Slitherine

I've not seen rivers used much in UK comps but have just realised that if a River is successfully placed, no other terrain can be placed on that table edge.

So if I successfully place both a road and a river on opposite sides of the table, only terrain that rolls a 5 or a 6 are likely to feature, those on a 1 or 2 will be on the base edge.

Is that correct?

Any reason why other terrain features can't be superimposed on a River? (Other than not being permitted by the rules of course!)

Pete

Not really. Just the way we did it. Gave some alternative variety to the system.

My only thoughts at the time we tested it out was that in ancient periods major rivers generally had decent terrain around them and roads were generally built through the better routes even when cutting through mountaineous terrain (for cost and safteyt reasons).

So if you do this with a river one side and a road the other and it cuts down terrain then maybe that is in fact fairly quite realistic. that you end up with lesser terrain than a typical one for the territory.

Od perhaps but thought of that way maybe less so.

Si

I understand the rationale - just concerned about the impact on the table.

As I said - not something that's been exploited thus far....

Pete

No I can see that nand playing with it I failry confidents its because its of limited appeal. If it becomes and issue we will I am sure do something to imrpove things.

have you a good xploitation concept in mind? I so PM it and lets keep it secret

Si

Si, I see, to maintain your edge as a compy wargamer, not only do you write your own rules, you are now asking for cheesey plans to be shared only with yourself. I am sure that the upstanding Mr Dalby will share the benefit of his cheesey ideas with all of us (and I hope that they will not be as devistating as the DBR cheesey ideas - Mr Dalby and Mr Clarke know what they are).

Alread agreed a fee and sent him the check mate.

Si

and I hope that they will not be as devastating as the DBR cheesey ideas - Mr Dalby and Mr Clarke know what they are).

I don't know what you could possibly mean by that!

Pete

I don't believe you've only just spotted this Pete.

Hammy has been having a go at me for using this since, well, I spotted it for my Steppe type armies that do not have Steppe terrain, but do have Agricultural. Gives open flanks. And the river is diced for when it goes down, so no guessing at the start of the game about what it is like.

Even if you put a road down second it can stop your own terrain going down. Bend it around what's on the flank already and other terrain cannot touch that flank

I've always been a bit slow on the uptake! And in all the games I've played no-one has ever selected a River.

So unless you throw a 5 or a 6 to remove it you're stuck with it - you can't even slide it.

Pete

If someone places a road just roll high and pivot it so that it joins the short to long edge just cutting th corner.
If its on slight angle you might be able to slide it 6 inches so that its much shorter as well - opening up some of the table for flank placements.

Pivoting a road would require replacing it with a different piece of terrain, as you would be moving bits of it off table. IIRC you can't slide them either.

philqw78 wrote:Pivoting a road would require replacing it with a different piece of terrain, as you would be moving bits of it off table. IIRC you can't slide them either.

then why to the rules specifically permit a rod to be pivoted or slid?

To annoy Phil?

Which is not difficult

As soon as an opponent chooses rivers/roads, my choices are to take minimum wide terrain as one CAN place closer to them then normal.

This mitigates somewhat the ability of a non-steppe army from getting open flanks.

Getting the extra +1 to remove rivers also helps.

I don't understand why roads are as limited (re: covering existing terrain) but suppose its more of a game mechanic...

Madcam.

I don't understand why roads are as limited (re: covering existing terrain) but suppose its more of a game mechanic...

Madcam.

In part.

IIRC it was also because we gradually took the view that roads in ancient times weren't really built through terrain very much in the way they are in more modern times.

When I think about roads, I tend to have in my mind road systems from the Napoleonic era and later where road technology was very different. This is perhaps a bad habit when thinking about ancient road systems which perhaps had to avoid terrain issues due to technlogical challenges.

Alas hard to be certain without a time machine or a resurrected ancient civil engineer

Si

As a R*m*N player I find your latest comments a true insult....

All you have to do is stroll thru any of the modern day Italian cities to see examples...

though to be honest, the only time I was able to take my eyes off the surrounding "eye-candy" was when falling down after a few too many....

Madcam.

I was probably looking at the same eye candy ...

Not sure why those cities tell me anything else though. Thought the layouts and desings seemed to avoid going through difficult terrain whereever possible. Other than through a BUA of course which is of course included in FOG already.

Si

shall wrote:I was probably looking at the same eye candy ...

Not sure why those cities tell me anything else though. Thought the layouts and desings seemed to avoid going through difficult terrain whereever possible. Other than through a BUA of course which is of course included in FOG already.

Si

Can you clarify whether roads can be slid such that the length changes? This would happen if it was on an angle. Or does this amount to removing the piece - which is not permitted.

Anthony

That's a cracker. Never even considered it but will mull it over.

Si