I have a question about the sort of scenery for which you probably should create a specific table rule but - for whatever reason don’t, and then need to find a reasonable way of working it out in the moment. My general policy is to make house rules that can be broadly applied (and write them down!); then when something more specific comes up, refine the rule (and write that down too!). So what I'm looking for here is a methodology of categorizing scenery to help manage unexpected situations in the form "This scenery has characteristics A and B, so by default, we apply scenery rule C." Any ideas? Full Explanation Here’s a working example, with the stairway from Plastcraft Games' Bridge and Stairway Set Okay, PlastCraft kindly wrote 'stairway' on the box and it should anyway fairly obviously be managed by declaring it a ‘stair or ladder’ so that it's covered by rules for stairs and ladders. But the point is to illustrate that this - or stuff players might have made themselves, differs from other scenery in ways that mean you wouldn't necessarily have to declare it a 'stair or ladder'. The scenery as a whole is robust, most of these steps are physically able to support figures with even larger Silhouette sizes, and some of the spaces are large enough to allow rules-legal movement. By contrast, stairways from Bandua Wargames’, or ladders on the sides of Corvus Belli’s shipping containers actually necessitate the ‘stairs and ladders’ rule, so it could well be used without declaring it ‘stairs’ (say by models using Jump/Super Jump). I want a methodology that describes the physical characteristic of (any) scenery to provide generic rulings. Any suggestions?
You mean like if I put some fishbowl fake plants on the table what the method for figuring out if that is a saturation zone or maybe even jungle terrain?
We usually just decide the first time it comes up and stick with that unless it causes problems. Haven't needed a system.
Yeah, that's a good example of a similar problem Andre. That'd be a method for dealing with unexpected visibility issues. We could move on to that problem, for sure. In this case I'm not so much interested in density of foliage as the size and angle of platforms and maybe something about their repetition or frequency. (I think @Magonus had done some good thinking and writing about visibility on Lonely Artichoke). Obviously, if it says 'stairway' on the box (like that PlastCraft scenery does), or we're smart enough to agree to call it a stair or ladder ahead of time it's not an issue. Maybe I'm looking for properties inherent to structures that make them fall into one category or another. Dunno.
I guess I need an example of something you need clarified rather than the example given of the obvious stairs. I'm not fully sure what issue you are trying to solve. In your other examples I doubt you'd find anyone arguing the those are not stairs leading up the building side or that the printed ladders are not ladders (unless you agree ahead of time). Otherwise biggest issue for scenery I've found is how to define fish plant and GW tree template LoF/visibilty zones. I swear we never play those ones the same way twice...
For my natural table, I have a roll-off chart that looks like this: I previously created one for urban and mixed terrain, but it only took off with a couple other players. Probably a bit too wordy, and players don't much like arbitrary penalties as it is. I do strong recommend adding Low Visibility zones where you can, it adds a lot of stock to MSVs, especially basic MSV1. I think a minimum 1x1' terrain zone should be mandatory for ITS tables. But I play non-tournament Infinity with a rather large set of houserules, when I play nowadays, so that may be a moot recommendation. For the physical terrain itself, I strongly recommend harsh angle terrain. It makes LoF and laser dabbing and silhouette fiddling, all an easier affair.
Oh Lordy! The number of times we've put GW trees on the tabletop, amiably agreed how we'd play them, and then ended up transfixed, staring at the tabletop, and unable to make any tactical decisions. So yes, but no. Let's not tackle visibility until we can figure this one out, please!
Ok, how's this: An assemblage of scenery items that is structurally and functionally very similar to the stairway by PlastCraft. Unlike that scenery however, it just doesn't say 'stairway' on the box, so if the players don't agree that it's 'stairs or ladders' before the game, it's perfectly possible to play it without it being a stairway - albeit by Climbing and [Super]Jumping. (I presume the 'vault' facility of General Movement Rules is not meant to facilitate changing levels like this). So I guess I'm after a protocol that examines scenery structures and arrives at a default categorization - maybe this is a stairway, maybe it's not.
OK that one is much better. I think a simple solution, if something can be vaulted and is stacked in a way that a model could vault each section then it counts as stairs. If there is a part of the terrain that a model cannot vault then it is not part of the stairs section. That's basically how stairs work anyway right now just you keep vaulting up rather than across (kinda...). That pic is really awkward and I would not recomend setting terrain up that way since you cannot place a model beside the pallet and it looks like it is too too tall for an S2 model to vault so it would require a climb to get on top of.
Well if you think of stairs are really just a series of vaulting you could apply the same logic to those boxes. Under the vaulting and movement rules could the model make it up to his silly? If so then functionally it is stairs right?
Exactly, they look like stairs so should behave that way until they get too tall (at the pallet 'step'). Easiest way to set a standard classification of what stairs are. Can each section be vaulted? If yes count as stairs, if not must be climbed. Seems reasonable solution to the question.
You use vault. And youd be able to go up each section. You just cant stop where your base does not fit. The obstacles are smaller than your sille so theres no problem. Ultimately however if you want specific rules for terrain and to class some terrain as different for whatever reason you have to discuss that with your opponent. But Id certainly be skeptical of people saying you couldnt use the vault rules
General table (just made a couple edits―the only thing here you might find useful is the "General Urban" bit, since the others reference specific tables we play[ed] on.) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUVHW94-6pjZ0L9AWaET9fe6GBDZc0s-AYmIMOsUwVU/edit?usp=sharing Rocky canyon table https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EmwsPbprcr0Gy7uIYNXn1Mj0U7WJ75ivqCZbk3dCOcA/edit?usp=sharing
Terrain cannot be easily codified, it is best for players to agree beforehand what each type of terrain is and if it needs special rules, the above example can be solved either by vaulting or by using the stairs and ladder rules, either is fine.
I strongly disagree that vaulting can be used to clear the above example. By necessity a vault has to be completed before beginning the next one.
hardly, the rules make no mention of that and coupled with the FAQ about how your silly moves during a vault I see no reason why your vault cannot lead to a situation where your silly is now higher than another obstacle in your path.
So you mean I can declare move up a wall that's not leaning out over me by simply declaring vaulting on it every tiny fraction of the way?
I think a good rule of thumb would be if you can't stop after each vault (IE the whole base of the model won't fit) then you need to designate the section as stairs or climb, BUT, the vault rules don't say that, creating the paradox where you lose less movement vaulting up a zig zag stack of raised platforms than you would using stairs at the same angle...
