boylermaker
03-21-2005, 03:12 PM
Ever since I opened the box, unfortified towns have bothered me. The way to treat them is strangely missing in the rulebook. I can see three solutions to this.
Solution I:
UT's are not actually a separate area within their square but rather a way of naming and qualifying that square. The point of UT's is to give a particular square port or cathedral status, or to identify it so that nobles or kings can be summoned there. There is not difference between the UT and its environs: one is in the same square whether he is "in" Bath or "out" of it, and either way one may coronate kings there. Also, since one cannot really BE in a UT, they cannot be beseiged.
-This is the most cerebrally appealing option: it explains why one cannot control a UT, and also allows free road movement past UT's (since there is actually nothing blocking it).
-However, there is little precedent for this choice: why would a species of town so radically different be given no mention in the rulebook?
Solution II:
UT's ARE a separate area within their square, but they are not fortified. Therefore, there is a difference between the UT proper and its environs. One must be inside Bath to coronate, not outside. However, these subspaces are not treated as towns, so nobles within them are attacked, not beseiged.
-A compromise between Solutions I and III. This is the way I have been playing.
-Like Solution I, it allows road travel past UT's: since it is not actually a town, but merely a subspace, it cannot block road movement.
-It nicely explains why there is no mention of UT's having (or not having) a garrison or capacity in the rulebook (again, they aren't towns).
-However, this solution is unsatisfactory. It doesn't feel cohesive.
Solution III:
UT's are a type of town. Treat them rather like an Open Town without a garrison and with-for whatever reason-an infinate capacity. Since it is a town, nobles inside must be beseiged.
-This is the solution that the rules silence on a UT being radically different from other towns would suggest.
-However, why is there no mention of a UT's capacity? Troubling.
-Finally, this interpretation allows unoccupied towns to block road movement, which would severly limit road movement. I cannot see how this could have been intended by the designers.
Do all you guys out there have any other comments? Pros and Cons for my solutions, or a solution IV? How have you been playing it?
Solution I:
UT's are not actually a separate area within their square but rather a way of naming and qualifying that square. The point of UT's is to give a particular square port or cathedral status, or to identify it so that nobles or kings can be summoned there. There is not difference between the UT and its environs: one is in the same square whether he is "in" Bath or "out" of it, and either way one may coronate kings there. Also, since one cannot really BE in a UT, they cannot be beseiged.
-This is the most cerebrally appealing option: it explains why one cannot control a UT, and also allows free road movement past UT's (since there is actually nothing blocking it).
-However, there is little precedent for this choice: why would a species of town so radically different be given no mention in the rulebook?
Solution II:
UT's ARE a separate area within their square, but they are not fortified. Therefore, there is a difference between the UT proper and its environs. One must be inside Bath to coronate, not outside. However, these subspaces are not treated as towns, so nobles within them are attacked, not beseiged.
-A compromise between Solutions I and III. This is the way I have been playing.
-Like Solution I, it allows road travel past UT's: since it is not actually a town, but merely a subspace, it cannot block road movement.
-It nicely explains why there is no mention of UT's having (or not having) a garrison or capacity in the rulebook (again, they aren't towns).
-However, this solution is unsatisfactory. It doesn't feel cohesive.
Solution III:
UT's are a type of town. Treat them rather like an Open Town without a garrison and with-for whatever reason-an infinate capacity. Since it is a town, nobles inside must be beseiged.
-This is the solution that the rules silence on a UT being radically different from other towns would suggest.
-However, why is there no mention of a UT's capacity? Troubling.
-Finally, this interpretation allows unoccupied towns to block road movement, which would severly limit road movement. I cannot see how this could have been intended by the designers.
Do all you guys out there have any other comments? Pros and Cons for my solutions, or a solution IV? How have you been playing it?