Ultimate Campaign Kingdom: multiple farms per hex? Also highways


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

In a discussion, I noticed people discussing farms as if you could have only one farm per hex. This makes a lot of sense, but I notice it's not what the rules actually say: Farm is listed with a *, which means it can be combined with other improvements, just like roads, canals, aquaducts, etc can. So can it only combine with non-farms then? Nowhere in the rules does it specify that, but Watchtower, which also has a *, explicitly states: "A Watchtower cannot share a hex with a Fort or another Watchtower." The farm does not include that limitation.

So according to the RAW, you can have multiple farms per hex. And I think that means there's no limit to the number of farms per hex. This sounds broken.

Besides, farms are big things. They need lots of space. Why should you be able to combine a farm with a mine, or a farm with a quarry, but not a mine with a quarry?

Is it safe to assume that the * shouldn't be there? Same with Fisheries?

Also, what do Highways do? They cost double what roads cost, but don't seem to add any benefit.


We ruled that you could have 2 in plains, but only 1 in other terrain.
Think of them as collections of multiple farms and hamlets.

I proposed a house rule that development increases how many farms you can have in a hex: roads adds 1 more, and highway a further 1 more.
Possibly also watchtower/fort should add 1 more.
Think of it as building a more robust infrastructure that can support more small farmsteads.

Same with fisheries.

Still haven't convinced the GM

:)


Is there two of anything that is specifically allowed in the same hex?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.

A farm is not an "other improvement" to another farm. It's the same improvement. Therefore no stacking.

Highways offer improved movement speed in many terrain types:

Desert, Hills, Jungle, Swamp, and Tundra. Anywhere else, roads are just as good.


Other improvements implies the farm itself is also an improvement.


Once you have an improvement in a hex you have that improvement. There is nothing in the rules to indicate you can have multiples of one improvement.

Rather than thinking of each improvement as 'one farm' or 'one road' you can think of it as an entire hex of farms and roads.

After all, each hex is huge, a single farm is not going to warrant the resources of a nation.


Then they need to change the wording. The whole asterisk marking shared improvements thing and farms having an asterisk is plainly letting you stack farms. How many? GM ruling. But, RAW it's legit.

That it takes 10 farms to have 1 economy, it strains the mind how a fledgling kingdom can increase its economy while feeding its people without dumping a lot of resources into trading. Furthermore, the improvement for farm describes a singular farm. Going to the building section tells you the square equivalent of what that means. It's ridiculously tiny compared to a hex. It also takes 20 days to construct a single farm and lines up with BP expenditures for a farm as a kingdom turn takes about 30 days. Where is the massive labor pool to construct the plethora of farms you seem to assert the improvement implies? Do you really expect that to be abstracted by a single BP?


Uwotm8, there is NOTHING indicating that you can build multiples of an improvement in a single hex.

If you check the original rules on this you were able to build one farmland per grassland or hills hex.
Then, in Ultimate Campaign, they added the ability to also build Mines in those hexes thus necessitating the need for a statement that allowed you to build other improvements in the same hex.

Heck, even the rule itself says that they have to be "other improvements". Two Farms are not "other improvements" they are the same improvement.

Ultimate Campaign p210 wrote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.

You are misreading the rule and by RAW you can only have one improvement of any single kind in a hex. One Farm + one Mine + one Road + one Watchtower/Fort + etc...

Edit: I think I understand your confusion, you are conflating 'terrain improvement' with 'buildings'.

Terrain Improvements do not take up a city's squares. Your reference to buildings has no bearing on terrain improvements. Terrain improvements are on the hex scale, not the city grid scale.

As for the abstracted nature, yes, the kingdom rules are extremely abstract. Heck, you can build farms in a single (1 month) turn, in winter, and expect them to produce food for you on the very next turn. Does that sound realistic in any sense? Crops do not grow that fast. And yet, those are the abstract rules involved.


The word other needs clarified as much as that pains me to type. In this scenario, it has two meanings and both are completely valid. Other can mean simply 'more' or describe a distinct group apart from a thing. So, plain English fails us here and has simultaneously correct yet contradicting implications the way it's used.

My comparison to buildings was an attempt to show an internally coherent logic to the rules. The terrain improvement mentions *a* single farm. I don't care what terrain improvement in general represent. That one is *a* single farm. That their build times are copacetic for a single farm further shows it's *a* single farm.


Chemlak wrote:
Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.

A farm is not an "other improvement" to another farm. It's the same improvement. Therefore no stacking.

This. Exactly this.

Especially as farms have a very big impact on your economy... A kingdom with 9 hexes of farms can support standard edicts (4 consumption) and a city with 5 districts, that would be 45,000 citizens. That is big. And only 10 hexes, a very small kingdom.

And yeah, common misconception: A farm improvment is not a single farm, but more like farmlands.
When I translated the rules for my gaming group (english to german) I used exactly these terms.

What I have to revisit: The part about combining farms and mines and such.


Then the wordings need errata. As is, it's a single farm. It just is. That's how those words read.


Uwotm8, I see another error you are making then. "A Farm" does not equal "A farm".

Farm is capitalized which means it is a proper noun. Because it is a proper noun it means it is referencing the "Farm" improvement.

So, "A Farm" does not mean singular 'farm' any more than it means multiple 'farms'. It means a single Farm improvement and the Farm improvement could cover an entire hex.

No errata is required, it is written correctly.


No, it's not. That's not the part that needs errata. 'Other' needs defined so as to make clear which of its meanings is the correct one.

As much as you're trying to interpret my words for me, I assure you I can speak for myself and am meaning precisely what I say.


I am not trying to interpret your words, you repeatedly stated that the book was referencing a singular farm (lowercase f). You kept using lowercase f.

However, it was not referencing a singular farm. It was referencing Farm (capital F). Thus, it was referencing a specific thing rather than a general thing.

Because of that "A Farm" does not mean an individual "farm" or a multitude of "farms". It means a single Farm terrain improvement.

Again, I am not interpreting your words, I am dealing with what you wrote as you wrote it.

Uwotm8 wrote:
The terrain improvement mentions *a* single farm. I don't care what terrain improvement in general represent. That one is *a* single farm. That their build times are copacetic for a single farm further shows it's *a* single farm.

(Bolding is mine.)

Put another way: The sentence that I bolded above is completely and utterly wrong. Even paraphrased, at no point does the terrain improvement mention "*a* single farm".
What it DOES mention (paraphrased) is "*a* single Farm" which is something completely different.
It is not a farm, it is a terrain improvement called a Farm and because of that you CANNOT claim that there is only one "farm". You COULD claim there is only one "Farm".


Then I went to show the consistency between build time and resources to BP equivalence line up such that there is a strong case for it being *a* single farm. There simply isn't enough labor, resources, or GP value in a single BP for many farms. So, don't say I'm conflating things when I'm showing clear association indirect or otherwise.

If Paizo were to say the definition intended for 'other' is to be a group of different things from one referenced and therefore there can only be one farm per tile, then the BP equivalence and meaning would be completely lost as there's no way Build Points are that valuable. It takes a lot of resources to build that singular farm.


Uwotm8 wrote:
Then I went to show the consistency between built time and resources to BP equivalence line up such that there is a strong case for it being *a* single farm. There simply isn't enough labor, resources, or GP value in a single BP for many of farms. So, don't say I'm conflating things when I'm showing clear association indirect or otherwise.

OK. If you want to understand that, cool. Then in your game world only one farm is allowed per hex. If thats sits right with you, sure. This farm had a cost of 2 BP, which could be converted (a loss is implied) to 8000 gold. But if thats your game world...

Still, by RAW "other improvements" means exactly this: "other". Not "any". Even I get that. And I'm not a native speaker...

And if you even care about game balance: Having multiple farms stacking is very, very wonky. Claiming a hex and building a farm will pay itself (if consumption is higher than 1) after three months: Pay 3 BP (farm+hex), raise consumption by 1 (hex) and decrease consumption by 2(farm), net consumption -1, after three months you have your intial investment back (again, if consumption was higher than 1). So, farms are great, even if you have to claim more hexes.


You need to use an English dictionary more often, then, as it can mean precisely "any," as you put it.

Sir Google wrote:

oth·er

adjective & pronoun
1.used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.
"stick the camera on a tripod or some other means of support"
the alternative of two.
"the other side of the page"
synonyms: alternative, different, dissimilar, disparate, distinct, separate, contrasting
"these homes use other fuels"
those remaining in a group; those not already mentioned.
"they took the other three away in an ambulance"

2.further; additional.
"one other word of advice"
synonyms: more, further, additional, extra, added, supplementary
"are there any other questions?"

If it needs to change, then that's perfectly fine. However, that's errata, and it's needed to show which of those is in play here.


You do not know what 'labor, resources, or GP value' in a single BP it takes to add a Farm to a hex. (You can find out the GP value of a BP but there is no information as to what fraction of that BP is GP value for the work vs labor vs resources.)
You do not know how much square miles in the hex is converted to farmland. All of it? Some fraction? No statement is provided.

You do not know if there were farms already in existence in some disorganized state before you organized them into a Farm. Some? None?

You do not know how many people were already in the hex before you told them to get to work. None? Some? It is extremely unlikely nobody lived there.

None of those pieces of information are provided. Simply put, you do not know because the game is extremely abstract when it comes to the Kingdom rules.

Your 'clear association' has no basis on the rules. However, what I am pointing out IS in the rules and that is that the rules do not mention "farm" but they do mention "Farm" in the Farm terrain improvement.

This is a rules forum, please keep it in the scope of the rules.

Rules:

Websters defines "other" as wrote:

--used to refer to all the members of a group except the person or thing that has already been mentioned

: in addition to the person or thing that has already been mentioned

: different or separate from the person or thing that has already been mentioned

Full Definition of Other
1 a : being the one (as of two or more) remaining or not included <held on with one hand and waved with the other one>
b : being the one or ones distinct from that or those first mentioned or implied <taller than the other boys>
c : second <every other day>
2: not the same : different <any other color would have been better> <something other than it seems to be>
3: additional <sold in the United States and 14 other countries>
4 a : recently past <the other evening>
b : former <in other times>
5: disturbingly or threateningly different : alien, exotic

Websters link

Of those definitions the majority of the meaning appears to be 'not the same'.

Based on that "other improvements" should to most reasonable people mean "different improvements".

Other rules elements: "A Farm" is referencing the Farm improvement and not farms in general. Thus, you cannot infer a single (general) farm.

I have yet to see any rules argument you have provided that indicates this is anything but one Farm per hex. If you have one please provide it. If you believe "other" has a different meaning that would support your case, please provide that definition.

Edit: I do not see which definition in your latest quote you believe supports your case. Additionally, "Google" is not a dictionary. Even "additional" in the examples on Websters are 'different'. Not one single example uses the same exact thing and calls it 'other'. Not even the countries example which are DIFFERENT countries.


Uwotm8 wrote:

t.

Sir Google wrote:

oth·er

adjective & pronoun
1.used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

2.further; additional.

Thanks for the evidence for my understanding... Not sure what you wanted to prove. :)


Gauss: You provided it. If you can't see it, then you fundamentally speak a different language than I do.

An 'additional' improvement is type agnostic. It doesn't care. It's simply inviting more.

https://www.google.com/search?q=other&oq=other

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/other

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/other

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/other

I'm afraid your narrow view on the word simply isn't supported.


Jeremias wrote:
Uwotm8 wrote:

t.

Sir Google wrote:

oth·er

adjective & pronoun
1.used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

2.further; additional.

Thanks for the evidence for my understanding... Not sure what you wanted to prove. :)

OMG. Really? If it's simply 'further; additional' then there can TOTALLY be more than one 'F'arm per tile.


Uwotm8, This might have gotten lost since I just edited my post so I will restate:

I provided a Websters definition (Google is not a dictionary) which did not state anything like what you are stating. Even the examples of multiple countries are listing different things.

"Leaders from China, Russia, and 14 other countries attended the conference."

In this case "other countries" is the same as "different countries" which is similar to "different improvements". They are not the same country just like the other improvements are not the same improvement.

Even the "additional" definition referenced other countries in the context of different countries. Ie, not the same country multiple times.

I am not going to argue English with you any further, you clearly have a certain stance you do not want to look past. I am not the only person showing you your error but you refuse to see it.


Gauss

That example sentence has built in context. You have a listing against a set and then the set is summarized with 'other.' Thus, they have to be distinct from the ones provided. (The first definition from your quote) The one from the Kingdom Building rules does not. It does not provide a set of disqualified, or already known, members therefore all members are subsumed by its use of 'other.' (The third definition from your quote) It's simply left hanging. It requires further clarification.


Uwotm8, lets assume for a moment that there are multiple ways to read this (I do not believe there is but we will assume for the moment that there is).

Which do you think is more likely:
That the vast majority of people who read this as 'one Farm improvement per hex' do not know what they are doing?
OR
That the minority are applying the wrong meaning to the phrase "other improvements"?

Hints:
The original Kingmaker kingdom rules had it as 1 farm per hex.
The author of the Ultimate Campaign kingdom rules originally had it so that you could only build one major improvement (Farm, Mine, Quarry, or Sawmill) per hex before it was changed (to Farm + Mine or Quarry, or Sawmill).

If there are a sufficient number of people who do not understand the Devs may FAQ it. If there is still sufficient confusion the Devs may even Errata it. But, the Devs are not going to errata every little English language double meaning that only a few people misunderstand.


Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. Please, don't use it. Paizo tweaks their rules all the time in new releases. It's not a hidden thing they do. Searching James Jacobs' posts will show many places where he attests this.


Great! I didn't use it so we are ok!

I did not make the statement 'the majority believes it therefore it must be true'. I asked which do you think is more likely. One is a statement while one is a question. Heck, I didn't even include a proposition.

God I love it when people incorrectly apply fallacies. It just makes me laugh. :)


You think you're a wiseguy because you didn't say an exact phrase. The implication with your question is exactly 'the majority believes it therefore it must be true.' That you wrapped it in a question trying to couch it in a way that distances you from simply saying it makes no difference.


When it comes to a double meaning, where the writers are writing to the majority then the majority reading it as the writers intended (which I then illustrated) means things are working correctly.

Even the Devs have stated that a minority of people not reading things in a common sense way is their error and not that of the Devs.

They cannot cater to every rules lawyer that thinks that the rules can be parsed a certain way that is not the way everyone else is parsing the rules.

In any case, debating this with you is pointless. If the OP or others have further points to make I will be happy to discuss it with them. You and I are at an impasse.


It is their error when their own writing doesn't provide sufficient context to a wording that can contain multiple completely valid meanings. A couple words would make the meaning indisputable. It's really that simple.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Let's try another thread on this exact topic.

The third post in the thread is by Jason Nelson, who wrote the Ultimate Campaign rules.

QED.


Good lord, are we suddenly quoting dictionaries and arguing what words mean? The rules are pretty clear in allowing multiple farms per hex. And saying that a farm is not a farm is getting a bit silly.

Gauss wrote:
Uwotm8, there is NOTHING indicating that you can build multiples of an improvement in a single hex.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that indicates you can't, and there's several things indicating you can: the asterisk at the Farm entry, the fact that the Watchtower explicitly states you can't have another Watchtower in the same hex (a limitation missing from Farm), and the fact that building multiples of the same thing is also the standard in settlements (even if a "house" is actually an entire residential block). So yes, there is every reason to assume that this is the default, and I can't find any rule limiting the number of terrain improvements.

Quote:
If you check the original rules on this you were able to build one farmland per grassland or hills hex.

What original rules? I have just Ultimate Campaign. I know it's based on Kingmaker, but lots of stuff changed between Kingmaker and UC. If the rule used to be there and it's not there now, that must mean they removed it, which is even weirder.

Quote:
Heck, even the rule itself says that they have to be "other improvements". Two Farms are not "other improvements" they are the same improvement.

No, they are different farms. Are we the same person because we are both people? This is a silly argument.

Quote:
Ultimate Campaign p210 wrote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements.
You are misreading the rule and by RAW you can only have one improvement of any single kind in a hex. One Farm + one Mine + one Road + one Watchtower/Fort + etc...

The Watchtower states this explicitly, as do mines, sawmill, etc. Farm explicitly does not.

Unless there's a rule I've overlooked, the RAW clearly allow multiple farms with no clear limit. This is probably very unbalancing and unreasonable, so this rule requires a fix. But the RAW are at the very least extremely unclear about this, and unless I've overlooked the rule limiting the number of terrain improvements, they very clearly allow multiple farms.

(They also allow multiple roads, canals and aquaducts, but you don't get any added benefit from those, so who cares?)

Quote:

Edit: I think I understand your confusion, you are conflating 'terrain improvement' with 'buildings'.

Terrain Improvements do not take up a city's squares. Your reference to buildings has no bearing on terrain improvements. Terrain improvements are on the hex scale, not the city grid scale.

I know they are different things. I'm just looking at the rules for terrain improvements, and there seems to be no rule limiting their number (except for Mine, Sawmill and Quarry).

The disagreement we have is that you seem to read a rule that I can't find anywhere: the rule limiting the number of terrain improvements to one per type. I agree that rule should exist, or some other limitation to the number of farms, but I don't see that rule anywhere.


Thanks, Chemlak. That doesn't fix the error in the text, unfortunately. That they use an ad populum style consensus as their guide that they did a good job doesn't exactly say great things about them.


mcv,

Perhaps you'd like to quote where "mines, sawmills, etc." explicitly state that there cannot be multiples because in each entry there is no such statement like there is in Watchtower.

Only Watchtower says this and one possible reason for it saying so is 'we were going to say it cannot stack with Fort so we might as well add the word Watchtower too or people would read too much into it' (or something like that).

RAW does not clearly allow multiple Farms, in fact, it pretty clearly does not allow multiple Farms or multiples of any terrain improvement. That is what "other" means. Other is not the same.

In any case, this appears to be where some of you are getting your idea from and rather than have a continued debate over the English language you have your answer in the form of the author's statement that Chemlak provided (Thanks Chemlak).

If sufficient people feel this is an issue then you may even get a FAQ out of it but so far you only have a one FAQ vote.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The fact that the question keeps cropping up tells me that there is some fundamental problem with how the terrain improvement rules are written.

Personally, I think a "only one of each type of terrain improvement per hex" of some sort needs to be included, to avoid these problems.

Edit: I'm going to FAQ it, actually. It is getting asked a bit. Even though I "know" the answer. And it's a real gimme for FAQ Friday.


Chemlak, other than this thread and the one you linked are there others? I don't remember seeing them.


It wouldn't even take a new sentence. All it would take is something like

Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other, but different, improvements.

or

Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other distinct improvements.

or

Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements but only one type of each may exist in a hex.

or

Quote:
An improvement marked with an asterisk (*) can share the same hex as other improvements as long as it is a unique type.

... and so on ...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One
Two

I think there might be more, but those are from a cursory search.

I'm not sure 4 threads in 18 months is really "frequent", but it does get asked.


Thank you Chemlak. I also don't think that 4 threads in 18months is frequent, not like some threads people have posted.


From the terrain improvements table:

Quote:
Farm cost represents the BP cost to cultivate a hex for farming.

Seems pretty clear that you just buy the farm improvement once, and it sets up the entire hex for farming. This is terrain improvement, not placement of buildings.


It is abundantly clear that the rules are not making this as clear as they could. The simple fact that people get confused by this, is evidence enough of that.

There are places in the rules that could be interpreted as implying that you can have only one farm, but nowhere does it say so explicitly. Considering how trivial it is to make this explicit, why not do it? I'm glad Chemlak will FAQ this; that seems like the appropriate thing here.

A slightly more thorough rewrite would be nice. I think someone (here or elsewhere?) suggested that the asterisks should go to the mine, quarry and sawmill, with the rule "you can have only one improvement with an asterisk, you can have one each of the other improvements", would make it even clearer, and also clear up the issue of people thinking you're not allowed to build roads to mines (which is a confusion I've seen somewhere else, and that too could be argued to be RAW).

All these literal interpretations of RAW can probably easily be seen to be nonsense once you try to apply them in a real game, or even when you consider the implications of the rules, but the fact remains that the rules could have been written a bit clearer and more explicit here.


No matter how clear the rules are, someone, somewhere will always be confused.

I'm not quite sure how you even equate a Farm terrain improvement, which specifically says in the rules that it 'represents cultivating a hex for farming', to actually building only one farm in the hex.

A Farming terrain improvement has nothing to do with actually putting the physical farms in the hex, it's about 'cultivating', not building.

If you cultivate a hex for farming, why would you want to do it again by paying for another terrain improvement?


In all the arguing over the meaning of words, I completely missed the answer to my other question:

Chemlak wrote:

Highways offer improved movement speed in many terrain types:

Desert, Hills, Jungle, Swamp, and Tundra. Anywhere else, roads are just as good.

Thanks! That's good to know. We do have hills in Kingmaker (not sure about the others yet) so I guess they're still kinda useful, just not everywhere.

I wanted to ask where I could find these rules, but I already found them: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html (under "Local Movement").


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mcv wrote:
I think someone (here or elsewhere?) suggested that the asterisks should go to the mine, quarry and sawmill, with the rule "you can have only one improvement with an asterisk, you can have one each of the other improvements", would make it even clearer, and also clear up the issue of people thinking you're not allowed to build roads to mines (which is a confusion I've seen somewhere else, and that too could be argued to be RAW).

That's one of mine. It's a suggestion I make whenever anyone questions "which terrain improvements can share a hex?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think most of the confusion arises from the fact that terrain improvements are not buildings. When you apply the 'road' terrain improvement, that hex now has roads. Not a single road, but roads, with multiple bridges if there are multiple rivers.

So you don't take any terrain improvement more than once per hex because it applies to the entire hex. It doesn't matter if the word 'other' means 'different' or not, because selecting the same improvement more than once would be redundant.

The reason that some improvements don't have an asterix is that preparing a hex for logging with a sawmill, or mining with a mine is mutually exclusive, whereas running roads to either a mining hex or logging hex is fine.

While certain structures are associated with terrain improvement, again, terrain improvements are not buildings, and apply to the entire hex.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ultimate Campaign Kingdom: multiple farms per hex? Also highways All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions