2026 Proposed Amendments - #7.4 - Terrain Table

[Doomsmile]

So, uh, I know I'm a little late to the party here, but...

... eh, I don't think I like the new terrain table very much.
The current/old terrain table is just so wonderfully evocative!
The specificity of the terrain table is still able to spark my imagination after years of playing. (I'm even one of those annoying players who sometimes picks specific terrain pieces for narrative or scenic purposes!) And the specific quirks of certain pieces has helped make for some pretty memorable games (e.g. an unexpected TUG of camels storming a large patch of rocky ground that my loose troops had occupied; archers lurking in a luckily-placed hilltop vineyard checking an infantry advance; etc.).

I don't think the proposed simplified terrain table is capable of capturing what makes MeG's current terrain table so fun!
(And the fact that the proposed simplified table adds even more pieces that unexist themselves if you roll a 3-4 adds to the only thing about the current terrain table that actually does annoy me a little-- but I think that might just be a me problem. XP )

[Princeps]

Hello,

We used the table for the first time in detail today, and I am of the opinion that the wording for the amount of settlements in the QRS could be misunderstood by some non-native speakers.

Perhaps this could be helped by a wording in the likes of : "In Coastal and Standard, any number may be selected by any player. In other Territory types, only one piece may be selected by the Defender and none by the invader"

Best,
Antoine

[lionheartrjc]

Hello,

We used the table for the first time in detail today, and I am of the opinion that the wording for the amount of settlements in the QRS could be misunderstood by some non-native speakers.

Perhaps this could be helped by a wording in the likes of : "In Coastal and Standard, any number may be selected by any player. In other Territory types, only one piece may be selected by the Defender and none by the invader"

Best,
Antoine

Thank you for the constructive suggestion.  I have updated the table.

[badhabum]

. Coastal dunes.  Difficult terrain, reducing visibility to 2BW.  No dice roll for sector.  Must be placed touching a deep water flank specified as a sea (invader specifies

So if the coastal is not  defined as a sea no Coastal dunes allowed . Correct ?

[badhabum]

Second Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area

[lionheartrjc]

. Coastal dunes.  Difficult terrain, reducing visibility to 2BW.  No dice roll for sector.  Must be placed touching a deep water flank specified as a sea (invader specifies

So if the coastal is not  defined as a sea no Coastal dunes allowed . Correct ?

Correct.  This is an invader's choice.

[lionheartrjc]

Second Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area

Yes, because there is no dice roll.

Note:  The player who doesn't place the piece may still roll to move or remove the feature - but the "must touch the deep water flank" restriction still applies.

[tarnowski1]

Second Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area

Yes, because there is no dice roll.

Note:  The player who doesn't place the piece may still roll to move or remove the feature - but the "must touch the deep water flank" restriction still applies.

'Must be placed touching deep water flank (no dice roll for sector).' As previously 'placed' has been used for terrain such as deep water and their limitation to flank sectors has never stopped them being moved into the centre sector by the opponent, might I suggest

'must always be touching a deep water flank (no dice roll for sector), even if subsequently moved.' 

and worth noting that it appears that as worded there is no limitation on a coastal sand dune, 8bwX 8bw, being placed so it juts 4bw into the centre sector, more if placed at an angle so only a corner touches the deep water. Not dicing for sector has the implication that the sector deployment part is also not in force

and for clarity on forts, 'Must be touching defender's rear table edge.'

to

'Must always be touching defender's rear table edge, even if subsequently moved.'