River placement (Terrain)

[Strategiser]

Just a quick question please. Is there any reason why a river should be placed entirely within 6 MUs of the side edge? I think it would have been really nice to be able to place it anywhere you like with some minor restrictions, e.g. touching at least one side edge, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[gozerius]

The terrain placement rules are for tournament style play to produce a battlefield that has some terrain on it but which does not hinder maneuver overly much. If you want to create a scenario for an opposed river crossing, you can do whatever you want.

[Strategiser]

Thanks. What would you say are the main game effects for placing it within 6 MUs of the side edge, when the river should be about 4 MUs? Is it just to effectively limit the side edge of the game and provide a very limited strip of land (possibly if a gap is left between the river edge and the table edge) to manoeuvre a few bases around? Any other reasons?

[philqw78]

It protects your flank and shortens the table.

Small and less manoeuverable armies will use one. Stops people getting around their flanks as easily

[Strategiser]

Thanks, agreed. There is also, in any case, a 1 in 6 chance (if you roll a 4 as there is a +1 modifier for rivers) to adjust the placement of the river by e.g. pivoting it on one point through any angle. This means that one could then change the orientation of the river, thereby allowing for a better flanking march. Interesting!

[philqw78]

It would be impossible to pivot the river as this would make it shorter or longer, you cannot change the size of a piece of terrain.

[grahambriggs]

Thanks, agreed. There is also, in any case, a 1 in 6 chance (if you roll a 4 as there is a +1 modifier for rivers) to adjust the placement of the river by e.g. pivoting it on one point through any angle. This means that one could then change the orientation of the river, thereby allowing for a better flanking march. Interesting!

If you read the terrain placement section you'll see that rivers (and coasts) can be romeved (if you roll well enough) but not slid or pivoted.

Another reason for choosing a river is that you are obliged to take 2-4 terrain selections. If you have an army (e.g. all heavy foot) that really doesn't want any area terrain, a river is one way to use up that mandatory 2 selections (I think it counts as two) without adding any area terrain.

[grahambriggs]

The terrain placement rules are for tournament style play to produce a battlefield that has some terrain on it but which does not hinder maneuver overly much. If you want to create a scenario for an opposed river crossing, you can do whatever you want.

Partly, this is because tournament games are equal points on each side affairs. In such a context, allowing a defended transverse river would rather spoil things as only a suicidal player would attack hence a dull draw would be likely.

[Strategiser]

Thanks, agreed. There is also, in any case, a 1 in 6 chance (if you roll a 4 as there is a +1 modifier for rivers) to adjust the placement of the river by e.g. pivoting it on one point through any angle. This means that one could then change the orientation of the river, thereby allowing for a better flanking march. Interesting!

If you read the terrain placement section you'll see that rivers (and coasts) can be romeved (if you roll well enough) but not slid or pivoted.

Another reason for choosing a river is that you are obliged to take 2-4 terrain selections. If you have an army (e.g. all heavy foot) that really doesn't want any area terrain, a river is one way to use up that mandatory 2 selections (I think it counts as two) without adding any area terrain.

You're absolutely right, sorry. That sentence was at the top of the next page, which I seem to have missed. All clear now, thanks.