Why aren't certain terrain types optional?

Take Forest for example. Why aren't WOODS listed as optional? I would think if an army is from the forest and are defending, they could place woods as optional features as well as compulsory! If I had a Forest army and fighting an open ground army, I'd want as many woods as possible, 4 would be great, two is ok, but then I need to look at River, Marsh and Gentle Hills.

Other examples are:

Hilly doesn't list steep or gentle hills.
Steppe doesn't list gentle hills.
Tropical doesn't list woods.

HOWEVER, Arable does allow ROADS for both compulsory and optional terrain features!!

Why aren't the optional features listed matching the compulsory for the given types?

Thanks for any/all enlightenment!

I do not understand your question. Various parts of the world have a varierty of terrain features. An area in a tropical area has jungles (woods) but also Marshes, Rivers, Rough parts, towns, and even roads. Most states whose armies are included have a number of terrain types present in their borders. Phil just wants players to represent the "typical" state make up. Thus you can get two of the compulsory types, which are the predominant but you must also have some other types. Otherwise it would be like saying that a Roman Army has blades, so why not a whole army of blades. Armies and states are representational in the game.

There is no reason you cannot play with whatever terrain you want with house rules or in scenario games, but in tournaments, he wants the representational terrain.

I would hate to play with two waterways, or with five jungles occupying 1/2 of the battlefield.

You're only allowed two each of optional terrain types, so you'd still not get more than two woods/hills/etc.

Originally Posted by Plainsman

HOWEVER, Arable does allow ROADS for both compulsory and optional terrain features!!

Might be a leftover from when BUA was the only compulsory type for Arable. Note, however, that since Arable has two compulsory types, roads being listed also as optional allows you to take one BUA and two roads.

I think that is incorrect, I think you are allowed only 2 of the same optional features, no where is there a restriction on compulsory.

steve

The restriction on Compulsory is that you must include 1-2 compulsory features. So you cannot have more than 2 of those types. Do you think you can have more?

I guess Phil's idea of representation and mine differ then. This is what I was looking for as to an explanation. It's easier to 'live by a rule' if one knows something of the reasoning. Scenarios will have to come into play for me down the road now! Thanks Bob!

Now my thinking was if I was to have a 'Forest' army terrain board, I would want it LOADED with woods. Hence, I would have expected it to be in both Compulsory and Optional, allowing up to 'four' woods as a maximum, but still only 'one' as a minimum because of the other optional terrain features. (Perhaps the opponent would have elements that do just as well in woods and the extra would provide no benefit.)

Compulsory is 1-2 while Optional is 2-3 with no more than 2 of any single type. This is how I come up with 'four' btw.

Thanks for the clarifications!

Originally Posted by Plainsman

This is what I was looking for as to an explanation. It's easier to 'live by a rule' if one knows something of the reasoning.

Phil has never discussed his methods for making up the terrain rules (or, for that matter, his reasons for almost any of the other rules). If you need an explanation, make up something reasonable and pretend it might be what Phil was thinking -- that's what the rest of us do.

Originally Posted by The Last Conformist

Might be a leftover from when BUA was the only compulsory type for Arable. Note, however, that since Arable has two compulsory types, roads being listed also as optional allows you to take one BUA and two roads.

That's exactly what happened. People complained about having a BUA as a compulsory type for Arable, so Phil added roads as a compulsory alternative*. But he didn't remove them from the optional list.

- Jack


* Having a choice among compulsory alternatives strikes me as a bit odd, but the meaning is clear.

Originally Posted by Plainsman

Other examples are:

Hilly doesn't list steep or gentle hills.

I have to say that this is a case that I've never understood. Hilly has Steep Hills as compulsory, but doesn't have Gentle Hills as an option! It seems like an army defending a hilly region should be able to put down both Steep and Gentle Hills.

- Jack

Originally Posted by smaul1

I think that is incorrect, I think you are allowed only 2 of the same optional features, no where is there a restriction on compulsory.

But the suggestion was to make them both compulsory and optional, so they'd still be bound by the restrictions on optional features.

(One might argue that you could then take two as compulsories and two as optionals, for a total of four. I find this unpersuasive - there's nothing to indicate that a terrain feature remembers whether it was set down as a compulsory or optional piece, only conditions on how the final field must look like. There is also the question of intent: do you think the rules are meant to allow an arable player to put down four roads?)