Xaltotun

@Florentin Everything is great in the map; only to suggestions: These two place can create generate confusion: it seems there's a triangle area on the left. I know it's a part of 14 area, but can it generate confusion? Maybe not. By the way, I'd move the stakes on 86 quite to the left , so the movement below is allowed: infact in the movie some riders arrived using this way from the altar mound to the Yasmina's one, where they are killed by Subotai arrows. The importance of the stakes you added is forcing to pass through 33 to arrive in 31. Here are the changes I suggest, so you can easily see the borders I modified. I think that for the red marked zone it's a good solution. Honestly I'm not convinced about the light blue modification... Was it better before? What do you think?

Hi guys, I didn't want to enter in your conversation about the sheets, since my first object is to have material (rules and map) finally ready for the tests to begin. Infact I'm quite sure that most of the matters that are dividing us will find their solution playing. Some examples: I made my print of the map last weekend and trying to make a first rough test alone, I realized some of the problem that the map as we have can generate: some you have showed me were not, some we have discussed yesterday. I also thought that too many sheets were on the table, and that maybe the arrow counter can be easily changed in a pile of single arrows to be given to Subotai player, once he flipped the 5 arrows token on the map. Personally I'd prefer different sheets for the characters (but only one to be used all the campaign, like in the official Monolith campaign!), and I'd prefer a fully armoured Conan, as in some of the pics uploaded by @Florentin. Do you want to know more? It's a campaign, so it means the evolution of the characters depends on the play. So I'd have prefered that Valeria can be eventually considered in case she didn't die in the previous scenario. I prefered not to enter in these further discussion because, in my opinion, we need to proceed step by step: -define the general project of the campaign -define rules for the first scenario to create; -create all the necessary material (even roughly) to play it, knowing that it can be (and mostly surely be) changed once the tests are completed. -test the scenario; -rearrange map, rules, skills, equipment -work on the alternate version of the scenario in case (in the official monolith campaign there are more than one, depending on who won the previous); -rearrange the graphical. -update the global project of the campaign, if needed; -start with the next one. So that's why my last post were focusing on map and rules. By the way, it is true that this is not a single man project, so it'd be better to share the most; obviously sharing means to me renouncing sometimes. But - and this is the most important - most of the decision will come only after the tests, when we will discuss and compare our experiences. I really understand @Florentin position about a more cooperative work, as I understand @Arthadan too, who probably prefer to have a first fixed rules to start. I hope none of you will be irked by my post. It's only my personal opinion. Guys, we are working by messages and forum, no common motherlanguage, no face to face contact, no vocal chat, discussion, arguing face to face, no tests together.... it's hard! We need to be patient to each other and opened to each other ideas, but keeping in mind our path, and that we must move step by step... ...or the project sooner or later will abort. Be sure of this. I repeat: I hope that none of you can feel offended or irked after my post; probably most of what I wrote was obvious, but I think needed, since something was already in the air. If you agree with me, guys, we are probably one of the most productive team in the overlord. So let's go on fixing the last few things pending with the map and the rules and start testing. Once the first scenario is finally ready for publishing, we can decide to change aspects of the material used. So, keep our eyes and steps to our road map, keep ourselves open to each other suggests and wishes (that's important), but be sure that nothing is definitive until the tests are complete. Do you agree?

Hi! Can someone explain me why the Witch-Hunters have a differnt symbol for armory, please?

I mean both yellow arrows, as long as we add stakes between A and B areas, if we agree. It makes not much sense that 'you can pass where your base fit it': this is a simulation. Look at the broken walls tokens or at the door size: some bases don't fit, but even huge figures move through anyway (ex the giant serpent inside the pict's hut). That's why I'd prefer to add those stakes, unless someone has a better solution. It's also important that dismounted figures could move to the top of the hill following the blue or the green arrows or both, for the reasons I explained. Anyway this is only my opinion.

@Arthadan Maybe we should remember inside the scenario rules that mounds block the line of sight, so it's impossible to throw an arrow to the opposite side of the hill.

@Florentin I also suggest to add a stake here:

@Florentin Recently I've been talking so much about palisades and passing through them or less, and eventually how. Connected to this matter, is the need to surround them with white border in a proper way. This is not a matter of graphics only; it concern the way the game could go: how to reach Yasmina? So my idea is this: - Palisades/stakes can't be crossed by horsemen; - they are not easy to pass by infantry, so passing them will cost an amount of gems; - they can't be passed by foot men carrying Yasmina (think about: this is very important point!); - as previously agreed, the only way to reach the top of the mound for a mounted figure is the back path (yellow arrow), as we see in the movie; - as we know Subotai and Akiro run to the top to protect Yasmina at the end, following probably the blue or the green arrows, so it makes sense to leave a tight path to reach the top of the mound running for any dismounted figure with no penalty movement. In the map below you can see in red all the changes I had already showed you, plus the movement vectors to climb the mound. The problem is the connection between the areas A and B. It makes sense that doom troopers could ride all the perimether of the table top, but my suggestion is to put a "palisade bush" between these 2 areas. Compare these 2 maps: As you can see, this would mean: - one step more using this path; - Having two areas (B and C) as necessary step to reach Yasmina with mounted troop. - Having only 2 areas to defend would be easier for the heros in case.

@Arthadan Probably the Mounted Combat rules can be put in the first pages of the campaign, before the scenarios; anyway at the moment is better to insert them in the campaign rules. I remember we talked about forbidding to dismount for the first turns. Am I wrong? About the palisades, I think that we should allow the heroes and foot soldiers to move across, or the heros will be definitely cut off from Yasmina mound.... and how can Subotai save her with his shield at the end. Maybe they can use the passages @Florentin left between them to move with no extra cost, or climbing them for an extra movement

Great work @Arthadan! I think that a couple of words about palisades effects are needed. We're almost there guys! Congratulations!

I think that a natural english speaker makes the difference! @Primeval is right and it's better for us to change the wording. (Ps.can we ask you to correct our rules files eventually, please?) But, if you don't mind, I'd apply those changes on the map anyway. It's better to keep same graphical solution for same items, and it's true that palisades split areas. So I'd appy those changes anyway, hoping to prevent player from further doubts and confusion while playing.

Ok here's the idea. This is our map. I have problems in the following areas: RED AREAS: 2, 12, 13 and partially 3, 14 and 22. BLUE AREAS: 30 and 23 1) Areas 2, 12, 13 seem too large, from the plain to the top of the mound and crossing palisades too; 2) We write in the rules that no horsemen (or no-one, still pending) can pass through areas that cointain palisades.... but the areas 2, 12 and 13 contain palisades... SInce areas 2, 12, 13 contain palisades the following movement should be impossible (blue arrow). It makes no sense. Do you agree with me? And also in areas 30 and 23 there are palisades/stakes, so is the red arrow movement impossible through 30 and 23? Does it make sense? No, I guess. ************************************************************************************ Now, look at the areas 6 and 35: what's between them? Palisades. So palisades are on the border, like they are particular areas (or a particular "non area"), anyway no horseman is allowed to move from 6 to 35 and there's no doubt about it. Am I wrong? The idea could be: 1) surround with white lines palisades and stakes in areas 30, 23, 2, 12, 13, and partially 14 and 22, as we did with palisades between 6 and 35. (Here's my rough attempt in red) 2) divide areas 2, 12 and 13 (and 3) 3) divide area 35 (there are monoliths between!) ( I made some minor changes between areas 23 and 24) RESULTS: 1) The blue arrow movements are allowed (palisades do not properly belong to those areas), but take care because you are moving beside palisades and spikes! No doubt about this. 2) Areas 4, 5, 6 are exclusive palisade areas: they influence the surrounding areas and no horseman can cross them. I hope everything is clear. Do you agree with me? Does it make sense to you?

Thank you for your patience and for being so ready to hear our requests...

Sure. I'll send you a purpose of modification of few areas of the map tomorrow; I'll do it roughly on the map, so it will be easier to explain. Then if it's ok for you too, and if you have time, you can upgrade our map. cheers

Ok, I understood the point. But I'm not talking about going on top of the mound, but moving around it along the areas where the palisades are (blue crossed): my idea is just to separate the palisades from the areas around, to prevent from confusion. Consider that some are even macro areas from plane to mound top with palosades in the middle.... So, can someone move following the red arrows? There are palisades in the area?... there are, so he can't.... !? This can be a reasonable doubt, for a player. That's all.

I agree to you about walking on foot... how could subotai and mako have run to the top of the mound to protect Yasmina, if not? I think that there's no need of much spikes more; I'd separate spikes in the blue marked areas, bordering them in white: If we say Pallisades: nobody can pass through them, if a Mounted miniature suffers damage in an area adyacent to a pallisade, the rider may fall on it. Players could think that 1) they cant pass through these areas, though they could, 2) these area are not properly adiacent to palisades, they cointain it, and this could eventually generate confusion. That's why my idea is to separate spikes and palisade like they are a barrier, with their own white borders (or yellow?... but not a lemon one), following a bit thei pointing shapes,so they can be easily recognized as adiacent "palisade special areas", where horsemen/no one (still to decide) can't pass through.

Ok, but don't you think that since the chevals and stakes are inside 'walkable' areas, this could create confusion?

Let me check better tomorrow the rules about mounted and dismounted figures in the previous posts by @Arthadan, the I can tell you better my point. thanks!

While trying to print the map, I realized that maybe we can have some problem on Yasmina mound. Please, check this first image: if we don't use the "cheval of Frise" and the stakes as borders between 2 areas, or as particular areas (for infantry only) that separate normal areas, what could happen? Look at the hypothetical movements of 3 different mounted figures in a single turn: Even writing down special rules concerning the presence of stakes in an area, don't you think that a player could be confused about? So I imagined this kind of solution: (It doesn't matter if the perimeter of an area doesn't follow the pattern of the stakes) I hope you can see the arrows and the new (red) borders, enlarging the images. What do you think about?

Sorry it's not "appreciated"... ...it's "really appreciated"! 😉

What do you think on dividing areas 7,11,74 this way? The cheval of frise would effect both 7 &74 and it obly the horsemen to spend a movement point more to go from 74 to 7, via 11. does it make sense?

GREAT WORK, GUYS! I hope it's not to late to suggest a small change on the upper mound: My suggestion is to divide the top of the hill so he monoliths could have some use. In a previous post @Florentin, I guess, reminded us that doom shot his snake arrow from that top and there was no point for allowing it to foot men only: so I just enlarged a bit the mound circle and divided in to, following monoliths line. Please, see the red lines. what do you think? Please, do not consider the white circle on the top, I enlarged it in red. Version A Version B I think version B makes more sense. Check the points of sight on the mound, please. I also created a new area beyond the ridge. Whats'your opinion? ps. Please, apologize my rough work: not so easy by my tablet! 😥

Hi guys! Sorry for my long silence: been butchered at work I'll read all the last posts and try to give my contribute to solve eventual pendings about the map.

Maybe you're right: I didn't think this way.

Honestly I fear that 2 life points could be maybe too much... Let's start with one, then, if the scenario is not balanced enough, we can rearrange it. The text is good for me, anyway!

@Florentin thank you, I received it, though unfortunately I couldn't see it yet, because I can't open the archive from my mobile and have no time to get access to my pc ...unbelievable! :-( I'll check it tomorrow. ...hard times!