Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

I've talked about road usage before, but I'll spell it out again, since (a) Ewan
still seems reluctant to embrace the ONE TRUE WAY to pick terrain for
Sassanids, and (b) Jon seems worried about cheesy bendy roads.

An open space has a circumference of 2480p. Laid out in a circle, it has a
diameter 790p. The effective diameter (in 25mm) is an additional 120p, since
nothing can be within an element's width of the terrain feature. So call it a
diameter of 910p, or a radius of 455p, meaning an effective open area of
roughly 650,000 paces squared.

A road laid in a straight line (no cheesy bends) from one flank edge to the
other creates an effective open area that is a rectangle of 180p (the road plus
an element to either side) by 2400p, or roughly 432,000 paces squared.

So an open space gives you roughly 50% more effective open area, _but_ only if
you lay it in a perfect circle. And you'll seldom want to do this, as you often
need more of an oval or a rectangle to properly pre-empt other terrain
placement. For example, if you want to block off the placement of brush in a
flank sector, you want a half-moon shaped open space with the straight side 240p
+ 59p in from the flank table edge. In this shape, you're no longer getting
more effective open area than a road.

So your first pick -- but only your first pick -- should be a road. Later on
other terrain picks will diminish the impact of a road.

Now, you have to think about where the battle is going to be fought. If you have
an army that desires open space, and your opponent has an army that desires
terrain, then it stands to reason you're going to have more scouting points
than him, more cav than him, more light troops than him, and perhaps even
outscout him. So it is safe to conclude that the battle will be fought in his
side of the table. Thus you should stop worrying about what terrain is put on
your side of the table. Heck, I've had an opponent put woods on my flank in an
attempt to narrow the frontage, only to watch me march my light cav out of the
woods on bound one and pin him in his rear zone; at the end of bound one my
light cav is no longer disordered.

So the road goes on his side of the table, all the way from flank edge to flank
edge. If you think you have him outscouted, then the road should go 240p + 59p
from his rear edge. If you don't think you have him outscouted, then the road
should go 60p over the center line on his side. The rationale here is that if
he's outscouted, he can't force march to within 240p of the center line, so
it's actually the very back of his side of the table you're most concerned
about.

Now the second pick: open space. Assume you've put your road 60p in from the
center line on his side, in other words across the front of his forward zone.
Then your open space should be placed as a rectangle. The short side of the
rectangle should start 240p + 59p from one flank edge, midway between the road
and his rear zone. You should have a corner of that edge that is 240p +59p from
his rear zone, and another corner that is 240p + 59p +59p from the road. The
long sides of this rectangle should run parallel to the road and his rear zone.

If you've put your road in front of his rear zone, then the open space goes
between the road and the center line; essentially the mirror image of the
previous configuration.

This open space will effectively block off one flank and pretty much all of his
forward central sector. Thus in two picks (assuming you get them), you've
limited your opponent to a small corner of one flank where he can place bad
terrain.

You take another open space because odds are good you won't get one of your
first two picks.

Taking an open space as a final pick is a waste, since if you go second in
terrain picks you've essentially wasted an open pick. Likewise taking a road as
a final pick accomplishes very little. Taking a hill, on the other hand, makes
sense. By now the only room for terrain should be on your side of the table. A
hill can be declared gentle (with a small steep slope somewhere; that's
required). In other words, it's essentially open space with a defensive
advantage to you.

And that's the rationale behind road - open - open - hill.

--- On July 20, John Murphy said: ---

> Second, what if you want to play on a minimal amount of open
> terrain? Or alternatively if you want open terrain to the front but
> maximally secure flanks, say for a small army or some other reason?
>
> For instance I have heard a few people mention minor water features.
> Why would this be preferable to a major water feature, for instance,
> in meeting these goals? I think there was something about using it
> with a marsh but what if you do not want a marsh in your front then
> is this any better than rolling for something else on your flanks?
> Maybe not a one-size-fits-all answer to this but it never hurts to
> ask.

Every strategy has a counter to it. The flaw in the road - open - open - hill
approach is two-fold: first, if your opponent picks a minor water feature then
he gets to roll for that before any other picks. So he may have accomplished
what he needs to do in terms of cutting down frontage before you ever roll.
Second -- and more importantly -- the spacing of things between road and opens
assumes that the minimum size of a terrain feature is 240p. This is a safe bet:
most people trying to clutter the table with terrain pick brush and woods. In
fact, however, hills have a minimum size of 120p, and can be entirely steep (as
disordering as woods or marsh) or entirely rocky (as disordering as brush).
Steepness and rockiness does not have to be written down ahead of time, but can
be decided at placement (perhaps an oversight that Jon might want to correct?).

So by far the best frontage-narrowing terrain pick is minor water feature.
However, proper placement of minor water features _without_ creating a line
neither side wants to cross is very tricky. That's a topic for another time; it
can be done, but it's tricky.

Short of that, pick mostly hills, or some mix of woods and hills. I'd probably
go with hill - hill - woods - hill. Certainly your first two picks should be
hills (if you're not doing a minor water feature).


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<<(b) Jon seems worried about cheesy bendy roads.>>

Jon could care less, actually. Let the sassanid highwaymen have their
interstate (interoasis?)! My concern is about having to listen to two players
argue over 'unrealistic angle' when such could be avoided up front.

<< A
>hill can be declared gentle (with a small steep slope somewhere; that's
>required).>>

Unfortunately the rules do not require this steep slope to have any real size,
so you can have an 'effectively' all gentle hill.

14.0 is getting a facelift in the new printing. We tried to not worry about it
as 14.0 isn't core rules and players could choose any comp conditions they
wanted, but the fact that has been made painfully obvious to us is that the
majority of our players want the basic comp structure to be nailed down to the
micron. and that is what they'll get...lol

Jon

[Ewan McNay]

Mark Stone wrote:
> So your first pick -- but only your first pick -- should be a road. Later on
> other terrain picks will diminish the impact of a road.

Note that if you are placing terrain second, the potential value of
this road is again much lessened. Assuming that your opponent is
trying to narrow frontage/place rough terrain, and gets the first
choice, there's likely a large piece of brush (possibly woods, more
likely a steep hill, especially if they follow Mark's further advice)
somewhere on the centreline and extending back into their half of the
board (because they, too, will realise that is where the battle will
be). [In general, while Mark's whole piece was excellent, it ignored
the possible actions of an opponent; to do that whole topic justice
would of course have required a much larger piece.]

If such a piece is there, your road really has to go between the long
sides of the table, because the restriction to not be longer than the
table width means that for it to go transversely, it would have to go
on your table-side (not useful) or behind the rear of the tarrain
piece placed (more useful, but not great). My guess is that in this
case, you're wishing that you picked an open space, and hoping that
your opponent does not get a second large piece of terrain where he
wishes - which could well result in most of the centre of the table
being 'terrained'. So, place it between the two long sides, and
likely 240p + 59p in from the edge of the flank sector furthest from
the enemy terrain. Then, hope that his next pick cannot be placed
centrally, and that you get your first open space to give yourself at
least half of the table as effectively open.

[I like, in theory, the DBM idea of defender and invader, with
different effects on terrain, btw.]

> Now, you have to think about where the battle is going to be fought. If you
have
> an army that desires open space, and your opponent has an army that desires
> terrain, then it stands to reason you're going to have more scouting points
> than him, more cav than him, more light troops than him, and perhaps even
> outscout him. So it is safe to conclude that the battle will be fought in his
> side of the table. Thus you should stop worrying about what terrain is put on
> your side of the table. Heck, I've had an opponent put woods on my flank in an
> attempt to narrow the frontage, only to watch me march my light cav out of the
> woods on bound one and pin him in his rear zone; at the end of bound one my
> light cav is no longer disordered.

This is (i) all true, and (ii) getting into terrain-as-offensive
-weapon, which is an important topic in its own right, but not as easy
to do as some seem to think. Sure, you can cover my baseline in
woods. Even if I'm close foot, I don't especially care - either I was
planning to force march anyway, or I'll be undisordered rapidly. So
there's an art here which takes some practice.

> Short of that, pick mostly hills, or some mix of woods and hills. I'd probably
> go with hill - hill - woods - hill. Certainly your first two picks should be
> hills (if you're not doing a minor water feature).

Note that the big plus of brush is that you get it anywhere 1/3 of the
time; 1/2 if at home. That's opposed to 1/6 and 1/3 for other
blocking terrains. So picking brush is a viable alternative, I think,
depending on army matchup. And especially against el/pike armies,
which typically get really messed up by even one huge brush piece in
the middle of the board.

e

[Greg Regets]

I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in the
new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help the
passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The effect of
the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the dead
open, where roads were historically not really needed.

My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first, you
roll for roads last.

No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this whole
tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Ewan McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...>
wrote:
> Mark Stone wrote:
> > So your first pick -- but only your first pick -- should be a
road. Later on
> > other terrain picks will diminish the impact of a road.
>
> Note that if you are placing terrain second, the potential value of
> this road is again much lessened. Assuming that your opponent is
> trying to narrow frontage/place rough terrain, and gets the first
> choice, there's likely a large piece of brush (possibly woods, more
> likely a steep hill, especially if they follow Mark's further
advice)
> somewhere on the centreline and extending back into their half of
the
> board (because they, too, will realise that is where the battle
will
> be). [In general, while Mark's whole piece was excellent, it
ignored
> the possible actions of an opponent; to do that whole topic justice
> would of course have required a much larger piece.]
>
> If such a piece is there, your road really has to go between the
long
> sides of the table, because the restriction to not be longer than
the
> table width means that for it to go transversely, it would have to
go
> on your table-side (not useful) or behind the rear of the tarrain
> piece placed (more useful, but not great). My guess is that in
this
> case, you're wishing that you picked an open space, and hoping that
> your opponent does not get a second large piece of terrain where he
> wishes - which could well result in most of the centre of the table
> being 'terrained'. So, place it between the two long sides, and
> likely 240p + 59p in from the edge of the flank sector furthest
from
> the enemy terrain. Then, hope that his next pick cannot be placed
> centrally, and that you get your first open space to give yourself
at
> least half of the table as effectively open.
>
> [I like, in theory, the DBM idea of defender and invader, with
> different effects on terrain, btw.]
>
> > Now, you have to think about where the battle is going to be
fought. If you have
> > an army that desires open space, and your opponent has an army
that desires
> > terrain, then it stands to reason you're going to have more
scouting points
> > than him, more cav than him, more light troops than him, and
perhaps even
> > outscout him. So it is safe to conclude that the battle will be
fought in his
> > side of the table. Thus you should stop worrying about what
terrain is put on
> > your side of the table. Heck, I've had an opponent put woods on
my flank in an
> > attempt to narrow the frontage, only to watch me march my light
cav out of the
> > woods on bound one and pin him in his rear zone; at the end of
bound one my
> > light cav is no longer disordered.
>
> This is (i) all true, and (ii) getting into terrain-as-offensive
> -weapon, which is an important topic in its own right, but not as
easy
> to do as some seem to think. Sure, you can cover my baseline in
> woods. Even if I'm close foot, I don't especially care - either I
was
> planning to force march anyway, or I'll be undisordered rapidly.
So
> there's an art here which takes some practice.
>
> > Short of that, pick mostly hills, or some mix of woods and hills.
I'd probably
> > go with hill - hill - woods - hill. Certainly your first two
picks should be
> > hills (if you're not doing a minor water feature).
>
> Note that the big plus of brush is that you get it anywhere 1/3 of
the
> time; 1/2 if at home. That's opposed to 1/6 and 1/3 for other
> blocking terrains. So picking brush is a viable alternative, I
think,
> depending on army matchup. And especially against el/pike armies,
> which typically get really messed up by even one huge brush piece
in
> the middle of the board.
>
> e

[Mark Stone]

--- On July 22 Greg Regets said: ---

> I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in the
> new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help the
> passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The effect of
> the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the dead
> open, where roads were historically not really needed.
>
> My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first, you
> roll for roads last.
>
> No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this whole
> tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.

No offense taken, Greg. I actually agree with you 100% here. The way that I use
roads is unrealistic and a-historical, albeit within the letter of the rules.
And that's the problem: so long as something I can use to my competitive
advantage _is_ within the letter of the rules, I'll use it.

This is a section of the rules that Jon has said several times is open to
amendment, since it deals purely with an optional part of tournament play,
rather than core game mechanics. So there are several changes I'd like to
suggest:

- Yes, roads _should_ be required to be the last pick
- Hills should be indicated as rocky or not when terrain picks are written down,
not declared at the time of placement
- Hills should be declared all steep, or part steep and part gentle when terrain
picks are written down, not declared at the time of placement. Further, hills
should be defined thus:
"Hills consist of two slopes, a ridge line, and (optionally) a top. The top is
equivalent to open terrain, and may be no more than 120p across. The ridge line
starts and ends at the two points on the edge of the hill farthest from each
other, may never vary more than 40p from a straight line between those points,
and must be visually identifiable. Slopes can either be both steep, or one
steep and one gentle. Each slope consists of the area of the hill on one side
of the ridge line, not counting any optionally hill top. If one slope is
gentle, the area of that slope must be equal to or greater than the area of the
steep slope. Slopes must be at least 40p across, and the overall dimensions of a
hill (top and slopes) must be at least 120p across in all directions and no more
than 520p across in all directions."
- The specifications for ridge line, slope, and hill top should be applied to
rises, though rise slopes may only be gentle.
- The specifications for ridge line and slope should be applied to low ridges,
though low ridges slopes may only be gentle (low ridges may not have a top).
Further, the die roll outcome for placement of a low ridge should be identical
to that for hill (1=discard, 2=enemy rear zone, 3,4,5=flank sector,
6=anywhere).

That's my $.02 worth on how to clean up a bunch of vague and/or exploited
sections of the terrain placement rules.


-Mark Stone

[Greg Regets]

On the road vs. open space topic, it would seem to me that the choice
would come down to what you think your opponent is planning on doing
with his terrain.

If he is just trying to small up the playing field, the road is a
good bet.

If he is trying to use terrain as an integral part of an attack
strategy, the road really doesn't help you. He will just place
smaller pieces, which actually work considerably better for that
purpose.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On July 22 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> > I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in
the
> > new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help
the
> > passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The effect
of
> > the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the dead
> > open, where roads were historically not really needed.
> >
> > My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first, you
> > roll for roads last.
> >
> > No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this whole
> > tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.
>
> No offense taken, Greg. I actually agree with you 100% here. The
way that I use
> roads is unrealistic and a-historical, albeit within the letter of
the rules.
> And that's the problem: so long as something I can use to my
competitive
> advantage _is_ within the letter of the rules, I'll use it.
>
> This is a section of the rules that Jon has said several times is
open to
> amendment, since it deals purely with an optional part of
tournament play,
> rather than core game mechanics. So there are several changes I'd
like to
> suggest:
>
> - Yes, roads _should_ be required to be the last pick
> - Hills should be indicated as rocky or not when terrain picks are
written down,
> not declared at the time of placement
> - Hills should be declared all steep, or part steep and part gentle
when terrain
> picks are written down, not declared at the time of placement.
Further, hills
> should be defined thus:
> "Hills consist of two slopes, a ridge line, and (optionally) a top.
The top is
> equivalent to open terrain, and may be no more than 120p across.
The ridge line
> starts and ends at the two points on the edge of the hill farthest
from each
> other, may never vary more than 40p from a straight line between
those points,
> and must be visually identifiable. Slopes can either be both steep,
or one
> steep and one gentle. Each slope consists of the area of the hill
on one side
> of the ridge line, not counting any optionally hill top. If one
slope is
> gentle, the area of that slope must be equal to or greater than the
area of the
> steep slope. Slopes must be at least 40p across, and the overall
dimensions of a
> hill (top and slopes) must be at least 120p across in all
directions and no more
> than 520p across in all directions."
> - The specifications for ridge line, slope, and hill top should be
applied to
> rises, though rise slopes may only be gentle.
> - The specifications for ridge line and slope should be applied to
low ridges,
> though low ridges slopes may only be gentle (low ridges may not
have a top).
> Further, the die roll outcome for placement of a low ridge should
be identical
> to that for hill (1=discard, 2=enemy rear zone, 3,4,5=flank sector,
> 6=anywhere).
>
> That's my $.02 worth on how to clean up a bunch of vague and/or
exploited
> sections of the terrain placement rules.
>
>
> -Mark Stone

[Don Coon]

> - Yes, roads _should_ be required to be the last pick

Or just allow all terrain to be superimposed on a road, leaving the road as
clear through the superimposing terrain.

Don

[Harlan Garrett]

Greg,

You are just upset because we found and explote this loop hole.

HG

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg.regets@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:04 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: roads and such

On the road vs. open space topic, it would seem to me that the choice would
come down to what you think your opponent is planning on doing with his
terrain.

If he is just trying to small up the playing field, the road is a good bet.

If he is trying to use terrain as an integral part of an attack strategy,
the road really doesn't help you. He will just place smaller pieces, which
actually work considerably better for that purpose.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> --- On July 22 Greg Regets said: ---
>
> > I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in
the
> > new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help
the
> > passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The effect
of
> > the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the dead
> > open, where roads were historically not really needed.
> >
> > My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first, you
> > roll for roads last.
> >
> > No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this whole
> > tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.
>
> No offense taken, Greg. I actually agree with you 100% here. The
way that I use
> roads is unrealistic and a-historical, albeit within the letter of
the rules.
> And that's the problem: so long as something I can use to my
competitive
> advantage _is_ within the letter of the rules, I'll use it.
>
> This is a section of the rules that Jon has said several times is
open to
> amendment, since it deals purely with an optional part of
tournament play,
> rather than core game mechanics. So there are several changes I'd
like to
> suggest:
>
> - Yes, roads _should_ be required to be the last pick
> - Hills should be indicated as rocky or not when terrain picks are
written down,
> not declared at the time of placement
> - Hills should be declared all steep, or part steep and part gentle
when terrain
> picks are written down, not declared at the time of placement.
Further, hills
> should be defined thus:
> "Hills consist of two slopes, a ridge line, and (optionally) a top.
The top is
> equivalent to open terrain, and may be no more than 120p across.
The ridge line
> starts and ends at the two points on the edge of the hill farthest
from each
> other, may never vary more than 40p from a straight line between
those points,
> and must be visually identifiable. Slopes can either be both steep,
or one
> steep and one gentle. Each slope consists of the area of the hill
on one side
> of the ridge line, not counting any optionally hill top. If one
slope is
> gentle, the area of that slope must be equal to or greater than the
area of the
> steep slope. Slopes must be at least 40p across, and the overall
dimensions of a
> hill (top and slopes) must be at least 120p across in all
directions and no more
> than 520p across in all directions."
> - The specifications for ridge line, slope, and hill top should be
applied to
> rises, though rise slopes may only be gentle.
> - The specifications for ridge line and slope should be applied to
low ridges,
> though low ridges slopes may only be gentle (low ridges may not
have a top).
> Further, the die roll outcome for placement of a low ridge should
be identical
> to that for hill (1=discard, 2=enemy rear zone, 3,4,5=flank sector,
> 6=anywhere).
>
> That's my $.02 worth on how to clean up a bunch of vague and/or
exploited
> sections of the terrain placement rules.
>
>
> -Mark Stone



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

[Greg Regets]

I wasn't aware that anyone was upset H-Man ... and as an FYI, you
were in 5th grade the first time someone used a road for open
space. ;-)

Actually, I guess you can tell from various tactical comments, many
people (myself included) don't even think the road is all that good
an idea when weighed against the choice of an open space.

Thanks ... g


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Harlan D. Garrett"
<Harlan.D.Garrett@W...> wrote:
> Greg,
>
> You are just upset because we found and explote this loop hole.
>
> HG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Regets [mailto:greg.regets@g...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:04 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: roads and such
>
> On the road vs. open space topic, it would seem to me that the
choice would
> come down to what you think your opponent is planning on doing with
his
> terrain.
>
> If he is just trying to small up the playing field, the road is a
good bet.
>
> If he is trying to use terrain as an integral part of an attack
strategy,
> the road really doesn't help you. He will just place smaller
pieces, which
> actually work considerably better for that purpose.
>
> Thanks ... g
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > --- On July 22 Greg Regets said: ---
> >
> > > I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in
> the
> > > new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help
> the
> > > passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The
effect
> of
> > > the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the
dead
> > > open, where roads were historically not really needed.
> > >
> > > My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first,
you
> > > roll for roads last.
> > >
> > > No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this
whole
> > > tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.
> >
> > No offense taken, Greg. I actually agree with you 100% here. The
> way that I use
> > roads is unrealistic and a-historical, albeit within the letter of
> the rules.
> > And that's the problem: so long as something I can use to my
> competitive
> > advantage _is_ within the letter of the rules, I'll use it.
> >
> > This is a section of the rules that Jon has said several times is
> open to
> > amendment, since it deals purely with an optional part of
> tournament play,
> > rather than core game mechanics. So there are several changes I'd
> like to
> > suggest:
> >
> > - Yes, roads _should_ be required to be the last pick
> > - Hills should be indicated as rocky or not when terrain picks are
> written down,
> > not declared at the time of placement
> > - Hills should be declared all steep, or part steep and part
gentle
> when terrain
> > picks are written down, not declared at the time of placement.
> Further, hills
> > should be defined thus:
> > "Hills consist of two slopes, a ridge line, and (optionally) a
top.
> The top is
> > equivalent to open terrain, and may be no more than 120p across.
> The ridge line
> > starts and ends at the two points on the edge of the hill farthest
> from each
> > other, may never vary more than 40p from a straight line between
> those points,
> > and must be visually identifiable. Slopes can either be both
steep,
> or one
> > steep and one gentle. Each slope consists of the area of the hill
> on one side
> > of the ridge line, not counting any optionally hill top. If one
> slope is
> > gentle, the area of that slope must be equal to or greater than
the
> area of the
> > steep slope. Slopes must be at least 40p across, and the overall
> dimensions of a
> > hill (top and slopes) must be at least 120p across in all
> directions and no more
> > than 520p across in all directions."
> > - The specifications for ridge line, slope, and hill top should be
> applied to
> > rises, though rise slopes may only be gentle.
> > - The specifications for ridge line and slope should be applied to
> low ridges,
> > though low ridges slopes may only be gentle (low ridges may not
> have a top).
> > Further, the die roll outcome for placement of a low ridge should
> be identical
> > to that for hill (1=discard, 2=enemy rear zone, 3,4,5=flank
sector,
> > 6=anywhere).
> >
> > That's my $.02 worth on how to clean up a bunch of vague and/or
> exploited
> > sections of the terrain placement rules.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
~--> Make
> a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links

[Doug]

>should be indicated as rocky or not when terrain picks are written down,
>not declared at the time of placement

I think that before any rolling is done, you should display the
actual terrain piece to your opponent and describe the regions of
steep, rocky, etc.

As it stands, you can still decide on the exact shape & size at the
time of placement.

[Chris Bump]

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Regets
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: roads and such


I certainly hope FHE does something with this terrain choice in the
new set. In most historical instances, roads were built to help the
passing of goods and troops through difficult terrain. The effect of
the current system is to all but ensure that roads are on the dead
open, where roads were historically not really needed.


[CTB]: Greg, I suspect that you wrote this in a heat of passion, because if
you think about what you've written you'd no doubt want to take it back. Roads
were not designed with the intent of traversing difficult terrain. Although
that did become a nice side affect. Roads were built to connect one or more
locations, and the straighter the road, the better. There are likely very few
examples of the intentional detouring of roads into difficult terrain in order
to help traverse it. Rather there are numerous examples of roads detouring
difficult terrain for more open easily built upon terrain. MOSTLY though it was
about shortening the time and distance between points of interest, be they
commercial, miliitary or both. To read your post one might envision effectively
bridges through rough terrain and then nothing in the open "...where roads were
historically not really needed".

[CTB]: Further, once roads were in place and more often traversed than other
terrain, it is perfectly expected that a given radius around a road would become
worn as well, perhaps making it seem more like open terrain. Travelers stopping
to camp, set up temporary bazaars/ markets or just traveling along the side of
the road to avoid being pushed out of the way by passing troops or caravans.


My suggestion would be that just as you roll for water first, you
roll for roads last.

[CTB] I never use roads, we ussually play with preset terrain up here, but
for the above mentioned reasons, I would disagree with your suggested solution
in tournament play.

No offense intended, and this is ONLY my opinion, but this whole
tactic is a bit to gamey for my tastes.

[CTB] the only time a road would necessarily be rolled for would be in a
tournament style game and then of course "gamey" is part of the event at that
point.
Also just my opinion.
Chris




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/24/2004 20:59:32 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

As it stands, you can still decide on the exact shape & size at the
time of placement.>>
And 14.0 is going to remian this way. However, nothing makes anyone use
14.0.

Jon







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]