Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

Not the environmental issue.

Jon, Scott,
      Rule 14.31, 5th bullet point.  Why are you not allowed to place a terrain piece within one element distance of a string?  This is tantamount to enlarging the string, yet again.  Why not make the string longer and not make this requirement?  

Phil

[joncleaves]

So that all terrain features have the same rule. Do enough people prefer the
exception?

[Phil Gardocki]

MY Opinion that, while it is precisely written in the rules, that it is odd to have this null terrain zone be wider than presented.  I do not know if I am in the minority or not. It is even less comprehensible since the open space size was expanded in later 7.x from 2000 paces to 2480, and now is effectively 3230 paces.  Given the minimum sizes of terrain is usually 240 paces for woods and brush, you can open 2/3 of the board with just two pieces of string.  For the benefit of others the rule is quoted here:
      An open space is represented by a loop of string 2480 paces in circumference. This is arranged to enclose any shaped area desired, and then prevents further positioning of terrain within. 1, 2 = discard, 3, 4, 5, 6 = anywhere. Remove when positioning completed.  Note that an open space is a terrain feature for the purposes of this rule.  No other may be placed within an element's width of a placed open space and an open space may not be placed within an element of another feature already placed.
      
Phil G

So that all terrain features have the same rule.  Do enough people prefer the exception?

[joncleaves]

All I can tell you Phil is that it is currently working exactly as we
intended. Our research shows that in 7.5- you can on average make a table
much more cluttered than the average battlefield was in this time period.
Thus the 7.6 change and why we are keeping it.
As for the 1-element zone around it, that is purely for consistency. I
consider it trivial, but if you can find enough support, I'll take it to the
other three horsemen.

[Chris Bump]

Perhaps we could place some of the same restrictions on placement of "open"
terrain as other pieces. with open, any roll that allows placement allows a
placement anywhere. Most other terrain requires a 6 for a placement
anywhere. Perhaps something more akin to Woods or Brush as far as placement.
It is not as though the absence of open terrain would make it easier to
place other terrain, and of course the absence of any terrain also serves as
open..

Chris

Equally,

why not make the string length SHORTER, and then have it conform to
all other terrain feature rules? If the current length consumes too
much of the table (referred back to historical battles, however that
may be interpreted) as a relative proportion of the battlefield area,
then let us push to circumcise it!


--- In WarriorRules@y..., PHGamer@a... wrote:
> Not the environmental issue.
>
> Jon, Scott,
> Rule 14.31, 5th bullet point. Why are you not allowed to
place a
> terrain piece within one element distance of a string? This is
tantamount to
> enlarging the string, yet again. Why not make the string longer
and
not make
> this requirement?
>
> Phil

> All I can tell you Phil is that it is currently working exactly as we
> intended. Our research shows that in 7.5- you can on average
> make a table
> much more cluttered than the average battlefield was in this time
> period.
> Thus the 7.6 change and why we are keeping it.
> As for the 1-element zone around it, that is purely for consistency. I
> consider it trivial, but if you can find enough support, I'll
> take it to the
> other three horsemen.

Speaking as a newbie, I prefer it as written, precisely for the consistency
reason you give, Jon. All terrain features must have an element wide gap
between them, and during positioning, the string defines a terrain feature.

[Phil Gardocki]

     My complaint is that if the 1 element rule applies to open space, then it effectively adds about 10 inches to a 15 mm string and 15 inches to a 25 mm string (not the 30 inches that I previously wrote)  
      I just do not think it was your intention to expand the clear after it was already expanded in an earlier change in the rules.
      I do not have any problem with the placement of string as anywhere, as the center of the board is about the sensible place for string.  If an army showed up and the front of the field was cluttered and the flanks were open, would deploy to the left or right a km, so the center of the field would shift.

Phil G