Obstacles - "hindrances to movement"?
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:33 pm
Is it just me?
Why is it that obstacles which are defined as "...linear hindrances to movement" do not hinder movement at all if they are not defended?
I can accept a 12MU section of stream sitting in the middle of the table not connected to anything, if it is taken as representing only that part of a much longer stream which is sufficiently "high-banked" or "boggy" to hinder movement. So why doesn't it actually hinder movement? There is no penalty at all that I can find anywhere in the rules - except that it is defensible like field fortifications. As another example - I can imagine a long hedge, most of which is low, thin and straggly and foot can easily force their way through, or horse can even jump it; but there is a short section which is higher and thicker (due to other entwined growth like the evil bramble), which is more of a problem. But no, there are no enemy in contact with it, so it doesn't slow you down at all. Nonsense - hindrance or not, which is it?
While on the subject, since it all comes under the same definition, I don't quite see why undefended field fortifications do not impede movement of troops - what on earth are they there for? Surely they aid defence precisely by the fact that they impede the enemy attack. (I personally envisage field fortifications as being more of an impediment to horse than to foot, but that's another point).
Undefended field fortifications and obstacles should impede movement to some extent - or at the very least, cause disorder. Isn't it the walls/hedges/ditches etc. (surely "obstacles") around enclosed fields that are the real cause of the disorder in crossing them? I appreciate this would be awkward since the rules state that "good order recovers automatically when a base leaves the terrain that caused the disorder", which presents a problem with obstacles.
Have I missed something buried in the rules, or have the authors missed representing something we can all see around us? Or, as a final argument, do we explain this away simply by saying the unspecified timescale covers it? I think that last would be a bit of a weaselly get-out.
Why is it that obstacles which are defined as "...linear hindrances to movement" do not hinder movement at all if they are not defended?
I can accept a 12MU section of stream sitting in the middle of the table not connected to anything, if it is taken as representing only that part of a much longer stream which is sufficiently "high-banked" or "boggy" to hinder movement. So why doesn't it actually hinder movement? There is no penalty at all that I can find anywhere in the rules - except that it is defensible like field fortifications. As another example - I can imagine a long hedge, most of which is low, thin and straggly and foot can easily force their way through, or horse can even jump it; but there is a short section which is higher and thicker (due to other entwined growth like the evil bramble), which is more of a problem. But no, there are no enemy in contact with it, so it doesn't slow you down at all. Nonsense - hindrance or not, which is it?
While on the subject, since it all comes under the same definition, I don't quite see why undefended field fortifications do not impede movement of troops - what on earth are they there for? Surely they aid defence precisely by the fact that they impede the enemy attack. (I personally envisage field fortifications as being more of an impediment to horse than to foot, but that's another point).
Undefended field fortifications and obstacles should impede movement to some extent - or at the very least, cause disorder. Isn't it the walls/hedges/ditches etc. (surely "obstacles") around enclosed fields that are the real cause of the disorder in crossing them? I appreciate this would be awkward since the rules state that "good order recovers automatically when a base leaves the terrain that caused the disorder", which presents a problem with obstacles.
Have I missed something buried in the rules, or have the authors missed representing something we can all see around us? Or, as a final argument, do we explain this away simply by saying the unspecified timescale covers it? I think that last would be a bit of a weaselly get-out.
