I think it was actually that neither the HQ book nor the official
maps on the Issaries web site show borders. Yes, ILH-1 is an
exception, but seeing as it came out before HQ or DP:LOT, it didn't
appear to be a trend setter.
>
> Where they are appropiate, that is. I still think that talk of the
> tribal tula in DP is deceptive -- these are not IMO in many (most)
> cases clearly defined territorial units, but concepts of 'this is
> our land' which range from the definite ('this is our tribal
> capital') to the approximate ('we claim the forest within a day's
> walk of here') to the contested ('that tribe over there say those
> hills are theirs;, but we know better'). I do think that if the DP
> map had tried to put firm boundaries, that would have said things
> about the Heortlings which really aren't accurate.
Personally I would prefer things that way, but it doesn't seem to jive with either the boundary stones talked about in at least a couple of places I think, nor with the description of how wyters function in Thunder Rebels. Those both implied a pretty specific land claim....the details of that claim may vary from time to time, but it sure sounded like the claim was pretty accurately delimited.
--Bryan
Powered by hypermail