Roads

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

It appears while roads are exempt from the placement roll, they are subject to the adjustment roll, including "slides". I assume the final adjustment of the road must meet the criteria listed on page 131. Have I got that right?

Please refer to the diagram on page 141. There is a road shown in the lower right hand corner (which I know is a typo but will serve my purpose). Assume the Placing player put it there and the adjusting roll was a "5". Could the Adjusting player slide the road 12 MU toward the lake (or to the lake if the distance is less than 12 MU), thus extending the length of the road and altering the exit points?

Let's assume the road was placed near the lake and exited off both long edges of the table. Now the adjusting roll of "5" is made. Could the Adjusting player slide the road to it's current position in the diagram even though this meant part of the road would disappear off the table (perhaps violating the prohibition in the last sentence on the page) and one exit edge would change from the top long edge to the right hand short edge?

Thanks, Terry G.

[kevinj]

The rules state that a terrain piececannot be slid or pivoted off-table, there is no exception for roads. This effectively allows someone to place a road on one flank and thereby prevent their opponent laying any further terrain on that flank.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

So you are saying that while "A road can be placed closer than 4 MU's..." to other terrain pieces, the converse is not true. Other terrain pieces can not be placed closer than 4 MU's to a road.

Still, on a roll of 3-5 couldn't the Adjusting player slide a flank road toward the center of the field to create more room on the flank for other pieces? Could he do this if the road ran at a diagonal (pg 141), adding length to the road as it slid toward the center?

Terry G.

[kevinj]

Any piece can be placed within 4 MU of a road (P140).

If the road runs from one long edge to the other then it could be slid without a problem. However, if it runs diagonally, or has a bend, so that it runs from a long edge to a short edge, any slide or pivot will either take part of it off-table, or leave one or other end not joined to an edge. So, if you start a road on your opponents long edge, 3.9 MU from one of the short edges, and then run it straight towards your long edge, but with a bend just before it reaches that edge so it exits the table on your side via the short edge, it cannot be moved. Because terrain features cannot be less than 4 MU wide it will not be possible to fit one on the edge of the table.

[expendablecinc]

I think they should be able to be slid if going from opposing table edges and pivoted if going from adjacent ones.

[kevinj]

I agree that would be reasonable but I think the simplest fix would be to change the placement order so that roads are placed after all other terrain features

[timurilenk]

I agree that would be reasonable but I think the simplest fix would be to change the placement order so that roads are placed after all other terrain features

Or allow terrain with a 3 or 4 to be placed adjacent to a river or road if thee is insufficient space due to the river or road.

[kevinj]

Or allow terrain with a 3 or 4 to be placed adjacent to a river or road if thee is insufficient space due to the river or road.

I think that could be open to a different abuse, i.e put down a road 15 MUs from the edge, then look to place a piece that's 15.5 MUs across...

[paulburton]

Other than the rules as stated - Is there any reason why a road shouls not be able to go straight through/over any passable terrain feature. There are plenty of roads that go through woods and over hills (even steep ones). Especially if they were built by Romans who rarely let terrain get in the way of a straight line.

It might be simplest to allow other terrain to be placed under the road. The road could then be used to get through the terrain without loss of speed.

[kevinj]

It's been said before that the main reason for not allowing this is aesthetic.

[timurilenk]

I think that could be open to a different abuse, i.e put down a road 15 MUs from the edge, then look to place a piece that's 15.5 MUs across...

Good point - well made Kev

[hazelbark]

It's been said before that the main reason for not allowing this is aesthetic.

I believe it was a hold over from previous rules. I think they felt they were keeping the rules clean, but instead pushed it aside unnecessarily.

[gozerius]

Any piece can be placed within 4 MU of a road (P140).

If the road runs from one long edge to the other then it could be slid without a problem. However, if it runs diagonally, or has a bend, so that it runs from a long edge to a short edge, any slide or pivot will either take part of it off-table, or leave one or other end not joined to an edge. So, if you start a road on your opponents long edge, 3.9 MU from one of the short edges, and then run it straight towards your long edge, but with a bend just before it reaches that edge so it exits the table on your side via the short edge, it cannot be moved. Because terrain features cannot be less than 4 MU wide it will not be possible to fit one on the edge of the table.

All terrain pieces must be selected before placement. If you want a road with a kink in it, you better say so at terrain choosing time. Or if you are going to run a road from long edge to short edge. Deciding the shape of a road after terrain has been selected and placed is an abuse.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

I agree. You have to designate the size and shape of other terrain pieces at the time of selection. The length and shape of a road should be declared at the same time.

I also like Kevin's suggestion of placing the road last in order to eliminate the gamey tactic of using it to preclude placement of other terrain on a flank.

Terry G.

[kevinj]

Deciding the shape of a road after terrain has been selected and placed is an abuse.

In my view, the current position where a road can be placed where you like, and so that it can't be moved, in order to block the placement of other terrain is a greater abuse.

[expendablecinc]

Other than the rules as stated - Is there any reason why a road shouls not be able to go straight through/over any passable terrain feature. There are plenty of roads that go through woods and over hills (even steep ones). Especially if they were built by Romans who rarely let terrain get in the way of a straight line.

It might be simplest to allow other terrain to be placed under the road. The road could then be used to get through the terrain without loss of speed.

Although in modern times mountains forrests a valleys are leveled or bridged to enable straight roads in ancient times the presumption is that that roads were laid to take the path of least resistance - particularly to avoid terrain pieces of the size/scale on a FoG table.

Anthony

[hazelbark]

Other than the rules as stated - Is there any reason why a road shouls not be able to go straight through/over any passable terrain feature. There are plenty of roads that go through woods and over hills (even steep ones). Especially if they were built by Romans who rarely let terrain get in the way of a straight line.

It might be simplest to allow other terrain to be placed under the road. The road could then be used to get through the terrain without loss of speed.

Although in modern times mountains forrests a valleys are leveled or bridged to enable straight roads in ancient times the presumption is that that roads were laid to take the path of least resistance - particularly to avoid terrain pieces of the size/scale on a FoG table.

Anthony

Unless they were Roman roads. The Romans often did a series of straight lines and would do som interesting engineering. There is also to argument that if the road passes through a hill or wood, perhaps that was the path of least resistance after all there is a road there, it must be. I think the sequence the pieces go down are not relevant to the order of creation.

[david53]

Deciding the shape of a road after terrain has been selected and placed is an abuse.

In my view, the current position where a road can be placed where you like, and so that it can't be moved, in order to block the placement of other terrain is a greater abuse.

I agree with both the above but i fear it will get worse, I'm sure it will get fixed when whatever amendments are made in the future now that it has been raised

[gozerius]

Deciding the shape of a road after terrain has been selected and placed is an abuse.

In my view, the current position where a road can be placed where you like, and so that it can't be moved, in order to block the placement of other terrain is a greater abuse.

True, but if I know that you are trying to lay down a cheesy road, I can try to place/move the compulsary features to block the placement of the road where you want it. If you say "I'm taking a road.", then after the initial terrain pieces have been placed, freestyle an immovable road to conveniently skirt the terrain, but still block the table edge, you are violating the rules regarding terrain choosing. The length and shape of the road need to be specified at terrain choosing, not during placement. If this were rigidly enforced, there would be a lot less fuss about roads.

[kevinj]

The length and shape of the road need to be specified at terrain choosing, not during placement. If this were rigidly enforced, there would be a lot less fuss about roads.

This is a very fair point, I agree that it could help. But you can't block both flanks with your one compulsory terrain feature...