Monsters! - Battle for the Powerstones

[dolomite13]

Map v0.13.9

- Changed "Win by defeating your opponents or controlling all 8 powerstones" to "Win by defeating your opponents or controlling all 8 powerstones for one round"
- Changed "special monsters" to "runebound monsters"
- Clarified that runebound count towards the +1 for every 3 monsters. Had to remove the note that +1 is minimum not the generic +3 but people should get the idea.
- Added a note that spells reset to 3 every turn.

SMALL (v0_13_9)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2547/368 ... 7a75_o.png



LARGE (v0_13_9)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/368 ... 3853_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2462/3680797374_83842a3853_o.png[/bigimg]

NOTE: I will be out of town for a short vacation from noon (July 2nd) till sun (July 5th). I will not be checking email or the CC forums.

==D

[whitestazn88]

nice updates man.

[dolomite13]

Well my computer locked up and won 't boot at all. All Monsters! files are on that machine. If there are any changes now I am sorta screwed. I will be taking the hard drive to a friend to see if I can recover the files. I will update when I know what the situation is.

==D

[dolomite13]

Good News and Bad News... Well the bad news is that my motherboard was fried. The good news is that the hard drive is in tact. After dropping a few thousand on a new i7 processor gaming rig and another 25 bucks on an external hard drive enclosure I was able to salvage all Monsters! files. Once I get photoshop reinstalled (this evening) I will be ready to make any changes that the foundry team asks for. So consider me ready to roll.

==D

[dolomite13]

I believe Monsters is ready for Gameplay, Graphics, and XML review for its move to the Final Forge.

I am still open to all feedback and want to make this map the best it can be and the most fun to play =)

Thanks for your time...

==D

============================================================

Gameplay

[spoiler=Gameplay Notes]Balanced play. It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn.

-- Because the map has 4 starting locations per quadrant, it should spread the drop of players out enough that they won't have an advantage. In 2 player games it would start with 8 monsters for a bonus of +2 and 4 wizards all with autodeploy 3. Because there are no real continent based bonuses this should limit the players ability to start with any bonuses.

Reasonable bonus structure. Bonuses should make sense given the size/style of the map, and be based on a consistent formula.

-- Because there are no continents the bonuses are based on number of monsters controlled and maintaining control of specific bonus locations "runebound monsters" and "powerstones" and because there are two autodeploy bonuses on "wizards" and "powerstones" I believe the structure is fair and generates enough armies per turn that the players will be able to use the powerstone spells effectively but should not cause stalemate situations.

Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).

-- I admit that I haven't given this much thought. Standard should play fantastic. Assassin might be a bit tougher as the shield of the wizard will slow the ability to take out the opposing wizard. But this should stop situations like turn 2 wins available on some of the maps. Fog of War games should be great fun. Not knowing which wizard is the starting location and no way to know till you have taken out that wizards shield should make it quite interesting indeed.

Player-friendliness. Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to gather by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear and concise, and the map should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules.

-- I did not include visible connection lines between some locations as the map would have become too crowded. However I believe the legend does a great job of explaining those connections.

Open-play. There should be many ways a game might progress on a map, and many roads to victory. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. The map should be fun to play, not frustrating.

-- The map includes quite a few ways to jump around, you can for instance attack a powerstone, use the "mind blast" assault a "runebound monster" across the map. This mitigates the fact that each quadrant is segregated in a way that they are only connected by powerstones and that 2 powerstones exist per quadrant.

Function trumps form. The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc.

-- I think the map is easy to read although it is quite busy in terms of graphics. I have taken great care to make sure that the monsters that are not adjacent have enough space between them so that it is easy to see which ones connect. I have also run the map through two colorblind filters.[/spoiler]

Graphics

[spoiler=Graphics Notes]1) Image must present itself as clear and legible.

-- I believe the map is clear and legible. I have tried over 20 fonts of various sizes to find the right one.

2) Both large and small maps athetics must be to a presentable foundry standard and must also satisfy the community at large.

-- I hope that this is true. I am quite satisfied.

3) Cartographers must, where possible, reduce any disadvantage that can be caused to a colorblind individual.

-- I have run the map through two colorblind filters and have created symbols to show map connections where possible to mitigate this.

4) All map makers are expected to take all graphical comments into consideration and must either accepted them or give sound reasoning as to why not to take paticular advice.

-- I believe I have taken all advice and have implemented every suggestion that helped to improve the maps graphics as best I could.[/spoiler]

============================================================

[dolomite13]

It has been 3 weeks since my last post asking that this map be reviewed for Gameplay and Graphics stamps. I am of the opinion it is ready to move to the final forge. It would be great if all my work on this map didn't get lost in the cracks as I begin work on a few other maps and the XML for the Jamaica map.

Thanx

==D

[Teflon Kris]

Apologies for delay in feedback

Re: Gameplay

Starting Positions
In the first post you suggest how many wizards and monsters players would start with depending on number of players.

Am I to assume that you have reviewed this, given what is and isnt possible with the xml. I'm guessing that the start positions aren't set to neutral (i.e. 2 or 3-players get 1/3 of them each, 4-players get 1/4 each etc. etc.)

Apologies if this is discussed somewhere a few pages back.

Connections
I think I get it - am I to assume that the Wizards can be attacked from their shields? Perhaps this needs to be mentionned for players as dumb (and dumber) than me.

Bonuses
You've mentioned +3 for powerstones in the bonus section. I assume this is the same as the +3 auto-deploy? In which case it is probably best to remove it from the 'bonus' part of the legend to avoid confusion.

Above, you mention "Clarified that runebound count towards the +1 for every 3 monsters. Had to remove the note that +1 is minimum not the generic +3 but people should get the idea." Does this mean that there is no normal territory bonus (i.e. 3 for 1 to 11, 4 for 12 etc etc.)?

[dolomite13]

Re: Gameplay

Starting Positions
In the first post you suggest how many wizards and monsters players would start with depending on number of players.

Am I to assume that you have reviewed this, given what is and isnt possible with the xml. I'm guessing that the start positions aren't set to neutral (i.e. 2 or 3-players get 1/3 of them each, 4-players get 1/4 each etc. etc.)

The 8 wizards are set as start positions, the 16 possible starting monsters are set to get a random player drop. According to the xml people I have talked with this should yield the results I posted above.

Starting Positions:

Code: Select all

<!-- Starting positions -->
−
<positions>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 1 -->
<territory start="1">Rayden</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 2 -->
<territory start="1">Cryma</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 3 -->
<territory start="1">Yesha</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 4 -->
<territory start="1">Purlin</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 5 -->
<territory start="1">Brago</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 6 -->
<territory start="1">Grath</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 7 -->
<territory start="1">Sythe</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<!-- Player Start 8 -->
<territory start="1">Olan</territory>
</position>
</positions>

Monster Samples:

Code: Select all

<!-- Player Start -->
<territory>
<name>Bon</name>
<borders>
<border>Bad</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>51</smallx>
<smally>253</smally>
<largex>69</largex>
<largey>330</largey>
</coordinates>
</territory>

<!-- Neutral Start -->
<territory>
<name>Bor</name>
<borders>
<border>Bek</border>
<border>P2</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>88</smallx>
<smally>320</smally>
<largex>119</largex>
<largey>419</largey>
</coordinates>
<neutral>2</neutral>
</territory>

Connections
I think I get it - am I to assume that the Wizards can be attacked from their shields? Perhaps this needs to be mentionned for players as dumb (and dumber) than me.

Yep they can, and under "Shields" in the legend it states they can assault the wizard they protect. I tried to only list something like this once in the legend due to limited space.

Bonuses
You've mentioned +3 for powerstones in the bonus section. I assume this is the same as the +3 auto-deploy? In which case it is probably best to remove it from the 'bonus' part of the legend to avoid confusion.

It is a double bonus for holding the powerstones. You get +3 you can put anywhere and it autodeploys 3 on each powerstone so you have some forces building up on the powerstones for instant protection. If this seems like too much I am open to suggestions, I did it because I want people to be able to use the powerstone spells rather than to fortify an entire quadrant and create a stalemate.

Above, you mention "Clarified that runebound count towards the +1 for every 3 monsters. Had to remove the note that +1 is minimum not the generic +3 but people should get the idea." Does this mean that there is no normal territory bonus (i.e. 3 for 1 to 11, 4 for 12 etc etc.)?

Correct the normal bonus is removed. Instead you get +1 for every 3 monsters (runebound included)

Code: Select all

<!-- Reinforcements overrider -->
<minreinforcement>3</minreinforcement>
<reinforcements>
<reinforcement>
<lower>1</lower>
<upper>88</upper>
<divisor>89</divisor>
</reinforcement>
</reinforcements>

Thanx so much for stopping by and posting comments =)

=D=

[Teflon Kris]

Starting Positions
In the first post you suggest how many wizards and monsters players would start with depending on number of players.

Am I to assume that you have reviewed this, given what is and isnt possible with the xml. I'm guessing that the start positions aren't set to neutral (i.e. 2 or 3-players get 1/3 of them each, 4-players get 1/4 each etc. etc.)

The 8 wizards are set as start positions, the 16 possible starting monsters are set to get a random player drop. According to the xml people I have talked with this should yield the results I posted above.

I'm not an xml reader - when you say 'above' I assume you are referring to the post calling for a review. Take the 2-player example you have there- if the wizards are all 1-territory starting positions then 2 players get 1 each. They may get more - the other 6 get added to the other territories to be handed-out between the 2 players and the randoms - they may get anything from 0 to 6 (assuming they aren't underlying neutrals?). I think?

If the strong monsters are randomly distributed then in 2 player, the 16 monsters are added to the 6 wizards - so each player gets between 1 and 7.

Connections
I think I get it - am I to assume that the Wizards can be attacked from their shields? Perhaps this needs to be mentionned for players as dumb (and dumber) than me.

Yep they can, and under "Shields" in the legend it states they can assault the wizard they protect. I tried to only list something like this once in the legend due to limited space.

Apologies - this is already in the legend - told you I was dumb!

Bonuses
You've mentioned +3 for powerstones in the bonus section. I assume this is the same as the +3 auto-deploy? In which case it is probably best to remove it from the 'bonus' part of the legend to avoid confusion.

It is a double bonus for holding the powerstones. You get +3 you can put anywhere and it autodeploys 3 on each powerstone so you have some forces building up on the powerstones for instant protection. If this seems like too much I am open to suggestions, I did it because I want people to be able to use the powerstone spells rather than to fortify an entire quadrant and create a stalemate.

I'll have a think about this - it does seem a lot for one territory but, as you say, makes the stones a strategic point.

Above, you mention "Clarified that runebound count towards the +1 for every 3 monsters. Had to remove the note that +1 is minimum not the generic +3 but people should get the idea." Does this mean that there is no normal territory bonus (i.e. 3 for 1 to 11, 4 for 12 etc etc.)?

Correct the normal bonus is removed. Instead you get +1 for every 3 monsters (runebound included)

This definitely needs to be clear in the legend - e.g. "No Normal Territory Bonus"

[dolomite13]

Starting Positions
In the first post you suggest how many wizards and monsters players would start with depending on number of players.

Am I to assume that you have reviewed this, given what is and isnt possible with the xml. I'm guessing that the start positions aren't set to neutral (i.e. 2 or 3-players get 1/3 of them each, 4-players get 1/4 each etc. etc.)

The 8 wizards are set as start positions, the 16 possible starting monsters are set to get a random player drop. According to the xml people I have talked with this should yield the results I posted above.

I'm not an xml reader - when you say 'above' I assume you are referring to the post calling for a review. Take the 2-player example you have there- if the wizards are all 1-territory starting positions then 2 players get 1 each. They may get more - the other 6 get added to the other territories to be handed-out between the 2 players and the randoms - they may get anything from 0 to 6 (assuming they aren't underlying neutrals?). I think?

If the strong monsters are randomly distributed then in 2 player, the 16 monsters are added to the 6 wizards - so each player gets between 1 and 7.

According to the xml guys by setting the 8 wizards to starting positions, also setting the wizards to neutral causes the wizards to be split up and remaining wizards to be assigned as neutral. Then not forcing the 16 starting generic monsters to neutral drops those 16 into the general pool of random starts. Creating a start as listed here. In the image above you can see that the majority of the map starts neutral. The start positions have red numbers, and the random starts are in blue.

8 wizards (red numbers on the above map)
16 monsters (blue numbers on the above map)

In a 2 player game
- both players would have 4 wizards each.
- both players would have 8 monsters each.

In a 3 player game
- all players would have 3 wizards each with 2 remainder set to 1 neutral.
- all players would have 6 monsters each with 2 remainder set to 3 neutral.

In a 4 player game
- all players would have 2 wizards each.
- all players would have 4 monsters each.

In a 5 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 3 remainder set to 1 neutral.
- all players would have 3 monsters each with 1 remainder set to 3 neutral.

In a 6 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 2 remainder set to 1 neutral.
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 4 remainder set to 3 neutral.

In a 7 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 1 remainder set to 1 neutral.
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 2 remainder set to 3 neutral.

In a 8 player game
- all players would have 1 wizards each.
- all players would have 2 monsters each.

Above, you mention "Clarified that runebound count towards the +1 for every 3 monsters. Had to remove the note that +1 is minimum not the generic +3 but people should get the idea." Does this mean that there is no normal territory bonus (i.e. 3 for 1 to 11, 4 for 12 etc etc.)?

Correct the normal bonus is removed. Instead you get +1 for every 3 monsters (runebound included)

This definitely needs to be clear in the legend - e.g. "No Normal Territory Bonus"

Agreed.

==D==

[Teflon Kris]

My understanding of having starting positions as underlying neutrals is that they are neutral if not used -

therefore in any kind of game each player gets 1 position.

If this is correct. it means that the wizards and monsters are equally divided between players - although players dont get as many wizards as you thought, or may have intended.

[dolomite13]

My understanding of having starting positions as underlying neutrals is that they are neutral if not used -

therefore in any kind of game each player gets 1 position.

If this is correct. it means that the wizards and monsters are equally divided between players - although players dont get as many wizards as you thought, or may have intended.

Ah... hmmmm... I was under the impression that the amount of assigned starts was set before the fall thru to neutral on the starting positions creating the start as I described it ... this is going to need for one of the game engine experts to weigh in on.

==D==

[Teflon Kris]

Take the yellow start - If there is no yellow player then it is neutral.

It would only be added to anything if it weren't set as neutral - in which case it would be added to any other 'normal' territories to be counted-up and shared-out randomly (i.e. the monsters).

This post in the xml starting positions discussion thread will hopefully clarify: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=68154&start=15#p2054943

[thenobodies80]

If you have the 8 wizards coded as starting positions , with an underlying neutral
and 16 regions (monsters) in the starting pot (all other neutrals aren't considered)

2players each player will have 4 starting positions (8/2), 5 monsters (16/3) and 1 neutrals monster (reminder)
3players each player will have 2 starting positions (8/3), 5 monsters (16/3) and 3 neutrals (2 wizards and 1 monster)
4players each player will have 2 starting positions (8/4), 4 monsters (16/4), no neutrals
5players each player will have 1 starting position (8/5), 3 monsters (16/5) and 4 neutrals (3 wizards and 1 monster)
6players each player will have 1 starting position (8/6), 2 monsters (16/6) and 6 neutrals (2 wizards and 4 monsters)
7players each player will have 1 starting position (8/7), 2 monsters (16/7) and 3 neutrals (1 wizard and 2 monsters)
8players each player will have 1 starting position 88/8), 2 monsters (16/8), no neutrals

If you have the 8 wizards coded as starting positions , with no underlying neutral

2players each player will have 4 starting positions, 5 monsters and 1 neutral monster
3players each player will have 2 starting positions and 6 regions (18/3 --> monsters and reminder of wizards), no neutrals
4players each player will have 2 starting positions and 4 monsters (16/4), no neutrals
5players each player will have 1 starting position and 3 regions (19/5 --> monsters and reminder of wizards), 4 neutrals (no possible to say if monster or wizards)
6players each player will have 1 starting position and 3 regions (18/6), no neutrals
7players each player will have 1 starting position and 2 regions (19/7), 5 neutral (no possible to say if monster or wizards)
8players each player will have 1 starting position and 2 regions (16/8), no neutrals[/list]

[dolomite13]

If you have the 8 wizards coded as starting positions , with an underlying neutral
and 16 regions (monsters) in the starting pot (all other neutrals aren't considered)

2players each player will have 4 starting positions (8/2), 5 monsters (16/3) and 1 neutrals monster (reminder)
3players each player will have 2 starting positions (8/3), 5 monsters (16/3) and 3 neutrals (2 wizards and 1 monster)
4players each player will have 2 starting positions (8/4), 4 monsters (16/4), no neutrals
5players each player will have 1 starting position (8/5), 3 monsters (16/5) and 4 neutrals (3 wizards and 1 monster)
6players each player will have 1 starting position (8/6), 2 monsters (16/6) and 6 neutrals (2 wizards and 4 monsters)
7players each player will have 1 starting position (8/7), 2 monsters (16/7) and 3 neutrals (1 wizard and 2 monsters)
8players each player will have 1 starting position (8/8), 2 monsters (16/8), no neutrals

If you have the 8 wizards coded as starting positions , with no underlying neutral

2players each player will have 4 starting positions, 5 monsters and 1 neutral monster
3players each player will have 2 starting positions and 6 regions (18/3 --> monsters and reminder of wizards), no neutrals
4players each player will have 2 starting positions and 4 monsters (16/4), no neutrals
5players each player will have 1 starting position and 3 regions (19/5 --> monsters and reminder of wizards), 4 neutrals (no possible to say if monster or wizards)
6players each player will have 1 starting position and 3 regions (18/6), no neutrals
7players each player will have 1 starting position and 2 regions (19/7), 5 neutral (no possible to say if monster or wizards)
8players each player will have 1 starting position and 2 regions (16/8), no neutrals[/list]

It is coded like your first example but I assumed it was "2 players each player will have 4 starting positions (8/2), 8 monsters (16/2) and 0 neutrals monster (reminder)" did you make a typo or was I wrong?

==D==

[thenobodies80]

It is coded like your first example but I assumed it was "2 players each player will have 4 starting positions (8/2), 8 monsters (16/2) and 0 neutrals monster (reminder)" did you make a typo or was I wrong?

==D==

Sorry, (maybe post something at 3:00 am wasn't a good choice ) i explain you better
SP are always splitted equally and randomly (no possible to know which player will have a x starting positions) among the players
with 2 players divided by 2
with 3 players divided by 3
with 4 players divided by 4
etc

Normal regions are splitted among the players randomly but:
with 2 or 3 players divided by 3 (in 2 players there's to add a sort of neutral player)
with 4 players divided by 4
etc

So, you have 8 wizards (SP) and 16 monsters (normal)
8 SP / 2 = 4 SP (equally and randomly splitted) for each player
There is a reminder? No
All other monsters are 'normal' regions, so they will be splitted at least by 3
16 monsters / 3 = 5 for each player (so there is a sort of neutral player with 5 monsters)
plus 1 monster as reminder (it will be neutral)

In a 1vs1 you'll have each (human) player starting with 4 wizards, 5 monsters and, there will be 6 neutral monsters (5+1)

[dolomite13]

Ah I get it.



8 wizards (red numbers on the above map)
16 monsters (blue numbers on the above map)

In a 2 player game
- both players would have 4 wizards each. (8/2)
- both players would have 5 monsters each with 6 remainder set to 3 neutral. (16/3)

In a 3 player game
- all players would have 3 wizards each with 2 remainder set to 1 neutral. (8/3)
- all players would have 5 monsters each with 1 remainder set to 3 neutral. (16/3)

In a 4 player game
- all players would have 2 wizards each. (8/4)
- all players would have 4 monsters each. (16/4)

In a 5 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 3 remainder set to 1 neutral. (8/5)
- all players would have 3 monsters each with 1 remainder set to 3 neutral. (16/5)

In a 6 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 2 remainder set to 1 neutral. (8/6)
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 4 remainder set to 3 neutral. (16/6)

In a 7 player game
- all players would have 1 wizard each with 1 remainder set to 1 neutral. (8/7)
- all players would have 2 monsters each with 2 remainder set to 3 neutral. (16/7)

In a 8 player game
- all players would have 1 wizards each. (8/8)
- all players would have 2 monsters each. (16/8)

[Teflon Kris]

That's it - apologies - learning process for me too

[Teflon Kris]

Ok - looking very good and very interesting gameplay-wise.

And, apologies for the extensive clarification in recent posts.

However, my conscious and sub-conscious brains have looked into this and both scream at me that the first player to take and hold a powerstone is smiling all the way to the bonus bank.

Do you agree? If you were playing - wouldn't you take, and fort, everything to the stone asap?

(n.b. only other point of note is to make it clear in the legend that there is 'no normal territory bonus')

[dolomite13]

Ok - looking very good and very interesting gameplay-wise.

And, apologies for the extensive clarification in recent posts.

However, my conscious and sub-conscious brains have looked into this and both scream at me that the first player to take and hold a powerstone is smiling all the way to the bonus bank.

Do you agree? If you were playing - wouldn't you take, and fort, everything to the stone asap?

(n.b. only other point of note is to make it clear in the legend that there is 'no normal territory bonus')

I was thinking of playing with bonuses a bit and restoring the basic minimum of +3.

+1 per monster (and runebound) minimum +3 (instead of minimum +1)
+1 per special monster (instead of +2)
+2 per powerstone (instead of +3)
Wizard Autodeploy +1 (instead of +3)
Powerstone Autodeploy +1 (instead of +3)

This would give you +4 immediately to be able to start taking territories with. Most neutrals are 2 on the map and powerstones are 5.

On turn 1 you could capture 1 runebound monster but I believe in a non team game it would be hard to take a powerstone. Although not impossible.

Any thoughts?

==D==

[dolomite13]

Here is what I decided.

I like the larger bonuses however I would like the autodeploy on the powerstones to go away. I also feel that I would like to have the +1 for every 3 minimum +3 so I am decreasing wizard autodeploy to 1.

That should just about do it =)

==D==

SMALL (v0_13_10)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/387 ... 074f_o.png



LARGE (v0_13_10)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/387 ... dcc6_o.png

[bigimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3873116676_065636dcc6_o.png[/bigimg]

[Teflon Kris]

+1 for every 3 minimum +3

Do you mean - everyone starts with at least +3 for monsters?

Anyway, it looks fine gameplay-wise - I agree with your amendments - everything is attackable and there is no 'quick-win' scenario for player 1. With the monsters bonus system there is incentive to use all of the territories.

My only remaining question would be whether the shields need to be set as high as 10? Certainly, they need to be more than the typical 3 as they are preventing the above 'quick-win' scenario. 10 may be a little too off-putting though and result in a lot of build-up games? Maybe 6 or 8? Or maybe you can justify 10 for reasons I haven't imagined?

[dolomite13]

+1 for every 3 minimum +3

Do you mean - everyone starts with at least +3 for monsters?

Yep

Anyway, it looks fine gameplay-wise - I agree with your amendments - everything is attackable and there is no 'quick-win' scenario for player 1. With the monsters bonus system there is incentive to use all of the territories.

My only remaining question would be whether the shields need to be set as high as 10? Certainly, they need to be more than the typical 3 as they are preventing the above 'quick-win' scenario. 10 may be a little too off-putting though and result in a lot of build-up games? Maybe 6 or 8? Or maybe you can justify 10 for reasons I haven't imagined?

10 is rather high I like 10 because it makes it take a little longer to take out someone in assassin games. But in standard games you never need to defeat opponents with the powerstone objective. I would be willing to consider dropping the number a bit to 7 or 8 though.

==D==

[Teflon Kris]

Cool - how about we agree on 8? That should do the trick.

Sorry - here is a complete rethink and about-turn by me:

I am concerned that the bonus system would give a big advantage for the player(s) starting first - although having wizards as start positions with just a 1 start helps prevent them from attacking massively first go - with the +1 auto-deploy and, most importantly, 2 for each monster, it means there that player 1 can hit his opponent(s) monsters to ensure they start with fewer bonuses.

How do you see it working out?

[dolomite13]

Hmm it would be possible to get to a runebound monster other then the one bordering your wizard on turn one. the 1 neutral was there to let wizards start out by taking out a monster and getting at least 1 card early. This could be changed.

There are a few options.

option 1: I could set the runebound monster to 3 neutral. which would make it tougher to take out that territory by any wizard.

option 2: I could set the runebound monsters as starting positions. Each wizard would start with their runebound monster under their control. And 3 armies on it.

What ya think?

==D==