Written by Jacob X Sullivan
Sully is back again this week to discuss the inner workings of Terrain features in Marcher. I am very proud of our terrain system, even though it can at times be confusing. After this week's deep-dive, I hope to help players harness the freedom that our terrain system offers rather than fear it.
A Love Letter To Terrain
Looking back at my now 15 years of tabletop gaming experience, terrain truly is one of the key elements that sets this hobby apart from traditional board games (though I acknowledge there is a grey area here, looking at you, Gloomhaven!). Even back when Jackson, Logan, and I got our start sitting together at a Boy Scouts summer camp in the pouring rain, huddled under a canvas tent, playing Dungeons and Dragons, the inklings of terrain were there. Back then, we were children who had no means of procuring our own terrain or miniatures, but we made do with the grid paper we had and the power of a child's imagination. Indeed, although the terrain at our disposal back then was a squiggled rectangle on a piece of paper, Sank the Dragon Slayer could still shield himself behind the sarcophagus as the evil Lich cast out his skeletal hand of death.
It is with great fondness that I look back at my early encounters with actual Terrain. Although the imaginative terrain and grid paper methods of my early D&D career were fun, getting our hands on Reaper miniatures and homemade foam terrain elevated our games to a higher level, in no part due to our waning faculties of imagination and tolerance for “fast and loose” style games as we all began to fall in love with more structured rulesets and tactical combat. (Perhaps the video games are to blame!) I go on this tangential journey to my childhood to underscore the personal importance of our terrain system in my own life and hopefully in your dear readers' lives as well. Now, with the sentimentality out of the way, let me explain some rules!
The Basic Building Blocks Of Terrain: Keywords!
When we were working on Marcher, we made a massive mistake in our beginning stages of development, that is not properly defining keywords and assigning them consistently to game elements. All in all, I think this mistake roughly cost us a full year in the game’s development cycle as we were sucked into a vortex of Units not all behaving in the same way, rules inconsistencies, and constant disagreement about the function of CORE rules ideas. It was, to say the least, nightmarish to deal with. At the time this was happening, our Terrain system was similar to its current form, but it lacked the nuance and flexibility that it now has after adopting its keywording system. Writing a rulebook is essentially like writing a new language, as you are redefining the meaning of words to create something new. As the obsession with the flexibility of language once plagued me during the creation of my Master’s Thesis, so too does it plague me in the creation of Marchers' Rule. All that to say that keywording and categorization are critical when writing any game rules. As a result, much like Units, all terrain in Marcher has keywords.
Unlike Unit keywords, Terrain Keywords are not predefined until the board itself is set up, as the Keywords afforded to Terrain are determined by the players, not the game developers. Our Terrain Keywording System lays out guidelines for what Terrain does, but it is ultimately up to players of Marcher to assign these keywords in a way that is fair, and makes sense with the kind of game they sit down to play with their opponents.
Placing Terrain and assigning keywords happen in the “Pre Game” Phase, which occurs right before the first Set Up Phase. This is an essential step, as assigning the keywords determines the rules governing terrain features on the board for the rest of the game. There are 3 parts to assigning Terrain its keywords: designating if it is ‘Area/Linear’, designating its ‘cover value’, and assigning ‘Function Keywords’. Each of these parts makes up all the Keywords a terrain feature has and gives players the tools necessary for Terrain features to meet the challenges of any game board and any set of Terrain. (Or at least make informed decisions about the Terrain they have.)
Area vs Linear: The Debate of the Ages
Although not explicitly discussed in the same terms as we do here, the distinction and subsequent debate between Area and Linear terrain is an old one in the wargaming hobby, and it fundamentally has to do with a problem with the medium of wargames, more so than it does with the wargamers themselves. The debate stems from how Miniatures in play ought to interact with Terrain and the bonuses conveyed therein. The question is: should Units get cover simply because they are touching a piece of terrain (Area), or should cover be determined based on where the incoming attack is coming from and if the Terrain in question blocks that attack (Linear)? This debate is a subset of the larger debate in wargaming between gamers who value the Simulationist aspect of wargaming vs those who value ease of use. These, of course, are not mutually exclusive, and as not to isolate any particular kind of gamer, I dare not throw my hat into the debate. I will, however, give a brief of the pros and cons of both linear and area systems of terrain and our reasoning for including both in Marcher.
We will start by discussing what Area Terrain is and its role in the debate. In the CORE rulebook, we talk about area terrain being defined by having a “floor” that decides whether or not the Unit gets to benefit from cover in the terrain feature. ‘Floor’ in this case isn’t necessarily referring to a physical floor, but rather a space that models can sit in/on that is predefined in some way to tell whether or not a Unit gets the cover. In other Wargames that only use Area Terrain, the “floor” is normally replaced with the idea that the Unit gets cover so long as it is “touching” the terrain feature.
The advantage of Area Terrain is that it is by far simpler from a gameplay perspective to determine whether or not a model is in cover. This is because Line of Sight plays no role in whether or not the Unit is in cover as part of an attack. If it’s touching, or “on the floor” as we say, it has the cover. Despite its functionality, area terrain has a tendency to be immersion-breaking at times, particularly when Units appear to have a clear shot at models, but due to the models touching the terrain, they still receive cover. While this doesn’t bother some players who care more about efficient gameplay, it does bother others who care more about realism and can feel really bad.
Linear Terrain in contrast, functions in the opposite way of Area Terrain, relying mostly on Line of Sight. In Marcher, Linear Terrain does not have a floor, so the Unit in question only gets cover if it is touching the terrain feature and the terrain feature is covering at least 50% of the Unit as part of an incoming attack action. This eliminates the immersion-breaking issue of Area Terrain by making it conditional on the attacking unit’s position in relation to it. So if your Units are taking cover behind a wall deemed as linear terrain, and an attack is coming from behind them, they won’t get the cover as the wall is not protecting their backside! The downside to Linear Terrain is that since the cover benefit is conditional, there is a large potential for disputes between players over whether or not the Troops in question get cover. We try to account for this with our “50%” rule, but it is not a perfect science.
Originally, when creating Marcher, we had not actually set up which of these two systems our terrain would use. Due to the nature of our movement system, caring about the leader models, we knew that the leader’s position would matter when determining cover. For this reason, in early editions of the game, we opted for a “touching” rule for terrain. The problem is we never defined if touching terrain was enough to give cover (Area) or if touching gave you cover, but line of sight determined if you get to keep it (Linear). Upon realizing this, there was a heated internal debate as to how it was to function, which ultimately landed in the lap of our Discord community. The debate was such that we realized that there were good points on both sides, and ultimately, the issue was a personal one on how people prefer to play. We decided the best course of action was to marry the two systems. As a result, when playing, you can choose whether a terrain feature is area or linear feature yourself in the pregame setup. This way, you can experience the benefits of both systems and apply them to terrain features as needed.
While we normally encourage players to only treat Terrain features that have an obvious floor such as a building or crater as area terrain, if you are the type of player who prefers one system over the other and wants to play with all terrain ruled as “Area” terrain you can ignore this rule by ruling the entire terrain feature is the “floor” therefore touching it is sufficient to gain the benefits. Similarly, if your playgroup despises area terrain, you can ignore all of the floor plans for terrain and rule everything as linear terrain. Hence, the flexibility of the system. It’s ultimately up to you and your opponent to choose if the terrain is area or linear, so if you don’t like one, don’t use it!
Cover Type
The second (and far less controversial) keyword assigned to terrain is cover type. This is quite simple to do. All Terrain gives a Unit “Light, Medium, or Heavy” cover when it is on the battlefield. These distinctions are normally determined by the size or scope of the terrain. For example, something small and soft like a haybale might give Light Cover, a collapsed wall Medium, and a ruined home Heavy. Once again, it is up to you and your opponent to discuss what level of cover each terrain feature gives, and the Area/Linear distinction governs how it gives the cover.
Cover in Marcher benefits both of the Units' defensive stats. So Light Cover is +1 to Evasion and Armor, Medium is +2, and Heavy is +3. Each of these is considered “levels” of Cover. There is no Cover beyond “Heavy,” so +3 is the highest a Unit's Cover score can go. Although Terrain provides a certain level of Cover associated with its Cover score, a Unit can increase its Cover beyond the Terrain’s score by taking the “Take Cover” Action or through similar game effects. This is an additive effect. So if a Unit in Medium Cover takes the “Take Cover” Action, they gain an additional level and now have “Heavy Cover”. This Action does not affect the Terrain feature, only the Unit. So if there was another Unit in that same Terrain feature, that Unit would still have Medium Cover until they also took the take cover action. Similarly, a Unit in Heavy Terrain that takes the “Take Cover” action receives no benefit because heavy cover is the hightest a cover score can go.
The last thing a Cover Score does is determine how dangerous it is when the Terrain is destroyed with a Unit benefiting from it. Terrain in Marcher is destructible, meaning nowhere is truly safe. If a piece of Terrain is destroyed, either as part of its Cover Score getting reduced to 0 from Bombard Tokens, or it gets destroyed by effects like “Demolish” or “Crushing Treads,” Units that were benefiting from that Terrain take a bailout as if they were in a transport. After rolling the Bailout Check (which is determined by the Terrain’s original Cover score), set the Unit back up in a position relative to where it was before the Terrain was destroyed.
Function Keywords: The Fun Part
Now that Area/Linear, and Cover Scores have been covered {Editor’s Note: This pun was not intentional} we can get into the meat and potatoes of the Keyword system. Unlike the last two sections, Function Keywords are completely optional, but are designed in such a way to make terrain more impactful and immersive. There is no limit to the number of Function Keywords a Terrain Feature can have, so stack them together to create terrain with effects that work well for your game board. I won’t be covering all of the Function keywords here; however, I will be discussing one in particular to help clear up some common misconceptions and lead into my next topic.
Concealing Terrain: Concealing Terrain is a feature that does not block Line-of-Sight, but does hinder it. Obscuring Terrain applies one level of Obscuration to all Ranged Attacks drawn through it.
Concealing terrain is meant to denote terrain features that are transparent, but in such a way that would still make it hard to shoot through, like a fence or a tree. This is also meant to combine with the “Aesthetic” keyword, so you can place terrain features that don’t provide cover, but still give Obscuration to Ranged Attacks drawn through it. So what is Obscuration then…
Obscuration and Line of Sight
With keywords out of the way lets move on to the other major thing Terrain does in wargames, that is, block “Line of Sight” (LOS) between attacking and defending Units.
LOS in Marcher is a complicated subject because it is dependent on a lot of factors. To keep it simple, it is best to think of LOS “Two-dimensionally”. We mean this literally; it’s useful to draw a line using a laser, tape measure, yardstick, or preferred straight line creating object, from the base of the attacking Unit’s leader model (or base of the firing gun in the case of a vehicle or emplaced weapon) to the base of whatever Model you are targeting for the attack. If that line is completely uninterrupted, the target is valid, and you can roll the attack. If it is interrupted, though, there is still likely terrain in the way of the attack, which could either lead to the attack being invalid or to start taking “Obscuration” penalties.
If there is something in the way, first check to see if it “fully blocks" LOS. This means that from the perspective of the attacking unit, can they see the target? Normally, this is pretty obvious if you look over that Unit's shoulder or down the barrel of that unit's gun, but once again, the straight line tool mentioned above is a good way to help resolve disputes.
It’s important to note that “Heavy Terrain” always completely blocks LOS even if there are windows/cracks in the wall that are see-through. So if you have to draw your line of sight through heavy terrain, it is blocked even if you can physically see the Unit. This rule exists to avoid disputes between players regarding irregular parts of the terrain, like windows. If you and your opponent wish, this rule can be ignored if both parties can come to an agreement.
In contrast to the previous rule, units that are “inside” heavy terrain (normally area terrain) are always visible regardless of whether a wall blocks LOS to them. If the walls of the building are the only thing in the way, since they are part of the terrain giving the defending Unit cover, they won’t receive obstruction bonuses either. This rule exists to prevent a concept in wargames known as “magic boxes,” in which a Unit can see another Unit one way, but can’t be seen by another, which is very common when measuring LOS in and out of buildings. To avoid this, Marcher opts for this two-way visibility as Heavy Cover is already a significant bonus, and it is more fair for both Units to see one another, leading to fewer disputes between players.
Other than fully blocking LOS, Terrain can also partially obscure the line of sight. When this happens, we call it Obscuration. Obscuration is a -1 to hit penalty applied to the attacker when they are rolling their “Evasion Check” against an enemy Unit as part of an Attack Action. This penalty is cumulative and is applied each time a different piece of Terrain obstructs the LOS of the Attacking Unit to the defender. LOS is considered Obstructed if at least 60% of model(s) in the Defending Unit are in some way covered by the terrain, or the line is drawn through any part of a piece of Terrain with the “Obscuring” keyword.
This 60% rule only affects how many levels of obscuring an attacking Unit gets, not whether or not the attack is in LOS or not. So if a Unit is attacking a Multi-model Unit, it needs to draw LOS to multiple models in that Unit to determine if the attack is obscured or not. But so long as it can draw LOS to one of those models, the attack is valid. It is also worth noting that each piece of Terrain can only give one level of obscuration, meaning that even if only one model in a multi-model unit is visible to the attacker, because the rest are behind a terrain feature, the attacker only gets one Obscuration penalty.
Since LOS rules can be iffy at times, always make rulings that benefit the defending player when there is a serious rules dispute.
Conclusion
If you made it this far, you can probably tell that Terrain is a complicated subject requiring a lot of nuance. At the end of the day, wargaming is a social exercise between players, so it is best to try to make rulings that are fair and logical to everyone involved whenever possible. Hopefully, this guide helped to clear up how the terrain system works to make your future games that much easier. Remember, keep marching on!
0 comments