Terrain placing

[prb4]

I had a new interpretation of the terrain rules sprung on me at a recent competition in Derby.
I didn't look too hard in the rules at the time because it wasn't that important and my opponent was one of the esteemed authors of FOG who often acts as an umpire. The rule was also confirmed by another well know player who often umpires.

Since then I have looked in the rules and find the words to be ambiguous.

The cheese
My opponent was placing a square piece of terrain.
He threw a 3 to place a piece of terrain and positioned it so that one corner was touching the side table edge on my half of the table.
However the terrain piece was not entirely within my half of the table. Some of the terrain piece was in his half of the table.

Is this legal?

Peter

[philqw78]

That would be Nik and Hammy then. I thought I said name the cheesy b****rds. They were on the same team as well.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Pg140 "The placing player rolls to determine where on the table a piece is to be placed"
pg141 "3 = Touching a side edge or coast - opponent's half"

IMO - The dash between Touching a side edge or coast and opponent's half means these are seperate requirements. The argument then is whether opponent's half means entirely within or is just partially acceptable. An implicit entirely within has always been assumed until now.

If it is acceptable to do this for touching the short side the same argument can be applied for a 5 or 6 as here the wording is-

" 5 = Anywhere over 8 MUs from edges - opponent's half"

I would love the rule to be as per Nick interpretation as it means it is a lot easier to fit terrain in and I love terrain.

Since the 2 Britcon umpires are agreed on this interpretation I am looking forward to using it at next years Britcon.

Paul

[grahambriggs]

I think the terrain placing diagram makes it clear that the whole terrain piece need to be in the relevant half of the table, but don't have that with me.

[prb4]

Thanks to Paul for putting in the detail and the actual words from the rules.

This issue does indeed apply to dice rolls of 5 and 6 also.

I don't mind how this is ruled but some clarification seems necessary.
Perhaps something to add in to the clarifications for V2?

Peter

[petedalby]

I didn't look too hard in the rules at the time because it wasn't that important and my opponent was one of the esteemed authors of FOG who often acts as an umpire. The rule was also confirmed by another well know player who often umpires.

As far as I was aware none of the Authors were at Derby?

I'd previously heard of someone else doing this and raised it with Simon Hall last time I saw him. He was adamant that the terrain should be entirely within your half or the opponent's half but sadly it could be argued that the RAW do allow it - but it's pretty cheesy and no-one I've played has ever tried to do it.

Name and shame please.

[grahambriggs]

I didn't look too hard in the rules at the time because it wasn't that important and my opponent was one of the esteemed authors of FOG who often acts as an umpire. The rule was also confirmed by another well know player who often umpires.

As far as I was aware none of the Authors were at Derby?

And none of them are esteemed

[philqw78]

Name and shame please.

Nik, who is now on the author team, and Hammy.

Has anyone got another knife. This one is getting a bit too much use.

[MatthewP]

Resign!!!!!

[bbotus]

I think the terrain placing diagram makes it clear that the whole terrain piece need to be in the relevant half of the table, but don't have that with me.

The terrain diagram on page 141 shows all initially placed pieces as being wholly on whichever side of the board was rolled. It does show a lake being shifted to cross the centerline. The description for placement is: "4 = Touching a side edge or coast -- own half." To me that says there are 2 requirements. It has to touch the side edge and it has to be in your own half. And "6 = Anyway over 8 MUs from edges -- own half." Seems pretty clear. Place it anywhere over 8 MUs from a side edge and place it on your own half of the table.


Of course, I've been wrong before.

[petedalby]

The terrain diagram on page 141 shows all initially placed pieces as being wholly on whichever side of the board was rolled. It does show a lake being shifted to cross the centerline. The description for placement is: "4 = Touching a side edge or coast -- own half." To me that says there are 2 requirements. It has to touch the side edge and it has to be in your own half. And "6 = Anyway over 8 MUs from edges -- own half." Seems pretty clear. Place it anywhere over 8 MUs from a side edge and place it on your own half of the table.


Of course, I've been wrong before.

Most people read it - and play it - exactly as you describe.

[philqw78]

Gaukroger and Hamilton are opening a chain of cheese emporia. They have an opening for a bazuki player. Hope this suggestion will get me the job.

A 5 or 6 is anywhere more than 8MU from your opponents/own edges, therefore you can put the piece anywhere in the other half of the table more than 8MU from the precluded edges.

Found one

[hazelbark]

The rules are very clear and any attempt to say the piece does not wholly reside in the appropriate zone is an act of illegality.

If indeed people perpetuated a contrary belief they are doing it contrary to the good of the hobby.

[nikgaukroger]

I think the terrain placing diagram makes it clear that the whole terrain piece need to be in the relevant half of the table, but don't have that with me.

I take it that would be the one on page 146, a mere 5 pages away from the part of the rules it refers to?

It even has the terrain numbered to reference it to the 6 placement dice rolls on page 141. I don't think I'd ever really noticed that before, probably because it is so far away from the rules in question Might just suggest that for v2 we move it closer

Makes it pretty clear what I was claiming was wrong. It is interesting that I've done it a fw times before and nobody had questioned it.

[grahambriggs]

Yes that's the one. Might be an idea in v2 to do a clean up of the "rules in daft places" in the same way there's a rules wrinkle clean up. There's this, the rules in the glossary and a few others that escape me for the moment.

[philqw78]

clear what I was claiming was wrong. It is interesting that I've done it a fw times before

Doesn't bode well

[petedalby]

Might just suggest that for v2 we move it closer

And add the word "entirely" so there is no doubt?

[grahambriggs]

clear what I was claiming was wrong. It is interesting that I've done it a fw times before

Doesn't bode well

Well, to be fair, consider what playing the other authors is like. I think you might find they're far worse

[philqw78]

clear what I was claiming was wrong. It is interesting that I've done it a fw times before

Doesn't bode well

Well, to be fair, consider what playing the other authors is like. I think you might find they're far worse

They are, at least, just as bad, but I had hoped Nik may have brought some sense. Obviously not.

[sparabara88]

our opponents tried this trick in a northern leauge game we had just read these post's and we both jumped on him right away i think he was a bit shocked by our reaction and did no press it any further