cheesy terrain?

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:34 pm

As inflicted on me a couple of times at Britcon

Player 1 gets initiative, picks agricultural or similar - basically with fairly innocuous terrain as compulsories

Places small compulsory, then for his 2 pieces places a river down one edge of the table, and a road down the other

Player 2 has already placed one innocuous piece, but any subsequent pieces falling on the sides of the table are discarded - and probably any bits falling in the middle are moved by player 1 anyway.

Result - artificially empty middle of board and especially flanks.

I hereby name this cheese "The Byzantine Bowling Alley" ("BBA" for short)

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:46 pm

Yep. Although it should be noted the increased chance to removed or shift the river/road.

I think the road part is what I don't care for. I think terrain coming down after should result in the road being moved to on top of the terrain for exactly this reason.

However the river's difficult is diced for immediately and that may end up creating a secure flank.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:04 pm

Well a river & road seems optimal for many horsey armies so why would it be 'cheesey' (implying doing something not intended by the rules and smelling a tad unsporting. Clearly the authors intended this as a legitimate 'strategem'.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:10 pm

madaxeman wrote:As inflicted on me a couple of times at Britcon

Player 1 gets initiative, picks agricultural or similar - basically with fairly innocuous terrain as compulsories

Places small compulsory, then for his 2 pieces places a river down one edge of the table, and a road down the other

Player 2 has already placed one innocuous piece, but any subsequent pieces falling on the sides of the table are discarded - and probably any bits falling in the middle are moved by player 1 anyway.

Result - artificially empty middle of board and especially flanks.

I hereby name this cheese "The Byzantine Bowling Alley" ("BBA" for short)

Seems like a good idea must try it out

just joking I'll stick to the Steppes no terrian there then.

Must admit I've seen a lot of rivers and roads going down the river at least would help foot armies keeping one flank okey.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:28 pm

madaxeman wrote:
I hereby name this cheese "The Byzantine Bowling Alley" ("BBA" for short)

I hereby name this thread BAT

Bitter and Twisted

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:38 pm

Would make it more interesting if roads went through terrain inside of around/beside it and things could drop on top of them. I love the terrain rules but that is one change I wish they'd make.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:18 am

I would add further to this sketch that when I played you, sans Nicholas Parsons, there was a lot of terrain on th table, in fact so much so that even though I had a +4 PBI and at least four times more mounted than you I had to put 2 BG of lancer in ambush in terrain you provided

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:09 am

hazelbark wrote:Yep. Although it should be noted the increased chance to removed or shift the river/road.

I think the road part is what I don't care for. I think terrain coming down after should result in the road being moved to on top of the terrain for exactly this reason.

However the river's difficult is diced for immediately and that may end up creating a secure flank.

Not all that secure if the river is narrow and well within 6 MU of the table edge.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:48 am

Dear Madaxeman,

If it's in the rulebook, it's allowed. Stop being such a scrub(1) and play the bloody game as written please. First it was attacking another player because he took more care than you when manoeuvring his units(2), now it's apparently bad being clever about placing terrain. What's next?

Thanks

1 - see http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing- ... art-1.html for a definition of scrub.
2 - http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/rome_2009_5.php where you accuse your opponent of being cheesy because he's better at playing the game than you, and also call his army selection cheating...

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:58 am

carlos wrote:Dear Madaxeman,

If it's in the rulebook, it's allowed. Stop being such a scrub(1) and play the bloody game as written please. First it was attacking another player because he took more care than you when manoeuvring his units(2), now it's apparently bad being clever about placing terrain. What's next?

Give me time - I'm working on that!

Anyways, thats also a bit rich coming from someone who daren't even enter any competitions where he can't eat salted cod at lunchtime ....

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:00 pm

philqw78 wrote:I would add further to this sketch that when I played you, sans Nicholas Parsons, there was a lot of terrain on th table, in fact so much so that even though I had a +4 PBI and at least four times more mounted than you I had to put 2 BG of lancer in ambush in terrain you provided

Just shows how skilled generalship can defeat such a strategem

(Shame it didn't help against your army though...!!)

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:51 pm

I must confess to having used this terrain choice myself. Although during beta testing I did point out this potential pitfall and suggested that Roads should always be placed last.

Maybe in v2?

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:01 pm

hazelbark wrote:Yep. Although it should be noted the increased chance to removed or shift the river/road.

I think the road part is what I don't care for. I think terrain coming down after should result in the road being moved to on top of the terrain for exactly this reason.

However the river's difficult is diced for immediately and that may end up creating a secure flank.

There is no increased chance to shift / remove a road - and a shift of 6MU is not sufficient to permit a minimum width piece to be placed touching the edge. Thus a 5 or 6 is required to negate it.

A river can only be removed, so again a 5 or 6 is required.

If you have a nicely modeled wood and road it may be impractical to have the road run over the wood. Perhaps a better solution would be to move placing the road to after step 9 - i.e. the road is placed last, after open areas have been removed.
Another option would be to restrict the road to toucing the middle 1/3 of the edge - this also solves the cheesy 3MU long road placed in the corner that uses up a terrain pick without having any effect.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:31 pm

sagji wrote:There is no increased chance to shift / remove a road - and a shift of 6MU is not sufficient to permit a minimum width piece to be placed touching the edge. Thus a 5 or 6 is required to negate it.

Pieces can be placed touching roads so a 6x4 would fit after the shift.

And how is any of this cheesy. I believe filling the field with terrain is cheesy and unhistorical.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:13 pm

zoltan wrote:Well a river & road seems optimal for many horsey armies so why would it be 'cheesey' (implying doing something not intended by the rules and smelling a tad unsporting. Clearly the authors intended this as a legitimate 'strategem'.

I completely agree that its a bit shiffy but also that its completely within the rules. I disagree that the impact of them games was intended entirely.

I dont think the inability to slide or pivot the terrain was anticipated by people just curving them at the end so they hit the side edge and they cant be moved.

I too think that they should be superimposed on any other terrain or they should the able to be slid/pivoted so long as they dont end up shorter (ie the direction of the linear piece at the point it hits the table edge should just be extended.

edit>> I should point out that I would bear no ill will to anyone doing it (its karma neutral). Its a game mechanic flaw

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:21 pm

With my +4 PBI at Britcon 4 of the tables I played were near to what I would have liked, three of those games were against mounted armies, wanting much the same as me. So I do not see what the problem is. Tim is whinging, he came second. Do we need to write a ruleset where he can only win.

The rest of you whingers only encourage him.

spike · Post by **spike** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:32 pm

madaxeman wrote:
carlos wrote:Dear Madaxeman,

If it's in the rulebook, it's allowed. Stop being such a scrub(1) and play the bloody game as written please. First it was attacking another player because he took more care than you when manoeuvring his units(2), now it's apparently bad being clever about placing terrain. What's next?
Give me time - I'm working on that!

Anyways, thats also a bit rich coming from someone who daren't even enter any competitions where he can't eat salted cod at lunchtime ....

Tim

Pick smaller terrain items which will fit

Spike

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:33 pm

philqw78 wrote:

The rest of you whingers only encourage him.

Its all in the name of fun

this week its you last week it was Daves LH it all adds fun.....

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:47 pm

david53 wrote:
Its all in the name of fun this week its you last week it was Daves LH it all adds fun.....

Fun, this isn't something as trivial as a game you know.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:01 pm

philqw78 wrote:
david53 wrote:
Its all in the name of fun this week its you last week it was Daves LH it all adds fun.....
Fun, this isn't something as trivial as a game you know.

You mean to say its a matter of life and death to some, and not moving lead figues around a wooden table in a large room with many other people called wargamers. Not actually fighting the said battles and people dying and things like that. Now thats something

cheesy terrain?

cheesy terrain?

Blue or Brie, sir?

Re: cheesy terrain?

Re: cheesy terrain?

Re: Blue or Brie, sir?