Is there an official ruling of how to deploy the trolls stone bridge when you use him retrospectively on some of the earlier scenarios and select the troll as part of your customised war council?

Cheers Dean.

It has not been addressed officially. I would treat it as a Landmark and place it according to those rules. (Which I am too lazy to look up at the moment but I think has to be in between the 2nd and 5th row of hexes.)

I would also give preference to replacing a current bridge or placing it along a river to keep it thematic.

Seems sensible. Thanks.

Cheers Dean.

To me, I would think that if there is a fjord you could replace it with a stone bridge..and that is probable at best. Otherwise I would think that unlike the other creatures which have an landmark, i would think the Stone Bridge is NOT a landmark in that sense. Since the Troll is definitely better than most of the other creatures (in the sense of living perhaps longer vs 1 shot kill + dice rolled in actual hand to hand combat), I would think that the bridge would not be a landmark in the truist sense.

Cab

Caboose said:

How many fjords came with your game?

All jokes about "fjordable" rivers aside, I haven't seen anywhere that indicates the Stone Bridge is to be treated as the Troll's creature lair. While it certainly is a reasonable assumption to make, I think the Stone Bridge is a terrain hex that provides special benefit to the Troll (must ignore all flags, regeneration), but is not a landmark/creature's lair. Therefore it is not subject to the placement rules that ColtsFan correctly (albeit perhaps a bit obscurely - I would've said "third or fourth row" rather than "between the fifth and second rows" ) pointed out.

Has it been definitively stated that the Stone Bridge is the Troll's Lair? If so, unless otherwise detailed, it would follow the placement rules for creature's lairs in custom war council games and be in the third or fourth row on an empty countryside hex (a bridge to nowhere - Sarah Palin would be against this, as many others would also have issue, I presume , but hey, rivers are not everlasting). I don't see any problem with any of the possiblities (not the Troll's Lair; is the Troll's Lair w/normal placement rules; is the Troll's Lair w/special placement rules [e.g., must be placed on a river hex]) - just would be nice to hear what the designer's (you reading this Richard? I mean, not at this particular hour, but... ) intentions were/are.

also to add to Todd's comments - also the situation (if the stone bridge is a landmark) of what is the scenario has a stone bridge already placed ? Does the landmark get moved to somewhere else, abiding of course by bridge rules that obviously cross a river...and no bridges to nowhere as Todd says!

The # of fjords - or more precisely fords - is the same as you got Brian..I think 4 if memory serves.

Cab

Caboose said:

The scenarios that contain the Troll already have the Stone Bridge. I think the question is being asked for A) Scenarios that had other creatures where you wanted to substitute in the Troll or B) Call to Arms games where a creature is called.

There is nothing official on how to handle this. For playability, I offered up the landmark rules as an option . The point of the game is to play it how you want and utilize what you got. If people want to play with the Troll AND the Stone Bridge AND have some guidelines, the best I think any of us can offer is to default to the Landmark rules, whether you want to consider the Stone Bridge a Landmark or not.

The Stone Bridge was originally released as normal terrain. But it is quite obvious it functions in the same way a Creature Lair does. Not only does he ignore flags, he also regenerates automatically (one step at a time). So when the Troll is on the board, I would consider the Bridge a Lair - and quite possible the best Lair we have.

Caboose said:

I was being serious. A "fjord" is not a "ford" and I thought you meant that was a viable option if they ever released fjords. I honestly didn't even think you meant "fords."

Well, I don't have the Troll and Country item, so can't add to the discussion, but can say that the very fact that this discussion needs to be had is yet another reason why I didn't feel inclined to purchase the product just yet.

I did, however, enter the thread to post that the English word "ford" is a direct descendent of the norse word "fjord", hence, the error made in this thread was an easy one to make.

bitva said:

While, I don't disagree with the lineage of the word, I don't find many people making the mistake. I'll ponder it some more when I leave work in my Fjord Fj-150

.