Distance Between Starting Zones in Tournament Maps

[GameBear]

When designing maps, I am always concerned with maintaining an appropriate distance between starting zones. I am hoping this thread will open discussion on exactly what constitutes an appropriate distance.

Why should starting zone proximity be a concern?
The primary concern is the possibility of first-turn attacks. If potential first-turn attacks are not limited, then the player that wins initiative in the first round may gain a significant advantage, which is undesirable in a tournament setting.

What is an appropriate distance?
An appropriate distance is one that minimizes first-turn attacks. Generally speaking, I try to keep the starting zones at least 14 hexes apart. In practice, I rely on specific units to determine what is acceptable. The first two units to consider are Mimring and Syvarris. Ideally, Syvarris would not be able to target any figures on the first turn, and Mimring's Fire Line would not be able to affect more than one figure at a time. First-turn attacks become even more potent when the player is able to attack from height or choose among many potential targets. Of course, exceptions can be made depending on circumstances (e.g. if the unit has to surrender height in order to attack, and would be vulnerable to a counter-attack). Some other units to consider: Nilfheim, Braxas, Me-Burq-Sa, and Marro Drudge (on swamp maps).

Where do you draw the line?
All of the units listed above are viable in tournament settings - with the exception of Marro Drudge, all received at least a "B-" in the Heroscape Power Rankings. The effective range for standalone units tends not to exceed 14 (Deadeye Dan is an exception, but due to his stats/abilities he is less of a concern). I usually do not take synergies into account, as armies built around speed/range have made sacrifices in other areas in exchange for the ability to strike quickly. Similarly, I do not consider the Airborne Elite or Rechets of Bogdan; neither unit is guaranteed to be in play during the first round (a sacrifice that makes up for their extended reach).

How important is this?
I really don't know - players who have attended tournaments will have to weigh in on this one. I dislike the idea of losing figures before I have even had a chance to move, but perhaps others consider that to be part of the game. Closer starting zones do offer some benefits: closer zones result in quicker engagement, which leads to more action and faster games. Closer starting zones could even encourage smaller armies, as armies capable of spreading out in the starting zone would be less susceptible to special attacks that can affect multiple figures. I still feel a certain distance should be maintained, but again I'm hoping players with more experience will help answer this question.

What prompted this thread?
Currently there are 6 maps being considered for the BoV; 4 of these maps exhibit close starting zones.
Ice Blossom: 11 hexes apart. Mimring (up to 3 starting zone spaces) from height.
Frozen Foothills: 11 hexes apart. From the blue starting zone: Mimring (up to 4) + Arrow Gruts; Syvarris; Me-Burq-Sa.
Fire Isles: 10 spaces apart. Mimring (up to 4); Syvarris; Me-Burq-Sa; Nilfheim; Braxas; all from height.
Mt. Kismet: 6 spaces apart. Mimring (up to 6); Syvarris; Me-Burq-Sa; Nilfheim; Braxas; all from height (others as well).
I am not trying to single out these maps, but rather point out a current trend among BoV submissions. I would expect these maps to be great for casual games; for tournament play, on the other hand, the starting zone proximity is a stumbling block for me. Interestingly, the close starting zones appear to be intentional. The distance between starting zones on Ice Blossom and Fire Isles could easily be increased without changing the center sections of the maps, while the distance on Mt. Kismet could be doubled just by reassigning starting zone hexes. I am very interested in the opinion of the community. The 'yes' votes already received suggest that these maps may be outstanding despite (or maybe partly due to?) the close starting zones.

[Codeman]

I do not have a hard and fast rule (like 14 hexes), however it is in the back of mind I try to make some amount of space between the starting zones, either by hexes , elevations, obstacles or a combination of those things. Or I offer risk/reward maybe there is a direct or closer line to the enemy but it is all on level 1 or 0 (low ground).

This is a good topic .... I might also add glyph placement to your discussion as typically I do not to give access to a glyph in one move (from the starting zone).

[Jexik]

Originally Posted by Revdyer

You're just a "YES-*****" like me, when we don't have any maps to test. <grin>

I have a habit of voting 'yes to review' on maps unless I see a glaring issue with it. This starting zone concern might classify as one, and I pointed out that fear with Mt. Kismet, but most of these maps seem to have something good going on, and I'll discover during my playtests whether they are actually good maps.

On the other hand, when it comes to actually accepting a map, I've only voted YES on two maps so far for entering the BoV (and no on two too, I think). If a map seems too preferential to fliers or any other 'first strike' capable units, it will be noted and I'll drop a no on it. Unit balance is probably my main concern, with playability (AKA fun, dynamic, etc.) and aesthetics following.

I find that when I make a map myself, even though they usually aren't that great, I often make long maps. While I find that these are often very fun and balanced to play, the reality of setting up multiple tournament maps on some of these tables really pushes us toward smaller, more circular or square maps.

Another big concern of mine with such a small map is that a unit like Q9 need not go very far from his starting zone, but I often wait to play it a few times before I call foul. Maybe I'm wasting a good chance to save myself some time playing bad maps with my 'yes-whoring.' I don't know.

[STAROCEAN980]

A very interesting article Gamebear.

I see your point and I myself have thought of this. My map Ice Blossom had glaciers purpously placed near the starting zones to deter attacks on units still in the start zone. Sadly, when building with 1 rotv, you don't have a lot of choice unless you make a really long map with little hieght.

[GameBear]

Codeman, I agree that distance to glyphs is an important consideration, and is closely tied to distance between starting zones. I debated discussing that as well (especially since all of the maps mentioned above have glyphs that can be claimed on the first turn), but I decided to limit myself to one topic for now.

Jexik, space considerations certainly lead to smaller maps, but with creative placement a map can easily accomodate starting zones 14 hexes apart while still fitting in a 30" space. This leads to another topic that I intentionally left out of my initial post: the tendency to use 24-hex tiles for starting zones. Using the 24-hex tiles has advantages, notably convenience and ease of identification. However, doing so also severely limits the ability to strategically select starting zone placement, and exacerbates the problem of close starting zones on small maps.

STAROCEAN980, thank you for the response. Trying to build tournament maps with limited terrain can definitely be frustrating. I'm impressed by how few opportunities there are for first-turn attacks on Ice Blossom, given the proximity of the starting zones.

[STAROCEAN980]

Thank you very much GameBear.

[bunjee]

Distance between starting zones is actually something we (Elstree and I) try to pay close attention to in a map build. I don't mind if the longer range (movement and range combined) units can hit 1 or 2 limited spaces of the opponent on winning initiative, but I definitely cringe when they can get free shots on 3 or more across a large area of the start zone.

It is tough to balance a quick playing map with enough space for people to arrange themselves in a tactical fashion.

[GameBear]

Update...

How will the new units affect starting zone proximity?
Aquilla's Alliance includes a couple units that should be taken into consideration. Zetacron has an effective range of 13 and a deadly special ability (as well as the potential for increased movement through synergy). Zelrig also has an effective range of 13, with the ability to fly and an attack that can affect multiple targets. Zetacron can be slowed with appropriate use of terrain, but Zelrig creates new challenges. Even if Zelrig can only target one unit, his attack still potentially affects multiple units; also, LOS blockers are less effective against Zelrig, as hidden units may still be affected. Armies that utilize all available starting zone spaces will be particularly susceptible to Zelrig's attack on small maps. These two units seem to reinforce the default of 14 hexes between starting zones when trying to limit first-turn attacks.

[yagyuninja]

Well, that is true, but I think Zelrig is going to tear you a new one if you have a full starting zone whether or not you have that one turn to try to escape.

[Jonathan]

I think if you're playing a swarm army, you should be ready to possibly lose some figs to just such a reason. With Velenne's "Hunkered and Bunkered", I remember specifically placing my units farther back in my starting zone during one game so that I wouldn't get Nilfheimed before I could do anything about it.

I do agree that start zones should try to be as far apart as possible while still providing the best play experience possible, but if space is not available then LOS blockers should be.

[Soul Shackle]

Originally Posted by yagyuninja

Well, that is true, but I think Zelrig is going to tear you a new one if you have a full starting zone whether or not you have that one turn to try to escape.

I think you're probably right... and I can't wait to find out.