The rules are what people want them to be (which can lead to all sorts of silliness, such as discussion of off-table fortifications around the off-table part of a BUA).
I find Phil’s rules generally intuitive. Points that are counter-intuitive are articulated even if Phil’s minimalist style is not always helpful.
Regarding roads specifically, I think it is useful to consider road rules together and ask whether they make more or less sense when roads are treated as good going.
First, the top half of p. 19 is about area features, so I would be surprised if there were any reference to roads before the specific ‘Roads’ paragraph. However, it is interesting to note that not only roads but also the 40 paces from the edge of a BUA is not listed as good going. Everybody I know plays the 40 paces as good going.
Second, the last sentence on p. 19 actually implies that roads are good going. If we accept that roads are good going, when enemies meet on a road, it would be reasonable to assume that the combat is in good going. In fact, the terrain by the edges of the road determines the going for combat purposes, so the sentence becomes necessary (i.e. the counter-intuitive point is articulated).
If we accept that roads are not good going, then the sentence would not be necessary (and so not in the rules).
Third, the notion that troops on roads are also spread out on either side when moving is imaginative but not backed up by the rules. If it were true, groups would be able to move through difficult terrain in lines, but they are not. Furthermore, the rules state that a group moving in column through difficult terrain “is assumed to be following a track” (p. 29).
If such a track and a road are treated as the same, then an element on a track can march move at the special road speed in any direction through difficult terrain, which would make the ‘Guides’ stratagem (and difficult terrain) pointless. To me, it makes more sense to treat a comparatively wide, straight, purpose-built, all-weather paved road as different to a forest track. Thus, troops following the track move at difficult terrain speed while those astride the road get good going speed.
Fourth, the special road speed when marching does not stop roads from being good going. The rules abound with special cases (which give the rules their depth), for example, the ability of blade (X) to quick kill knights or the ability of Bedouins to fight well in sand storms.
Fifth, the ‘Mud’ rule on p. 25 is intuitive and indicates that it is the condition of the road itself that determines speed along it, not that of the edge terrain. Indeed, for the word ‘converts’ in the rule to make sense, the road must be good going before becoming mud. Furthermore, I cannot see how a paved road, which is not affected by mud, can somehow be deemed ‘rough’ or ‘difficult’.
Finally, a BUA on a hill can get a free access road to the bottom of the hill. If the road is treated as good going, it facilitates movement in and out of a BUA on a rough or difficult hill. However, if it is treated as rough or difficult going, it has no effect. In other words, it becomes pointless.
I believe that Phil has put in many years of effort to develop the rules as they are now, so I am sure that any pointless rules would have been cut long ago. Consequently, I find an interpretation of something that renders one or more rules pointless as questionable at best and silly at worst.
Anthony
