So O12 Landed

Sure, but you can also fuck your chance of getting upfield. Unless, of course, you're one of the factions that gets terrain skills on their Medium Infantry.

 

No, I'd rely on other units for that. Each unit to their role, and if I'm heavily maneuvering with 4-2 units, I'm probably doing it wrong. You're in a tough spot as an Onyx player with Rodoks and (kinda sorta) Umbra, but they're an exception rather than being indicative X-2 MOV units as a whole.

 

Sure, but in the end the rules for terrain are fundamentally about ignoring them, which is part of why the rules are fundamentally clunky and seen as extraneous.

 

It's hilarious 'though.

Have you ever seen how terrain is discussed in military operations?

Basically it's exactly the same way.

 

I don't imagine this will remain the case, since CB has been playing around with having terrain zones boost MOV values. I wouldn't be surprised if terrain made you faster in N4 if you have the corresponding skill. That probably won't extend to Dazers though, which makes sense... Noone wants their equipment item to give the enemy MOV bonuses.

 

No. No it's not.

The idea that terrain skills make you faster is just weird.

Terrain should be a tradeoff; loss of ability to maneuver as well in exchange for an ability to not be seen as easily or something like that. That would add sophistication to the game (a decision - do I compromise my mobility to gain defensive bonuses?) to justify the added complexity. Right now the terrain rules (like a lot of the rules in Infinity that need a look at) add complexity but no sophistication.

 

The speed concept is weird, but it makes a lot of sense for both Aquatic and Zero-G. You look at the vectored thrust nozzles sculpted on the Cutter, or on AD troops, and you can imagine them zooming around. For jungle or desert or whatnot, who knows, but speed bonuses are certainly playable.

As for the rest of your post, it's certainly an opinion. I'd argue that both Sat and Viz zones add a lot of complexity, under the current rules. A forest has a huge impact on play. Mines, deployable weapons, direct templates, visors, triangulated fire get better.
Suppressive Fire and Burst AROs get worse. Something like the Kamau Sniper is hurt badly if you just give their attacker a forest to fight out of. But not many players seems to pay much attention to how impactful Saturation and low viz are, though they help adjust gameplay issues that many players complain about.

 

You mean using all of the available features of the game make it a more enjoyable experience and give a clearer picture of the game? Madness, sheer madness as Gerd and Josef used to say!

 

The issue is +1 to the value of the first MOV isn't even relevant a lot of the time. The terrain rules need to matter, but the goal in interacting with terrain rules needs to not be to ignore the terrain rules.

Saturation zones like Rescue or Power Pack are bad, Dazers are fine (and more interesting.)

You're right, for factions that rely on fireteam AROs saturation zones disproportionately affect them negatively. The game is not balanced around this idea; Dazers and Nimbus effects can be part of a faction's arsenal, but "some of your tables might have forests" is not a significant enough nerf to them, and it does nothing to the tables that don't have forests. Plus, of course, MSV2 and mimetism means the Kamau might have the edge anyway.

What you're saying here is meaningless. Come back with some substance.

 

Throw down a few "woods" with clearly defined edges on your tables more often and watch how much of an impact that has.

 

This is already represented by them not being penalised by the terrain zone.

Not even just woods, in my meta most transparent acrylic terrain pieces (like micro art's free standing signs) are just low vis when shooting through them after introducing this it greatly impacted things for the better as well as making MSV1 actually worth something.

and on the topic of woods for those of you that find them hard to play around, mostly for drawing LOF through them, a line laser is your friend.

 

Funnily enough, there's actually a rule on "solid but transparent" terrain items.

You are supposed to treat them as impenetrable.

And I'm not even really arguing with the way you are playing them (that's an interesting rule) but just pointing out how poorly the terrain rules as a whole are known.

With "area terrain" like woods it's important to have some kind of clearly defined edge, so a base of some sort helps a lot. The best "woods" terrain is a base with loose trees, so you never have trouble positioning your models.

 

That's how we played them initially, and the tables ended up being very claustrophobic and infested with warbands. second we made the change it opened up a lot of interesting game play decisions, as well as making so a makaul or mutt can't smoke their way up the table with relative impunity. also it's kinda dumb that a holographic sign would stop bullets, unless forerunner hard light tech is a thing in infinity.

It's something we are slowly working in more, mostly because we got bored with everything playing the same.

 

Tbh I dislike that rule, but mostly because I love the acrylic aesthetic on most terrain. My dream table is full of that stuff instead of crates and normal scatter.

Agreed on low visibility terrain needing to be a thing, though. I agree that it improves the game to have more specialized terrain, although a lot of it depends on each meta's table setup trends. Each group can be massively different with their tables.

 

And that's the issue with making rules "optional".

Who the hell is going to play anything versus O-12 when there's a mission requiring you to use non-lethal stuff when O-12 just is always said to have it? Who's going to play Zero-G terrain vs Corregidor heavy on Zero-G stuff?

 

Terrain rules are featuring more prominently these days, both in terms of equipment and scenarios. CB looks like they're testing the waters on making terrain rules more prominent.

Terrain rules are also an order-free way to play with modifiers, and has huge tactical applications in the current meta. Shooting a decent MSV gunfighter through a Saturation Zone is the most direct way of killing an MSV2 Kamau.

So the relevance exists, but currently, players and communities need to place their own emphasis on utilizing them, and making them part of their games. Perhaps N4 will find a way to bring terrain (and their corresponding modifiers) more into the mainstream of Infinity gaming.