|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 15, 2017 12:26:45 GMT
Aside from simple look, what's the difference between Scrub, Rocky, Boggy and Enclosures? They are all rough, all rounded and none of them have any specific rules applying to them (that I've found). So why does Arable terrain go to great lengths to tell me I can have Scrub, Boggy or Enclosures but not Rocks?
(And why do Enclosures have to be rounded anyway? Plough doesn't have to be, and Enclosures aren't a lot different. By allowing them straight edges Enclosures would at least have one point of difference from Rocks, Scrub and Bogs.)
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 15, 2017 14:45:50 GMT
Aside from simple look, what's the difference between Scrub, Rocky, Boggy and Enclosures? They are all rough, all rounded and none of them have any specific rules applying to them (that I've found). So why does Arable terrain go to great lengths to tell me I can have Scrub, Boggy or Enclosures but not Rocks? (And why do Enclosures have to be rounded anyway? Plough doesn't have to be, and Enclosures aren't a lot different. By allowing them straight edges Enclosures would at least have one point of difference from Rocks, Scrub and Bogs.) Alan You bring up some good points which I agree with. Enclosures don't make any sense to have to be rounded as they are supposed to be fields surrounded by walls, which by definition should be the most "straight-edged" of all the terrain types. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 15, 2017 20:32:39 GMT
Aside from simple look, what's the difference between Scrub, Rocky, Boggy and Enclosures? They are all rough, all rounded and none of them have any specific rules applying to them (that I've found). So why does Arable terrain go to great lengths to tell me I can have Scrub, Boggy or Enclosures but not Rocks? Maybe Phil Barker wants to tell us what he thinks are the appropriate types of terrain. Like different types of 3Kn with separate list entries because they should be modelled differently. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 15, 2017 23:23:43 GMT
Enclosures are not fields surrounded by walls. They are rice paddies and " fields subdivided by stone walls, hedges, ditches ..."
I don't see the problem with a variety of types of rough going. What's wrong with a little bit of aesthetics. If you want you can just put out a brown piece of felt call it rough. Or you can do some nice design and create a variety of scrub and Rocky and bog. Can't you find anything better to complain about then the variety of rough going :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 15, 2017 23:33:37 GMT
Enclosures are not fields surrounded by walls. They are rice paddies and " fields subdivided by stone walls, hedges, ditches ..." I don't see the problem with a variety of types of rough going. What's wrong with a little bit of aesthetics. If you want you can just put out a brown piece of felt call it rough. Or you can do some nice design and create a variety of scrub and Rocky and bog. Can't you find anything better to complain about then the variety of rough going :-) Nothing wrong with aesthetics. But I look forward to the day when I lay down some rocky ground for an Arable army in a tournament, and wait for someone to complain it's not legal  And I still reckon that enclosures have the *possibility* of straight edges. Straight edges are still optional for plough and BUA, which are the other two man-made area terrain features. As you say, variety is good, and a rough terrain that differs from the other is certainly variety. |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 16, 2017 5:54:22 GMT
Enclosures are not fields surrounded by walls. They are rice paddies and " fields subdivided by stone walls, hedges, ditches ..." I don't know whether PB has ever seen a rice paddy, but I imagine he has climbed over a few stone walls in the English country side and the corners are very VERY square. Bizarre little detail about rounded corners, that I do hope is enforced rigorously by all tournament directors. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 16, 2017 6:11:08 GMT
Nothing wrong with aesthetics. But I look forward to the day when I lay down some rocky ground for an Arable army in a tournament, and wait for someone to complain it's not legal And I still reckon that enclosures have the *possibility* of straight edges. Straight edges are still optional for plough and BUA, which are the other two man-made area terrain features. As you say, variety is good, and a rough terrain that differs from the other is certainly variety. Do you think that could happen at a tournament? If so, one more reason not to play tournaments... Of course enclosures could come in all forms. That is especially true for rice paddies. But given the abstract nature of DBA, this does not really matter: A terrain feature would not represent a single field or a single rice paddy anyway. (Still no need for rounded edges though...) |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 16, 2017 6:13:45 GMT
Here is a useful link that describes the open-field system and enclosures.
The paragraph on crops and production is particularly useful for players wishing to add colour to their game board.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-field_system |
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 16, 2017 6:27:55 GMT
Nothing wrong with aesthetics. But I look forward to the day when I lay down some rocky ground for an Arable army in a tournament, and wait for someone to complain it's not legal And I still reckon that enclosures have the *possibility* of straight edges. Straight edges are still optional for plough and BUA, which are the other two man-made area terrain features. As you say, variety is good, and a rough terrain that differs from the other is certainly variety. Do you think that could happen at a tournament? If so, one more reason not to play tournaments... I think it's highly unlikely, but if I ever play a tournament I'll try it out and let you know how I get on |
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 16, 2017 6:44:05 GMT
Here is a useful link that describes the open-field system and enclosures.
The paragraph on crops and production is particularly useful for players wishing to add colour to their game board.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-field_system Sounds like that fits the Plough terrain type. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 16, 2017 7:26:29 GMT
Alan, The article was interesting in that enclosures signified private ownership in contrast to the open fields or common land.
Reading the DBM and DBR books yesterday, I found Phil had offered more terrain feature options than what we have currently for DBA (vineyards, orchards and more).
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 16, 2017 13:09:52 GMT
Alan, The article was interesting in that enclosures signified private ownership in contrast to the open fields or common land.
Reading the DBM and DBR books yesterday, I found Phil had offered more terrain feature options than what we have currently for DBA (vineyards, orchards and more).
Certainly in Britain the use of enclosures was a move away from the old common land to private land. I suspect DBA uses the term in a more general sense to refer to farmland (be it horticulture or pasture) which is delineated in some way by things which count as an obstacle to movement, whereas plough is just open farmland. Hence my mystification about enclosures having to be rounded. (As a total aside, I found a minor redundancy in the terrain rules today. The rules for rivers list terrain types that they cannot cross, one of which is an oasis. But an oasis only occurs in Dry terrain, which doesn't include the option of a river. The two things can never be on the same board ) |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 16, 2017 18:22:24 GMT
Please do not avoid tournaments due to the terrain rules. Phil can be eccentric and obstinate re odd points. Often not worth the effort to dissuade him with so many more important matters to deal with.
It is annoying to have different names for terrain that does exactly the same thing. Better to just say Rough and then give some typical examples or just say appropriate to the army. Let the gamer come up with cool terrain matches the army theme - but from game standpoint we just need to know what's Rough and what's Difficult.
Likewise round edges. In all the tournaments I directed I never tossed terrian for "edges". But I do frown at bare cardboard Woods.
User friendly is some times a hard concept to get across to Phil - for years he lived in a no competion environment. Not so now a days. So its left to us to produce more user friendly DBX stuff if we want Phil's work of gaming genius (ie DBX) to last.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 17, 2017 15:19:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 17, 2017 17:21:58 GMT
Bad link?  |
|
