Roads

[Ghaznavid]

Probably not required as roads are usually used in combination with Rivers. Since Rivers go down before the compulsories there is only one side left for the road.

[paulburton]

Which brings up the following question:

Can the same trick be done with a river to completely block side edge terrain placement?

[kevinj]

Yes, a tactic named the "Byznatine Bowling Alley" by Tim the Madaxeman.

[philqw78]

Yes, a tactic named the "Byznatine Bowling Alley" by Tim the Madaxeman.

And the rule writers said it was a perfectly legitimate tactic.

[expendablecinc]

Yes, a tactic named the "Byznatine Bowling Alley" by Tim the Madaxeman.

And the rule writers said it was a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Better that than admit to a loophole that avoids the mechanism to prevent artificially terrain contractructs. (ie the pivot/slide option available to an opponent 2/3 of the time.

[gozerius]

If I roll a six, it doesn't matter what his road looks like. I just don't want it to change shape to fit around what has already been placed.

[expendablecinc]

There is a restriction on placement of terrain - preventing them from being placed closer that 4 inches to onanother at placement however this does not apply to the opponents roll to slide/shift the terrain piece.

Does the same apply to the restriction of placement of a road from one table edge to another.

Can you pivot it out to end somewhere on the table?

I understand that roads (and rivers are viewed as linear features rather than area features but is this a DBX hangover)?

If the latter is the case and the road is a ray (hypothetically extending beyond the table edges) then it doesnt actually have a shape the argument of those saying you cant pivot a road at all becasue it woudl change the shape at the end where it meets the board edge - depending on the angle it hits.

Its not entirely implausible as no roads are infinite. They all go somewhere even if its just that they peter out overtaken by unuse and are from a certain poitn on the board unrecongnisable from the surrounding terrain.

[david53]

There is a restriction on placement of terrain - preventing them from being placed closer that 4 inches to onanother at placement however this does not apply to the opponents roll to slide/shift the terrain piece.

Does the same apply to the restriction of placement of a road from one table edge to another.

Can you pivot it out to end somewhere on the table?

I understand that roads (and rivers are viewed as linear features rather than area features but is this a DBX hangover)?

If the latter is the case and the road is a ray (hypothetically extending beyond the table edges) then it doesnt actually have a shape the argument of those saying you cant pivot a road at all becasue it woudl change the shape at the end where it meets the board edge - depending on the angle it hits.

Its not entirely implausible as no roads are infinite. They all go somewhere even if its just that they peter out overtaken by unuse and are from a certain poitn on the board unrecongnisable from the surrounding terrain.

If the road starts on your base edge say 4 mu from the side edge and goes parrallel to the side then turns 90 degrees and touches the side edge it can't be moved as one edge will leave the table edge.

[rogerg]

Should roads be like other terrain pieces and have their shape determined before any pieces are placed? The three foot six with a right angle bend and another six inches to the side edge might then find itself to be not placeable. This rule applies to other terrain pieces. If a piece will not fit in a gap, we do not allow players to change the shape of the piece to fit.

[kevinj]

Yes, there's no reason that they should be treated differently in that regard to any other feature.

[gozerius]

The salient point is you should not be able to have it both ways. Defining the shape of the road after terrain has been placed is in violation of the requirement for all terrain to be selected before placement. I am not allowed to change the shape of my forest to fit into a space. If it doesn't fit, I lose it. The same applies to roads.

[IanB3406]

Posted: 10 Apr 2010 00:19 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The salient point is you should not be able to have it both ways. Defining the shape of the road after terrain has been placed is in violation of the requirement for all terrain to be selected before placement. I am not allowed to change the shape of my forest to fit into a space. If it doesn't fit, I lose it. The same applies to roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Games take too long already to have to worry about the shape of my road. They just need to change the rule such that a road DOES NOT block other terrain placement, or remove it from the game altogether. We don't have mounted infantry in this game, as they dismounted for the fight and where mounted for the pre-battle march. I can't see how you can justify roads for the same reason. Take them out.....Or somebody give me exampled of how they were used in ancient battles that can't be given up to pre-battle marching.

Ian

[kevinj]

The salient point is you should not be able to have it both ways. Defining the shape of the road after terrain has been placed is in violation of the requirement for all terrain to be selected before placement.

I was only suggesting that placing roads last would be an amendment that would prevent them being used to block terrain. As things are the rules are clear enough that this isn't currently the case.

[rbodleyscott]

I was only suggesting that placing roads last would be an amendment that would prevent them being used to block terrain. As things are the rules are clear enough that this isn't currently the case.

In FOG:AM. In FOG:R roads get placed last. Draw your own conclusions as to the implications for future FOG:AM development.

[kevinj]

That works for me.

[david53]

That works for me.

Never used it so I doubt I'll miss it when it goes sure some people will miss it at Manchester no names mentioned.(not Phill before hes brought up)

[expendablecinc]

Posted: 10 Apr 2010 00:19 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The salient point is you should not be able to have it both ways. Defining the shape of the road after terrain has been placed is in violation of the requirement for all terrain to be selected before placement. I am not allowed to change the shape of my forest to fit into a space. If it doesn't fit, I lose it. The same applies to roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Games take too long already to have to worry about the shape of my road. They just need to change the rule such that a road DOES NOT block other terrain placement, or remove it from the game altogether. We don't have mounted infantry in this game, as they dismounted for the fight and where mounted for the pre-battle march. I can't see how you can justify roads for the same reason. Take them out.....Or somebody give me exampled of how they were used in ancient battles that can't be given up to pre-battle marching.

Ian

I dont think anyone would disagree that a rule change would be better than extreme interpretation to make it fairer. The discussion relates to what shoudl be done (if anything) until there is a solution (assuming there is a problem). We could all wait for FoG2 but its annoying having these perfect terrain layouts... Just read any of the last 50 posts by tim.
anthony

[paulburton]

kevinj wrote:
Yes, a tactic named the "Byznatine Bowling Alley" by Tim the Madaxeman.
And the rule writers said it was a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Rivers are perfectly happy to run through forests and marshes so need not block placement of these features (gets a bit tricky when you are talking about hills though)

I found this sort of manipulation of the rules irritating in DBR (road down the flank with a second, connecting, road leaving the field) blocking terrain placement. Wiping out terrain placement options should not be allowed as it can give certain army types (in this case cavalry) an unbalancing advantage as MF armies end up losing at least third of their options

[Ghaznavid]

Rivers are perfectly happy to run through forests and marshes so need not block placement of these features (gets a bit tricky when you are talking about hills though)

I found this sort of manipulation of the rules irritating in DBR (road down the flank with a second, connecting, road leaving the field) blocking terrain placement. Wiping out terrain placement options should not be allowed as it can give certain army types (in this case cavalry) an unbalancing advantage as MF armies end up losing at least third of their options

While I would be fine with roads running through or over other terrain I wouldn't like that with rivers (partly because it's not possible with my modeled terrain, partly because it would often just look bad). Much easier and cleaner to permit other terrain that should be on the side edge to be placed adjacent to either side of rivers so you can either fit it between the river and the edge (if it fits) or place it otherwise as you would if the river were a coast (treating them differently makes only limited sense anyway IMO, given that rivers need to be within 6MU of a short board edge).

[gozerius]

Rivers and coasts go down first. So they are never blocked by other terrain . Roads go down after rivers, coasts, villages, and open spaces. They may be shifted pivoted or removed, like any other terrain piece. The requirement for them to run between two table edges, the length limit of 60 MUs, and the requirement for them to at least touch a village makes anything other than removing unlikely. The rules state that open spaces (not roads) are for denying placement of other terrain. The current use of roads to block terrain is only a problem for me when the road layer is allowed to adapt his road to fit the existing terrain, since this is not permitted by the rules. Take that away, by insisting that the road's length and shape must be defined before any terrain is placed, as required by the rules, and it means that people will stop fiddling with highway easements. Placing them last eliminates the issue entirely.