Limitations of Motorcycles

(honorable mention for bounty hunters who roll motorcycles on the booty chart but then cant use them because of terrain restrictions)

 

Or reduce the density of terrain and not need to introduce new rules?

 

If a table is so tight that it's not navigable by bikes, that's something the TO should be called in to deal with. This is not a rules issue but a table density issue.

 

That's a different problem. Well same problem but different person anyway. TOs need to set up a variety of types and density of terrain, preferably the density shouldn't be uniform on one table.

Also remember that unlike TAGs, Motorcyles are Equipment, not a vehicle, their riders aren't Pilots so if you abandon the bike and it gets broken, you just have to walk. A far greater limitation on bikes is that the damn things hardly ever come with the dismounted trooper model, and those that do are either characters or limited edition...

 

Aside from the guidelines put forth in the core book, have their been on consensus on philosophy when creating tables? I know the TO's at my LGS preach laying buildings out so that 30% of horizontal space is occupied by them.

 

I always try to make sure there's room for a TAG or motorcycle across most of the board when building one. I think that the booty rule of putting a motorcycle on a trooper which wasn't expecting one is awkward. It's also weird that the trooper doesn't know what booty it has before deploying for a mission, I'd argue for pre-determining booty before deploying the model - say just as it's about to be placed, roll on booty then decide where it goes.

 

No, and there shouldn't be one. Not globally, not regionally, not nationally, not locally, maybe not even on the same table. The only consensus needs to be between people setting the table up and what works on the specific table at the time. Table density is one factor of many that dictates a play style, and since you only chose your list once you know who you're playing and on what table you can choose a list that will work on the table if its your priority.

Yes, you might have to take a list that is less optimal for your opponent, yes you might have to take a list that is less optimal for the mission, yes you might even have to deploy a bike somewhere crappy, only to abandon it and hoof it to the objective. Improvise, you'll find you have more fun doing the unexpected anyway.

All that said, if you go to a 15 table tournament and all 15 are full of 30mm wide corridors first off that's a lot of terrain, who even has that much as a club? Second the TO needs to learn some restraint and introduce some variety...

 

So to be clear, I am speaking exclusively in the context of a tournament where you show up with pre-determined lists, so there's no adjusting after seeing table layout. If we are saying that the viability of a unit depends so heavily on a factor that has large variation, I don't understand why it's a bad idea to have a guiding philosophy regarding making sure that you can reasonably expect in a tournament setting that your unit can function at a basic level. Also, part of the uniqueness of Infinity is that it makes really good use of 3D space for tactical play, and boards can vary widely while still having the same rough % of horizontal space (xy) covered.

 

When I set up a board, I make sure it's one my original Maghariba Guard on it's 80mm base can navigate.

 

You write two lists, and you pick which one to use each round , after you're told your opponent, what table you're playing on and what mission. If you wrote both lists to deal with hacker networks and you draw Ariadna you're at a disadvantage. If you wrote both lists to win hunting party with few specialists , but you have to play highly classified you're at a disadvantage. If you wrote both lists expecting a wide open table to get a dozen Kum Bikers into chain rifle range, but the table is back alleys and FISH then you're at a disadvantage. They are all variables that can be encountered.

I keep saying it, but I'll go again for clarity: there should be variety in tables. In individual tables, and between tables. Common sense should tell any TO not to make the tables ultra dense 100% of the table on 100% of the tables, but the occasional too dense or too open table is a curveball in the same way the occasional camospam or multiple fireteam list can throw the unprepared.

The only guiding philosophy needed is to understand that you shouldn't have every table the same, and you should have most tables consist of both denser and more open areas. If there is absolutely nowhere in the DZ where you can place a 55mm base then you're dealing with a very marginal extreme case.

There is an element here that I didn't consider though: Bikes are expensive to buy and a pain in the ass to run properly. You need to bring a rider proxy and some kind of dismounted marker, or do some conversion work that is probably beyond what most people would be comfortable doing. They also tend to be really nice looking models, so it does hurt a little bit that the rules can sometimes convince you not to use them, but if we're going to set up terrain guidelines based on a unit type then we have to have them for all unit types, and people will argue that they should have guidelines to allow snipers to be more useful, shotguns to be more useful the Molotok to cost less SWC(okay that last one isn't terrain but it really grinds my gears) and we end up with forced diversity and tables that all play nearly the same way...

 

Never. There isn't a Nomad motorbike trooper. But I use 55mm models a lot.... I've started using them a lot less though: they're supremely vulnerable to getting shot in the back from in front and it's often quite difficult to find room for more than 1/2 in a DZ. This actually affects bikes a lot less, as they're less likely to hug cover.

@ijw's and @cazboab points are applicable to any large base model. Yes, S4 SIL sizes received a discount (I think?) and TAGs have recently received significant buffs. But you can make these sorts of models completely unplayable with consistent table design that doesn't allow their use (ie. zero total cover for S6 or larger models in the case of TAGs).

I, however, second @cazboab 's point: it's perfectly OK to have the options for these sorts of troops limited, but I'd be very careful about eliminating them entirely (ie. I'd almost always try for bikes to be usable on at leas t1/3rd of the table or so, and I'd generally try for TAG level total cover in at least one and usually both DZs).

Only if you also apply this to Metachemistry.

 

Table density and even layout however is such an important part of game balance that the fact it is not covered under the rules is surprising.

Random and unlucky table layouts are lots of casual fun but.... could you imagine the outrage if a game like Dota or LoL had changing maps like this...

I know it is unpopular but the on;y real ways I see to "fix" this issue is by showcasing the maps before list building ever happens or better yet is to have preset table configuration guidelines.

Watching reports or looking at tables on facebook and I see tons of tables that for example don't offer a place a Tag could take total cover.

 

There's a difference between when a table is limiting and when it's unnavigable for certain units. Large units get a discount for the decreased number of places to move, hide or gain cover, but at no point should a table where it's nigh on impossible for a large unit to navigate be considered "a curve ball".

When I started visiting the forums there were a lot of talk about 3*1/3 - you fill the table with 1/3 scatter, 1/3 impassable (buildings) and 1/3 open. The scatter and some of the impassable can go on top of other buildings with the goal of leaving roughly 1/2 of the table accessible.
I didn't assign it to memory, but there was also talk about leaving it in quarters, but I don't recall what the fourth type of terrain was - whether it was a different type of scatter or if it was special terrain features.

 

Yes, indeed.