I could reply to your reply point by point Dave, but I think that is what is technically known as "Fisking", which sounds painful, so I'll resist the temptation.
Let's just say your response doesn't change my mind that something is a bit out of whack.
To the other...I don't for a minute agree with the idea that terrain placement has to be restricted in some way to avoid the possibility of all-mounted armies having to cope with a fair bit of tricky terrain. Oh "boo hoo hoo"
If they are really worried about that, the solution is to take an IC and likely have at least +1 over any opponent that is highly terrain-friendly. Or alternatively, as I tend to do with all my armies, make sure they always take a couple of BGs of MF into battle so they can at least contest some terrain long enough to protect the flanks of the battle troops whilst they (hopefully) win the battle in between the terrain.
If the opponent is cowardly and lurks in terrain, try to shoot him out.
If the worst comes to the worst, stay away from the enemy and thus keep the draw firmly in hand unless the opponent is prepared to expose himself by taking exceptional risks. If you are now going to complain that games with no close contact are boring and the rules should protect players against that possibility, I will hand you over to Mr. Porter who has a few words generally to say on the subject of all horsey armies and boring games in general
On another tack, something else that I don't feel works very well with current terrain placement rules is gentle hills. It seems like if you put one on the table, the chances are very high that it will help the opponent more than it does you. therefore I feel a disincentive to anyone picking them in the first place. Out of interest, how many gentle hills are seen in tournament games?
