Compulsory Sea or Waterway

[landmeister]

I would like some confirmation about my reading of using Sea/Waterway as an available terrain feature, please. According to page 21, any of them can be chosen: "...only if compulsory or chosen by an invader for whom it is also a permitted type." My question is about "compulsory". As it is not specified, I read it means compulsory equally for a defender or an invader. Is this the case? Is so, available options would be:

1. Can be chosen by an invader if it is compulsory in its list (breaking then the rule about chosing defender terrain features only?).
2. Can be chosen by an invader as per the second condition.
3. Must be chosen by a defender if compulsory in its list and can be chosen if available but not compulsory in its list.

I guess there must be something wring in option one, but can't see what exactly. Any help will be appreciated.

[Orcoteuthis]

There's something wrong with your options 1 and 3 :p

As I read it, an invader can chose it if it's a permitted type in both their and the defender's list, or if it's compulsory for the defender. A defender can and must chose it if and only if it's compulsory in their own list and the invader didn't chose it. A defender cannot chose a non-compulsory Sea or WW from its list - the invader is supposed to have chosen not to invade along it.

[landmeister]

I have to admit that would solve the problem of my first point, but then a new one is created by the defender unabled to choose it unless compulsory. I'm not sure this should be how Phil wanted it to be played, but sadly English is not my native language and I don't have a scholarsip in Barkerese either. 

Why a defeder shouldn't choose a good position close by the seeshore voluntarily?

[Barritus]

Because the invader may not invade along the coast/major river.

[landmeister]

Because the invader may not invade along the coast/major river.

I know this thread could easely decay into a byzantine type arguing, but why an invader couldn't do that? I understand they can't get out of their heartland by sea if they live in the middle of the Asian steppe, but why they should sistematically avoid any watershore once in enemy territory? What if an important city to be taken is right there?

Just curious about the rationale behind this rule.

[Barritus]

Because the invader may not invade along the coast/major river.

I know this thread could easely decay into a byzantine type arguing, but why an invader couldn't do that? I understand they can't get out of their heartland by sea if they live in the middle of the Asian steppe, but why they should sistematically avoid any watershore once in enemy territory? What if an important city to be taken is right there?

Just curious about the rationale behind this rule.

Please note I said "the invader may not invade along the coast/major river", not that they "couldn't do that". That is, they may choose to invade along the coast/major river, or they may choose to invade by some inland route - the choice is up to the invader.

[Orcoteuthis]

I have to admit that would solve the problem of my first point, but then a new one is created by the defender unabled to choose it unless compulsory.

That's not a problem, that's what the bit you quoted in the OP is there to achieve. Phil doesn't want defenders to be able to chose non-compulsory WW or Sea, for the reasons Barritus has explained.

[landmeister]

Ok. Thanks to all.