Can multiple walls be placed at the edge of the table (slightly less than stride apart) to create large areas where scouts can’t enter?
Yes and no. You can do it, but no doubt this will be pretty much considered "unfair" and a bad game behavior against your opponent to do so.
I would argue that such placement is not only to be labeled as unsportmanship, but it also violate a bit of a rule... Page 310 Having a strip of border unavailable to scouts is not "practicable for both companies"
I'm open to supporting such a reading of the rules, but this then leads to the question "What is considered to cause the scenario to stop being practicable for both companies?" A lake hindering movement towards an Objective from one side of the table? A forest that allows rather than hinders optimal deployment of Scouts? A building considered by one player to affect their movement too much? I'm fairly sure we'll get a clearer look into how Terrain should be placed when the organized play package gets released this spring. In the meantime I'm ready to work out any problems my opponents have with Terrain placement and make any consessions required to keep the game enjoyable. It's just that I've played games like Runewars in the past where placing Terrain worked much like in Warcrow, and the placement of said Terrain was a kind of "Turn 0" where both players were actively looking to get an advantage over their opponent, so that's where my mind went...
Just add “Terrain may not be placed within stride of table edge” to the rulebook and the problem disappears.
Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn’t call two walls next to table edge a “dead end” or “overlapping elements” but clearly they are now in Warcrow namespace because CB said it so.
The main point that I get from reading the snippet Tox quoted is that there should be consensus between players when creating the battlefield. If both players are OK with limiting somehow where can or cannot Scouts be deployed (just like parachuists may have different limitations in different ITS Infinity Scenarios and/or seasons), filling the borders of the battlefield with walls is not even necessary. Personally, I wouldn't care if my oponent placed one or two pieces of walls, or lakes, or buildings in the border of the map in order to limit my capabilities when using Scouts; if my oponent where to completely surround its half of the table so no Scouts can be used, I would just shake hands and leave.
If CB wants to deweaponize the table terrain setup from the actual game then they should make the iniative roll after the terrain has been set up. You now, standard tabletop miniture wargaming stuff. You can even add minor tactical elements to the terrain setup by adding faction terrain like GW has in Age of Sigmar. Yes, there always will be vAriadna players who insist on playing on clutter maps because of their most balanced bearpodes but those guys are a minory.
Not at all. Infinity would be completely different game if you setup the table after the initiative roll (which you do in Warcrow). You are deceiving yourself if you think that this mechanic doesn't affect gameplay.
