The Tournament-Worthy Asymmetric Map Workshop

[ollie]

For a long time Riggler and others have been arguing for the possibility that a fair but highly asymmetric map can be built. I think so too, and I'd love to see one (or more) and have it played at tournaments.

I was thinking a little about why we haven't seen such a map. I think it is mainly because of the huge amount of playtesting that would be needed before it hit a tournament table. When I run a tournament, I'm happy to take a chance on one or two untested symmetric (or pseudo-symmetric) maps simply from eyeballing them; they are clearly "fair" even if they turn out not to be the best map ever. Against a backgound of mainly BoV maps and other seriously tested ones, I think that's a risk worth taking and no-one's tournament will be ruined.

However, I'd never make such a call on a seriously asymmetric map. I'd even be hesitant to include it if I'd done a lot of playtesting on it but no independent other testing had happened.

I'm hoping this thread can be the means to overcome this hurdle. I want to use it to present, discuss, modify, post battle reports, modify some more, and generally develop a tournament-worthy highly asymmetric map.

A quick note about "highly asymmetric" vs. "pseudo-symmetric". A pseudo-symmetric map is one which, while not symmetric, allows both players equal access to the same features (height, glyphs, etc.). A highly asymmetric map offers access to different advantages for both sides: one side might have easy height, while the other gets some glyphs. This is the type of map I want us to build.

The goal, once we have a thoroughly playtested map with which we are happy, is to get it on some tournament tables, and possibly submit it to the BoV. Adhering to the BoV guidelines is obviously essential for the second part, but I think will also be very helpful for the first. There's been recent discussion on the BoV thread about some possible map features that are not yet represented. As well as asymmetry, castle pillars and fixed glyphs are two that seem to naturally lend themselves to this enterprise.

The whole development and review process is going to be very informal and everyone is encouraged to contribute their thoughts and, especially, game experiences on the map. To help us structure things a little, I'll keep this first post updated with the active maps divided into four categories: Concept, Development, Tournament Testing and Tournament Proven.

Post a map in the thread if you think it worthy of consideration for this project. That will enter it into the concept category. After some comments come in, if they are favourable, it will move into the development category. Here, we need some games played on it and flaws to be pointed out and suggested modifications. Finally, once consensus emerges, we hope to be to persuade able tournament directors to give it a shot. These maps are in the tournament testing category. Finally, if a map is well-received at multiple tournaments we'll stop messing with it and declare it tournament proven.

I'll also maintain two more lists, without pictures. The first---backburner---is for asymmetric maps that no-one is currently working on. You are welcome to check them out, post your thoughts, and I'll move them back to the development category. The second is for maps that were suggested but fell by the wayside for one reason or another (early evidence suggests that the reason is related to the extent of the asymmetry rather than the quality of the map; just because a map is on that list doesn't mean you shouldn't check it out).

Concepts. Please post your thoughts on whether these maps are worth pursuing further.

There are no maps currently at this stage.

Development. Please play some games on these and point out weaknesses and suggest modifications.

Forgotten Outpost (Feb 8th Ed.), by KCU Master 2007.

Required Sets: 1 RotV, 1 TJ, 1 FotA
KCU Master 2007's map thread.

Caught in the Middle v2.0, by Ollie.

Required Sets: RotV x1, TT x1 (normal snow and ice).
Ollie's map thread.

Inbetweener v1.1, by Ollie.

Required Sets: RotV x1, Lava x2.
Ollie's map thread.

Birnam Wood to Dunsinane, by Dok.

[/QUOTE]
Required Sets: RotV x1, RttFF x1, FotA x1, TJ x1.

Watchtower, by Waycoolsuperdude.

The Mirke, by Nyys.

Required Sets: 1 RotV, 1 SotM, 1 TJ
Nyys's map thread.

Lying In Wait v2, by KCU Master 2007.

Required Sets: 1 RotV.
KCU Master 2007's map thread.

Ticalla Ruins, by Kriegskeks

Required Sets: RotV x1, TJ x1, FotA x1.
Kriegskek's map thread.

WA-ASYM (v2), by Warlord Alpha.

Required sets: RotV, TJ.
Warlord Alpha's map thread.


Rising Pressure v.4

Required sets: RotV x1, RttFF x1, Lava x1.
Killometer's map thread.


Storm the Beach

Required sets: Lexan mat (water), RotV x1, SotM x1, TJ x1.
Nyys's map thread.


Tournament Testing. Please consider suggesting one of these maps to your friendly local tournament director.

Fort Lannister 5.1, by nyys.

Required Sets: 1 RotV, 1 FotA, 1 TJ
Nyys's map thread.
Used at: Battle of the Border II (RI, April 2009).

Halfway Up The Downs v2.3, by Dok and Ollie.

Required sets: RotV x1, SotM x1, TJ x1.
Used at: Battle of the Border II (RI, April 2009).

Normandy Beach, by Bengi.

Required Sets: RotV x1, SotM x1.
Used at: Battle of the Border II (RI, April 2009).

Tournament Proven.

No maps are currently at this stage.


Backburner.

No maps are currently at this stage.


Maps that were not taken forward.

Where The Road Ends, by LongHerosaper.

Ayrwode's Bluff, by Gamebear.
Ekstrom Tunnel, by Yagyuninja.
Spring Thaw, by Retlaw.

 

[nyys]

This is a great idea Ollie. A good way to get maps that need intensive testing, just that. I would say anyone who submits a map to this thread should pick another map in the thread to test thoroughly (in addition to their own). You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours type of thing.

I've started playing the advanced game with my son (only six) and we're scaping on almost a daily basis now. Woot!

Granted he has a looooong way to go to make our games competetive, but just playing some casual games on these maps I think can help point out good and bad points.

Then of course the regular game night with the crazy Scapers like Bengi, we can do more thorough analysis.

 

[KCU Master 2007]

Count me in Ollie. Forgotten Outpost is going to be a springboard for me into more and more maps until either 1) I have a variation that is incredibly balanced and (deemed by others as well) to be tournament worthy or 2) I have come up with a new idea using everything we'll learn throughout this project that is tournament worthy.

We may not get these maps onto any tournament tables yet, in fact it may not happen until we manage to get one into the BoV, but I think that with enough support we will see a shift in map design. These discussions have been going on for quite a while in the BoV thread and Longheroscaper has issued a challenge for new things to enter the BoV, a couple of which include the Fota.

Get your ideas out here. Even if you don't think its the greatest thing, it might just be the spark that someone else needs to build something amazing. If you can't come up with something on your own, try building off someone else's idea.

EDIT: Ollie, nyys, I think we're on to something here. I just have a really positive feeling about this project.

 

[nyys]

One thing we may want to add is the type of armies that should be used in testing. I believe the BoV uses primarily A and B units as those are the considered the most competetive and show up more times than not at tournaments.

So get out your Glads and Blasts, no longer be shamed at using Q9, and RotV Raelin is everyone's girlfriend now.

EDIT: Hmmm... it just occured to me that with the use of the castle set, though it makes some great units even better, some not so great units may become much more usefull. The Roman Archers come to mind right away. So in addition to those A/B units (go Airborne) some of the lesser ones that make sense in a castle are worthy of use as well IMO.

 

[ollie]

Here are the BoV guidelines. I say just get as much testing in with as many different armies as possible. We're going to have to go above and beyond the norm here, just because it's unusual.

For what it's worth, anyone is welcome to hack apart and use any bits or ideas from my maps. If we end up with the author of the map being "The Asymmetric Map Workshop" or something, that's fine by me.

 

[tom]

This is a great idea Ollie. Good luck with this project.

 

[ollie]

This is a great idea Ollie. Good luck with this project.

Thanks Tom. Are you up for some playtesting? (Or designing?)

 

[tom]

This is a great idea Ollie. Good luck with this project.

Thanks Tom. Are you up for some playtesting? (Or designing?)

I would love to help out where I can. I will try to get some games in on Caught in the Middle.

 

[ollie]

This is a great idea Ollie. Good luck with this project.

Thanks Tom. Are you up for some playtesting? (Or designing?)

I would love to help out where I can. I will try to get some games in on Caught in the Middle.

Sweet.

Does anyone know offhand what the strict army placement rules are at the start of a game? I can see it making a big difference here. I didn't see it in the rulebook or FAQ. I'd say roll the D20 and highest chooses whether to place their army first or second (using the "simultaneous powers" rule). An army is placed all at once, not unit-by-unit alternating (which might make sense, but is too complicated, I think).

Similarly, it'd be good to have a standard startzone choosing method, although this might be randomised within the tournament structure. Nyys suggests in his map thread that the D20 should be rolled and highest chooses. Sounds good to me.

 

[KCU Master 2007]

I think that rolling the D20 to determine sides (if there is a dispute) is the standard procedure. As for physically placing armies, according to the SotM rulebook page 7:

If you have already chosen (or brought along) your Army, place your cards in front of you. Then players roll to see who places his Army on the battlefield first. Re-roll ties

I'm not sure if it is entirely necessary to go that far but I could be wrong. This step may be required for these types of maps. But I would agree that the D20 NEEDS to be rolled to determine who is playing where.

 

[nyys]

I want to say there is an official way to deploy your units, but I can't remember what it is at all.

Though if there's nothing in the rule book, nor in the FAQ, then maybe I'm making it up.

EDIT: Ninjaed by KCU.

So the official rule is that you both roll, then the higher person gets to choose who deploys first, and whoever does deploys their entire army at once? Did I read that correctly?

With these types of maps, this may indeed be a key factor in victory. Especially with a split start zone map.

 

[KCU Master 2007]

Hey nyys, look one post up

 

[ollie]

Thanks KCU, not sure how I missed that.

 

[KCU Master 2007]

Its alright. I think its put in a weird place but that's just my opinion.

I also have a suggestion for play testing these maps. Play both sides of them when your testing these maps (if you have the time that is). If you play them both immediately something that may seem "broken" to a player on one side will make more sense when starting on the other side.

I'll hopefully have a "detailed" report on Forgotten Outpost tonight to give to you all. Sometime between work and class I want to get a couple games in on one of our other "nominated" maps, I'm thinking Fort Lannister as Caught in the Middle has already got somebody else on it.

Finally, a couple comments on what I see in the other two maps (I want to try to get pre-game comments and post game comments on any map that comes through here). First, Caught in the middle, if just looks really long. The other thing is the hight. The right side (in the PDF building instructions) has height much closer to the middle, height than can be reached in 2 turns by units with 5 move. Unless I counted wrong, the other side has height that is 10 spaces away. It would take the same unit 3 turns to get onto that height.

Fort Lannister looks interesting. My only comment on that one is that the glyphs look easy enough to grab, but holding them seems nigh impossible. The defense glyph is going to be just as crucial for holding these glyphs as the attack glyph is to attack the fort because there is not jungle cover next to glyphs. I would consider switching the positioning of the attack glyph and defense glyph (and may do so after 2 games as built) just to see how it works. Everything else looks good, I especially like the fact that there are openings in the wall forcing the "defenders" to spread out a little more and choose their positioning well.

I feel awkward trying to comment on my own map as there would be bias there, so I leave that up to you all.

 

[ollie]

Finally, a couple comments on what I see in the other two maps (I want to try to get pre-game comments and post game comments on any map that comes through here). First, Caught in the middle, if just looks really long. The other thing is the hight. The right side (in the PDF building instructions) has height much closer to the middle, height than can be reached in 2 turns by units with 5 move. Unless I counted wrong, the other side has height that is 10 spaces away. It would take the same unit 3 turns to get onto that height.

Good idea on the commenting. Here's what I was thinking (or not thinking, as the case may be) on those issues for Caught in the Middle.

Size: Yes it's pretty long. It's shorter than Marr Highway, an existing BoV map though. It's also the third attempt at capturing the idea, and it's the shortest of the three. I'm not sure it can be much shorter---already the start zone separation is 13 (left) and 12 (right). That's much closer than I like. Perhaps the central zone can be squeezed narrower to stretch across the breadth of the map, giving either a little more space between start zones, or a slight shortening of the map.

Height placement: it's deliberately lopsided, but I haven't carefully thought through the implications. I want the players to have to think carefully about which side will work best for which of their troops. I put the height that was more advantageous to the split player on the side where the LoS coverage was better. I wouldn't be at all surprised if I'd overdone it. The previous draft seemed to benefit the central player too much, and I think I might have overcompensated with both the height arrangements and glyph placement.

 

[KCU Master 2007]

Ok, we'll see how these things play out. I would leave the center start zones how they are though. If you spread it out then their ranks are going to be spread very thin.

I guess that makes sense with the height. Again I'm curious on how it will play out.

 

[ollie]

Following KCU's lead, here are my initial pre-play observations on Forgotten Outpost and Fort Lannister.

In both cases the start zones confuse me a little. They seem to wilfully not use the extremes of the map. Is this to get the start zones closer to the castle structure?

My first hunch on Forgotten Outpost is that the castle side has a big advantage. The noncastle side has the attack glyph and some jungle, but the castle team has guaranteed +1 to attack and defence. My hunch is that the noncastle side needs more. Fort Lannister's Attack, Defence, Move and Initiative seem closer to what is required, but that is four figures needed to hold and I think still might not be enough. I'd also like to empahasise the asymmetry further still. Rather than adding back in what the lower team is missing (attack, defence, move), I'd like to experiment with Wannok (wound) or Ivor (range), and maybe even a Mitonsoul panic button or two.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to building and playing them. I'll probably go for Fort Lannister first, purely because I'm already testing KCU's River Crossing.

EDIT. Another thought that applies to castle maps in general and is not particular to either these two or asymmetry: what about Krug/Grimnak/Templar/Grok Riders... Large and huge melee figures are in real trouble. Is there anything we can do about this?

 

[KCU Master 2007]

The thing about Forgotten Outpost is that the hill immediately beside the Red Start zone. That hill not only gives a better firing position, allows you to fire on any units who are slow making it into the castle, and it also allows you access to the outer wall which completely mitigates any advantages the castle team has, it actually tilts things back in favor of the red team.

The most difficult part for the Red Team is going to be the actual entering of the castle, but that's why the road is there.

I'll let you know how it goes tonight.

 

[ollie]

Sounds good KCU.

I've added LongHeroscaper's map "Where The Road Ends" to the first post. The road is balanced against closer high ground and better cover.

 

[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'd also like to empahasise the asymmetry further still. Rather than adding back in what the lower team is missing (attack, defence, move), I'd like to experiment with Wannok (wound) or Ivor (range), and maybe even a Mitonsoul panic button or two.

Agreed. Two ideas that occurred to me:

1. A glyph of Ivor 6 spaces from the castle wall. So anybody holding that glyph is exposed to ranged fire from the wall. You can give the non-castle side height advantage on the glyph as well, so that rushing a unit out of the castle to the glyph is similarly perilous. Maybe surround the glyph in water, so that it can't be easily claimed by an expendable squad member?
2. a glyph of Sturla (revive!) somewhere close to the attacker starting position. This allows them to launch a wave, try to wound some heroes, and then hit the reset button.

Another thought that applies to castle maps in general and is not particular to either these two or asymmetry: what about Krug/Grimnak/Templar/Grok Riders... Large and huge melee figures are in real trouble. Is there anything we can do about this?

Well, one option is to have a "stairway" somewhere alongside/inside the castle wall. It's not a perfect solution but it's an option.

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.

 

[ollie]

I'd also like to empahasise the asymmetry further still. Rather than adding back in what the lower team is missing (attack, defence, move), I'd like to experiment with Wannok (wound) or Ivor (range), and maybe even a Mitonsoul panic button or two.

Agreed. Two ideas that occurred to me:

1. A glyph of Ivor 6 spaces from the castle wall. So anybody holding that glyph is exposed to ranged fire from the wall. You can give the non-castle side height advantage on the glyph as well, so that rushing a unit out of the castle to the glyph is similarly perilous. Maybe surround the glyph in water, so that it can't be easily claimed by an expendable squad member?
2. a glyph of Sturla (revive!) somewhere close to the attacker starting position. This allows them to launch a wave, try to wound some heroes, and then hit the reset button.

I like both of those ideas, thanks Dok.

I'm now imagining a map with a whole range of single-use glyphs available to the side that has the terrain disadvantage: Mitonsoul, Sturla, Kelda, Oreld,...

 

[gorthan313]

I am currently holding the build instructions for Forgotten Outpost in my hand, and I'm about to go down into my secret lab(My basement) and build the outpost. Does anyone have any thoughts on armies that I should try on the map?

 

[ollie]

I am currently holding the build instructions for Forgotten Outpost in my hand, and I'm about to go down into my secret lab(My basement) and build the outpost. Does anyone have any thoughts on armies that I should try on the map?

I'd recommend going for whatever you most feel like playing when you get your stack of cards out.

As reports come in we might want to make sure we've covered all common army builds, probably many times each, but I think for now just go where your urges take you.

Thanks for contributing to the project! (If I switched "workshop" to "project" then we'd be the TWAMP. )

 

[KCU Master 2007]

In all honesty and in the best interest of this project, take army that you have taken (or seen at) to a tournament and play it against another tournament army. I think that would be the best way to determine balance in any map and be the best way to start looking for flaws.

 

[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.