Slitherine

To a certain extent I don't mind this 'cheese'.

I actually don't like it when the table starts looking like a chess board because there is a terrain piece EXACTLY on the line at the half way point OR in the corner.

I personally think that the terrain rules are quite good, however, to avoid this 'cheese' I'd like to see the rule written something like:

3) touching the side edge with the majority of the terrain piece in the opponents half.
4) touching the side edge with the majority of the terrain piece in your own half.

This way the opponent CAN put 'their' terrain piece on the half way line, but still it goes MOSTLY on the opponents side. Might lead to some battles over the terrain.

Don't forget that 50% of the time the opponent has the option to move the terrain piece after placement. If you've put a biggish hill on your side of the centre-line, there's then a good chance he'll pull it towards his side and it will end up straddling the middle. That's not to say I don't find the FoG terrain placement rules a bit deficient in various ways (I do!), but my personal experience is that there's not usually more than one piece of terrain exactly aligned with the centreline, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Your suggestion would have the benefit of making the advantage to be gained from a piece of terrain more likely to go to the person placing it, which others may view differently but IMO is a good thing. Because of the way placement then possible shift works with the rules as they are, I soon came to the cobclusion that there's no point in taking a gentle hill because more often than not I'll be forced to place it somewhere that aids my opponent.

But note that with your rule you should specify exactly what "majority" means - accurately calculating the area of two portions of an irregularly-shaped terrain piece could itself be tricly and lead to plenty of arguments, so you'll probably want a different definition

In fact, looking back at my second para, I'm thinking I'm deciding that Nik's approach is good after all...

ShrubMiK wrote:In fact, looking back at my second para, I'm thinking I'm deciding that Nik's approach is good after all...

Even tho it is illegal

ShrubMiK wrote:But note that with your rule you should specify exactly what "majority" means - accurately calculating the area of two portions of an irregularly-shaped terrain piece could itself be tricly and lead to plenty of arguments, so you'll probably want a different definition

Yes, well, that's why I said 'something like'... however I'd also suggest that if it's not obvious that 'the majority' is in the side it's meant to be in then it needs to move to the point where it IS obvious... but I'm not going into too much detail as I'll let the rules deciders make the wording choices.

ravenflight wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:But note that with your rule you should specify exactly what "majority" means - accurately calculating the area of two portions of an irregularly-shaped terrain piece could itself be tricly and lead to plenty of arguments, so you'll probably want a different definition

Yes, well, that's why I said 'something like'... however I'd also suggest that if it's not obvious that 'the majority' is in the side it's meant to be in then it needs to move to the point where it IS obvious... but I'm not going into too much detail as I'll let the rules deciders make the wording choices.

Did'nt know this was up for change in V1. whatever it is.

david53 wrote:

ravenflight wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:But note that with your rule you should specify exactly what "majority" means - accurately calculating the area of two portions of an irregularly-shaped terrain piece could itself be tricly and lead to plenty of arguments, so you'll probably want a different definition

Yes, well, that's why I said 'something like'... however I'd also suggest that if it's not obvious that 'the majority' is in the side it's meant to be in then it needs to move to the point where it IS obvious... but I'm not going into too much detail as I'll let the rules deciders make the wording choices.

Did'nt know this was up for change in V1. whatever it is.

i don't think it is.

philqw78 wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:In fact, looking back at my second para, I'm thinking I'm deciding that Nik's approach is good after all...

Even tho it is illegal

Indeed. And it had never even occurred to me that anybody would try to place terrain straddling the centre-line, so clear does the wording of the rules seem!

I'm not advocating a round of civil disobedience here

But especially having played against somebody last Monday who made the elementary mistake of taking 2 gentle hills, only to see them both end up in positions very helpful to me, I'm now thinking it's another of the multiple little details of the FoG terrain placing system that individually don't seem much but taken together add up to something I find not very satisfying.

ShrubMiK wrote:But especially having played against somebody last Monday who made the elementary mistake of taking 2 gentle hills, only to see them both end up in positions very helpful to me, I'm now thinking it's another of the multiple little details of the FoG terrain placing system that individually don't seem much but taken together add up to something I find not very satisfying.

Hills are may pet peeve. They are common. Were common on battlfields, but generally if gentle not common in FOG>

Nothing is open for change in V1. I wasn't suggesting a change for V1. I was putting forward general ideas. If they get picked up for V2 so be it. I'm not one for 'house rules' or 'changing rules', it's just an observation.

There is a massive problem with hills if you want them.

They have a 50% chance of ending up in your opponents half of the table, he then gets a 66% chance of moving them into an even more advantageous position for himself (unless its Lynda).

If you are lucky and they are in your half of the table he has a 66% chance of moving them to a less advantageous position for you.

Therefore people do not choose clear gentle hills as they are most likely to assist the enemy.

A shame really

For those of us who use medium foot armies that applies to any terrain you are trying to get to give you a chance.
The number of times I have deployed a medium foot army into a flat rolling plain with just the odd bit of terrain in the far corners.....

hazelbark wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:But especially having played against somebody last Monday who made the elementary mistake of taking 2 gentle hills, only to see them both end up in positions very helpful to me, I'm now thinking it's another of the multiple little details of the FoG terrain placing system that individually don't seem much but taken together add up to something I find not very satisfying.

Hills are may pet peeve. They are common. Were common on battlfields, but generally if gentle not common in FOG>

I brought it up at the start of the beta process, nowt happened, except most pointing out they're a bad idea to use.

Try again?

Vespasian28 wrote:For those of us who use medium foot armies that applies to any terrain you are trying to get to give you a chance.

Not really. A piece of RGo is always advantageous to the MF army and generally disadvantageous to the opponent. A hill's value is generally based on the position it occupies on the board. A piece of RGo doesn't change from Good/Neutral for me to Neutral Bad, at worst it is just Neutral. Not so a hill...

Agreed. In fact, if you have a lot of MF you may positively want some terrain in the other half of the table...last time I checked there was nothing in the rules that says if you have MF you are forbidden from attacking What sort of plan you adopt depends largely on where the terrain falls and how you can best use it to your advantage.

Equal troops fight on equal terms in other terrain. Not so a hill. Whoever 'owns' it has an advantage.