map. I would agree with the assessment that having 4 random power glyphs could easily imbalance the map in tournament play.

However, I feel that using the two set move and wound glyphs (two relatively weaker glyphs) on the map pulls action to the far edges without being overpowering. The move glyph is also important to help melee armies.

Ah I see, that might have been the issue....I think we used random glyphs on your map for the tournament :-/ ...our mistake. We'll have to do some more playtesting with it.