Terrain set-up cheese

[pikey]

I've been chewing over a ruse RBS used against me in an effort to get a flank free of terrain. The more I think about it, the more I think that the rules are weak to allow it.

Basically, having won the PBI, RBS laid a road across the table which was 6" from the side edge, thus preventing any other terrain from being laid on that flank.

A player who has PBI can, in the majority of cases, put a river down on one flank and a road down the other blocking both flanks if they wanted to. I thought it was the job of 'open spaces' to block the laying of terrain not roads and rivers.

I would like to see roads being used for getting from A to B faster and rivers for gaining a strategic advantage during the playing of the game, not during set up.

To this end I would like to suggest the following:
That roads and rivers be laid after all other terrain pieces, of both sides, have been placed. They can be placed within 4" of any other terrain feature. They are more likely to have bends in using this method as they can weave in and out of other terrain, as a road or river probably would!

Also, why do rivers need to be 'entirely within 6MUs of the side edge'.... with so little deployment space on one side of the river, there involvement in the game is likely to be negligible.

I think that the set up rules really do favour mounted armies and armies that favour open battlefields far too much.

Damian

[shall]

Rivers are only there to restrict a flank

We'll discuss the road issue

Si

[neilhammond]

Basically, having won the PBI, RBS laid a road across the table which was 6" from the side edge, thus preventing any other terrain from being laid on that flank.
Damian

Cool!

But probably cheesy.

Neil

[terrys]

Counters to this strategy.......

Your opponent can only try it if he has the intiative, which means he has to make his terrain selection first. so...
1) If you opponent choose both a river and a road, he has to place the river first, so you now have the option of placing your compulsory terrain on the other flank - if you roll anything other than a 5 or 6.
2) On a 3,4 or 5 you can slide the road away from the edge (you ignore the 4MU minimum distance for roads/rivers - so if you keep all your pieces to no more than 6MUs in any one direction you'll get to place them.
3) Roll a 6 and remove the road entirely.
2) Don't roll a 3 or a 4 for any of your pieces.

Remember that: 'Any piece can be placed closer than 4 MUs to a coast, river or road.'

[shall]

That's true Terry. It is already subued a fair bit in the current rules.

Si

[marshalney2000]

This road cheese also sounds unrealistic as a road or a path would often represent te easiest rout through more difficult terrain so overlay should be allowed.

[petedalby]

Seriously cheesey!! And I'm most impressed it was pulled by one of the authors!

The problem is that the rules currently state that - "A piece cannot be......., nor to overlap another terrain piece."

2 possible solutions:

1 - Move road placement until last and allow roads to be overlaid on any other piece.

2 - Allow any terrain piece to be combined with a Road.

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

1 - Move road placement until last and allow roads to be overlaid on any other piece.

As part of our policy on encouraging spectacularly modelled terrain, we don't want anything to muck that up by overlaying anything else.

The above is the reason and below is the rationalisation:

As the majority of the table is good going, why would a road perversely choose to go right through the middle of a small area of difficult going? (And even the Romans - who are in any case an exceptional case - avoided big obstacles, though that may not be immediately obvious when looking at a single straight section of a Roman road. Also the Romans cleared the terrain for a fair distance either side of their road, which would not thus be well represented by a base wide track going through a wood).

[petedalby]

Totally accept your rationale Richard but by allowing this practice as it stands, a Road, for just 1 terrain selection, seems a very effective way of keeping an entire flank clear of terrain.

If a terrain piece has to go on a flank - and can't be overlaid on an existing road it will be lost to that flank.

When you're all worked so hard to avoid this kind of issue I'm struggling to understand why you'd want to allow it - aesthetic reasons not withstanding.

But if that's how it's to be played at Briton I'll bring along my Road.

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

Totally accept your rationale Richard but by allowing this practice as it stands, a Road, for just 1 terrain selection, seems a very effective way of keeping an entire flank clear of terrain.

If a terrain piece has to go on a flank - and can't be overlaid on an existing road it will be lost to that flank.

When you're all worked so hard to avoid this kind of issue I'm struggling to understand why you'd want to allow it - aesthetic reasons not withstanding.

But if that's how it's to be played at Briton I'll bring along my Road.

Pete

A simple solution has been suggested - to make roads go down last - but it won't go in in time for Britcon.

[petedalby]

You could ask everyone to place Roads last - it's a fairly simple thing to remember.

And avoids any unpleasantness!

Pete

[rbodleyscott]

You could ask everyone to place Roads last - it's a fairly simple thing to remember.

And avoids any unpleasantness!

We would prefer people to play to the officially amended rules without additional last minute verbal amendments.

And I doubt it will come to actual bloodshed.

[marshalney2000]

I don't know about blodshed but I am bring some road digging equipment to demolish any roads I come up against.
John

[marshalney2000]

Appreciate this will be post Britcon in the light of Richard's comments (could we have changed if he had not been Sassanid) but perhaps the cheese could be removed by making terrain placement either side edge or alongside the road if this prevented normal deloyment on the side edge.
was interested to see a road can be placed on a village but not a village on a road.
By the way I tend to think in the highlands of Scotland that the placing of tracks had something to do with he bloody big hills.
John

[rbodleyscott]

Appreciate this will be post Britcon in the light of Richard's comments (could we have changed if he had not been Sassanid)

harsh!

[rbodleyscott]

By the way I tend to think in the highlands of Scotland that the placing of tracks had something to do with he bloody big hills.

Absolutely - and let me guess, did they perhaps go between them rather than straight over them?

[marshalney2000]

Indeed they did go through them but did not prevent a steep hill on one side and become the edge of the world. Equally however if it was a path it might well go through a forest or take the easiest route over a hill.
By the way I was only joking re the relevance of this post and the fact you were using Sassanids - honest.
John

[shall]

To add to Richards comments....

I feel that Britcon will give the rules a really good run out. With some 90 games over the weekend we will see many trends and topics to think about I am sure.

The road issue is real but also alleviated a fair but by the fact that they can often be moved or removed anyway. So the blocking effect is far from wholly effective - but yes partially so. So let's see how it plays at Britcon and we will create a list of issues to deal with thereafter.

On a purely practical level I did say that the rules would be fixed some weeks beforehand, have done so and would prefer to stand by my word. While some may prefer it I could equally end up with someone moaning that they had based their entire masterplan on a gimmick. I would rather anyone in that boat be allowed to try it out and see if it works............

Very much looking foward to it and to catching up with everyone. I will be arriving Friday late morning and have 1000pts of Ancient Britons for anyone who feels tough enough to take them on. Matt is with me and will be rolling his deadly dice.....

Cheers

Si

[marshalney2000]

Turning the topic slightly should it always be so cut and dried that the winner of the initiative selects the type of location the battle is fought in i.e. Developed, hilly and so on. It is true that the invader would select as far as possible arout of march that suited his army but on occasion things did not go according to plan and they had to pass a bottleneck that could be defended by the enemy. Stirling Bridge and Thermpopylea spring to mind.
Should we think about having a small change of the choice falling on the defender?
John

[shall]

Not sure I udnerstand - there is a dice roll +P BI score for who chooses so it can go to either side, but more lekely that the better commanders and scouting will find the better location. Did I miss something?

Si