I just want to know if I was correct in mentioning the following to a couple of opponents that I played against at Cangames back in May:
Two of my opponents had armies with their home terrain being arable, and they both were defenders.
Both chose two plough as their compulsory pieces and a gentle hill and a road for their optional pieces.
I mentioned that terrain choices (not to be confused with terrain placement), must include rough or bad going unless they choose a river or waterway.
Based on what terrain they chose and the descriptions of the terrain in the rules, they had neither chosen rough/bad going nor a river/waterway, as at the time of choosing, the plough is considered good going.
They both decided to replace their gentle hills with a woods.
Not an ogre at all, matey .... It's to try to stop eg an all cav army from forcing a billiard table upon you. (If they think hard enough about it, they just stick a 1BW waterway down instead, with effectively the same result, however).
The rules: "The defending player chooses and places 1-2 compulsory and 2-3 optional features from those permitted. Those chosen must include BAD or ROUGH GOING (as defined below) or a River or Waterway, "
"Plough is GOOD GOING..." I see this to mean, as chosen, Plough is Good Going, so it is not included among the Bad or Rough chosen. Note, that even if a Bad Going is chosen, it might not end up on the battlefield. The canny player chooses large Plough and gentle hills or roads, and one max size woods. Place the woods last and it might not fit:)
Ditto to Martin. Not an ogre, but a teacher. It is an obligation for all players to teach other players the rules.
Agreed with the vast majority of your statement, stevie, well said, but with reference to ‘edifice camp’ :-
Consensus reached, when this was debated some time back, was that you couldn’t actually ‘choose’ an edifice camp to place at camp placement stage. The end result of much thrashing out was that an edifice could be picked as a terrain feature, and then IF it ended on a player’s base edge and IF it was small enough to be ‘camp sized’ then it could become an ‘edifice used as a camp’ as mentioned somewhere in the RAW.
Others may be able to confirm/deny that this was the end result of the conversations.....?
Good points Martin...yes, the use of Edifice Camps is a bit awkward, to say the least. All the FAQ says is that for an edifice to be a camp, it must meet the camp size restrictions.
I suppose that technically the sequence should be as follows:- First, pick a camp sized bad going Edifice BUA during terrain selection... Secondly, place it so that it touches a table edge or a waterway edge... Then, if it happens to be the back edge of your deployment area, you can convert it to a camp. (Think of it as placing your camp on top of the camp sized Edifice BUA)
However, personally I find all this a bit convoluted. If my opponent wants to use an Edifice Camp, I have no objections. Place it like an ordinary camp. To me an Edifice Camp is just a fancy looking camp (albeit one that becomes bad going if sacked). But there shouldn't be two Edifices...either an Edifice BUA or an Edifice Camp, not both.
I like to keep things simple, and a camp is just a camp, no matter how pretty it looks...
(and I’ve always thought that even ordinary camps should become rough going when destroyed... ...after all, those ditches, palisades, tents, and other impediments are not going to just disappear. The slowed movement merely represents the victors digging around for booty as they sack the place, or the victors using what's left of the defences for their own purposes)
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 24, 2019 16:42:08 GMT
The Edifice Camp rule is a truly horrible addition caused by having "tempoary sturctures" in the Camp description which some annal players insisted prevented opponents from using Camp models with permaant looking sturctures. Since players had created such models the relief was to create Edifice Camps. Much better to have just deleted "temparty" from the Camp descr4iption (sorry we are not allowed to delete annal players). It was common for armies to "camp" in villages at least to provide the nobles with dry beds.
Fields work better if you reverse the rule: they are Rough Going until a "6" is rolled for PIPS - drying them out to Good Going. But as designed they do not alleviate your obligation to place some kind of restrictive terrain. They were intended to improve the look of DBA battlefields by having some visible terrain - defeated by players removing them when they 5/6th of the time they remain Good Going.