Otaku-sempai wrote:I don't want to be contentious, but the symbols indicating swampy/marshy ground definitely extend beyond Esgaroth to as much as five miles to the north. The marks are clearly and indisputably visible on the map both to the north and the north-west.
It's one mark, not marks, to the north and those ferns aren't present in all the hexes next to the river to the south and west of the lake yet are we going to state that there is no marsh in such areas? Rhetorical but if you conclude that such ferns denote marshland then the absence of them denote no marsh land. Which is ridiculous when considering certain hexes on the map. I therefore reject the idea that one little fern denotes the existance of marsh land. Such terrain is described on page 156 of the revised rules in the "Terrain Difficulty" table. Therein, under Hard Terrain "marshes" is used as an example. Easy Terrain is described as "open terrain, well-trodden track or path, plains, meadows, on a boat along a navigable river". If the terrain directly north of Esgaroth was marshland then it would be colour-coded as such or at least as a "bog" (slightly easier terrain to marshes and classed as Moderate Terrain).
Otaku-sempai wrote:If you want to say that this area directly north of Lake-town tends to dry out in the summer months, and that it is still firmer here than it is farther to the west (being a transitional zone between the marsh and the lake-shore), I'm fine with that.
That's no different from your assertion. Both are valid - you say it's a marsh that dries out, I say it isn't Marsh at all, or not enough to make a difference at any time during the year, as it's described as Easy terrain and if there's a little element of artwork that may contradict the terrain type descriptors then I'll ignore it. For example, there's actually no lake* drawn on the map, Esgaroth lies situated within clear land, yet we don't suggest the artist is actually correct. In other words we know the artwork of the map isn't entirely accurate or precise with regards to absolute terrain details and landmarks.
I also state again that not one of the quotes from Tolkien or the TOR supplements that you or I have used explicitly state that marsh lands exist to the north of the lake or the new Lake Town. I therefore don't get why you're so opposed to the idea. Fine, you can disagree with it, but you have no real basis for this based upon the material you've quoted. It's just your preference so I'm not mistaken. I presented my views stating that there was some 'wiggle room' based on your initial post in this thread. I now am of the opinion that it's more than just 'wiggle room'.
Otaku-sempai wrote:I would still state that its normal condition might be 'squishy'.
Which would mean it wouldn't be Easy terrain, so if we went with that we'd be ignoring the explicit description of the terrain type on the map and overruling it due to there being a little 'fern' which could simply be down to the artist of the map adding an element where they didn't need to - see above re missing drawing the lake. Personally, I'd prefer to use the explicit used-in-the-game terrain types and boundaries stating that the area directly north of Esgaroth can be used easily and isn't marshland; perhaps using the 'fern' in my description that although the land is of an Easy terrain type, at all times, it has some plants and bush similar to the marshes. The land would be 'squishy' in Autumn/Winter; much like everywhere else on the map. Being a marsh is neither here nor there!
* With lake should look something like this:
I'm really not sure there's much point discussing this anymore though as we'd be going round in circles, and it's descending into farce or pedantry (if it hasn't done already), so I'm going to drop out of the discussion now; Gareth seems to have gotten the information he needs.
