Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think there's ever going to be a way to make objective control anything other than arbitrary at a certain point. For some, standing around a bunch of circles is fine, for others not. For some, terrain works great as objectives, but for others the toeing-in issue makes it too abstract. There's always a point where things transition from "fine" to "immersion breaking" in any system.

I think using terrain works fine and the immersion breaking of toeing-in is preferable to the circles scattered across the board. As someone above mentioned, I think a better system is one where objectives are contested unless only controlled by one player, but even that leads to weird scenarios where you have one Grot in the objective, surrounded by the enemy army who all couldn't quite make it into range to control it.

In fact, I think OC has been a massive failure from GW since it was introduced. In theory it allows for different types of unit to contest objectives differently but in practice I think it's mattered about 2 or 3 times in total in all my games of 10th, mainly because the game is so lethal stuff tends to die when on objectives so the OC stat is irrelevant. HH has an interesting system where some units are rewarded for pushing enemies off a point, but not necessarily holding it, while others are just rewarded for holding. The move away from circles to use terrain is a good one, IMO, but I think the game needs to go further and think more deeply about objective control.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Idk. I don't want to be contrarian, but this feels like it's maybe just an issue of how we conceptualize the objective area? Nowhere does it say that controlling the objective means being at the centermost point of it or anything like that. If your base is touching the area, then you're in the part of the battlefield that matters for "controlling the objective." Whatever that means.

If you've ever played a shooter video game with a King of the Hill mission, you'll get what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the middle of the glowing circle or at the edge of it. If you're in the designated area, you're in the designated area. Contesting the objective while you're toe-in doesn't seem meaningfully different (to me) from contesting the objective when your entire base is on the terrain. It just means that the "actual" area in which you start to be considered a threat to the security of the objective startes an inch or so outside the actual area of the terrain.

To me, it's weirder that we ever started allowing a unit to be considered "controlled" while their were enemies around in the first place. I gave the grot vs terminators example earlier, and that's how we ended up where we are now, but still.

In the diagram Tyel provided, my expectation would be to say that nobody "controls" that objective. That objective is clearly actively being contested. Two units are posted up on either side of some cover poised for violence. The wyches in this scenario may not be in the center of the objective's mass, but they're in position to do violence to anyone else who's in that area.

Agreed. I think 40k would be better off dropping the OC value nonsense and just saying that, in order to control an objective, one player needs to hold it uncontested.

Breton wrote:
I always thought units/models should have an Objective Control and an Objective Denial rating. I mean lets say there's a Gigantic Dumb Animal Unit. They can't control objectives - because they're dumb. But they can deny them.

I agree with your premise. However, I would simplify it further and effectively say that only certain units (primarily infantry) can hold objectives at all, but virtually every unit can contest objectives.

So things like Carnifexes and Rhinos can stop an objective being claimed but they can't actually claim it.

 vipoid wrote:

Agreed. I think 40k would be better off dropping the OC value nonsense and just saying that, in order to control an objective, one player needs to hold it uncontested.

But now you've got the situation where a single surviving Gretchin is enough to deny an entire brick of Terminators from having secured the building
GW introduced OC in large part to gave basic troop choices a leg up over elite units in terms of capturing objectives. If you remove that the basic troops choices lose basically their last redeeming feature.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Agreed. I think 40k would be better off dropping the OC value nonsense and just saying that, in order to control an objective, one player needs to hold it uncontested.

But now you've got the situation where a single surviving Gretchin is enough to deny an entire brick of Terminators from having secured the building
GW introduced OC in large part to gave basic troop choices a leg up over elite units in terms of capturing objectives. If you remove that the basic troops choices lose basically their last redeeming feature.

*shrugs*

If you want a flavour reason, maybe the little grot the Terminators have thus-far ignored slips past them and sabotages the objective. They can be sneaky, after all.

More pragmatically, you're always going to have some edge-cases when it comes to objectives - whether in terms of where a unit can stand while still contesting/controlling them, and/or scenarios of 'Unit X shouldn't be able to contest Unit Y!' I'm sure under the current system you could find some scenarios that 'shouldn't work' in that the units that contest/win the objective should be easily slaughtered by the enemy units on that objective.

The thing to ask IMO is how often does that actually happen? Because I would argue that trying to prevent a scenario that occurs in maybe 1/100,000+ games isn't actually a good use of resources or design-space.

I would further argue that it's not even necessarily a bad thing when it happens. If anything, it would seem to potentially create more tactical decisions because the units that can control objectives often won't be the 'high-threat' units. Thus, players have to decide whether to try and take out the enemy's big guns or to take out their infantry to stop them controlling objectives (but exposing themselves to more retaliatory fire in the process). In your scenario, if the SM player chose to focus firepower on some higher-value Ork units but ignored a sole grot that was either already on or capable of moving onto the objective, then he should pay a price when it comes to the objective game.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
An objective denial stat would be nice in giving units that are good at clearing objectives but bad at holding them a little extra oomph.

However, it does lead towards people having to do maths during a game (even if it's just addition and subtraction), and with the idea that 10th/11th are meant to be simpler (meaning smoother) it means it's a potential issue in the rules bloat/unnecessarily "complex" category.

Its a game, you have to do math. You have to add hits. Subtract wounds. Count models.

Played a demo on Saturday.

Tables looks way way way way way better. More inmersive. Also, the game is intuitive with cover giving a -1 to hit.

 vipoid wrote:


Agreed. I think 40k would be better off dropping the OC value nonsense and just saying that, in order to control an objective, one player needs to hold it uncontested.

I've not learned the rules since 2nd and have not played again in just as long (but have browsed through them and read discussions during the past editions)
But when objective markers were introduced, I had always assumed that's the way it worked. You only got VP if it was uncontested, which to me seems fair and makes sense to me.

As for the change from objective points to objective areas (terrain pieces) it makes more sense to me that models would have to be fully inside the objective area to be considered. Not necessarily in the center like the diagram, but just touching the edge is not within the objective area to me and it's a simple boolean value, either you are in the objective area or you aren't. It's like standing at a doorway to a room. you are not IN the room until you walk through the door. Even standing in the doorway, you are still not in the room, you are in the doorway. Until you cross that line, you are not in the room.

And now I can hear people asking, "What if you straddle the line? 1 foot in and 1 foot out"

Thinking about this scenario, I do not think it should count as controlling an objective because to me controlling an objective is akin to securing a location and you can't secure a location (especially ruins with multiple entry points) if you are only guarding a single entry point. That's not secure.

However, an objective should be contested if an enemy unit is touching the edge of the objective AND has line of sight to the controlling unit. Kind of like soldiers taking cover in a doorway attempting to get into a room.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Idk. I don't want to be contrarian, but this feels like it's maybe just an issue of how we conceptualize the objective area? Nowhere does it say that controlling the objective means being at the centermost point of it or anything like that. If your base is touching the area, then you're in the part of the battlefield that matters for "controlling the objective." Whatever that means.

If you've ever played a shooter video game with a King of the Hill mission, you'll get what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the middle of the glowing circle or at the edge of it. If you're in the designated area, you're in the designated area. Contesting the objective while you're toe-in doesn't seem meaningfully different (to me) from contesting the objective when your entire base is on the terrain. It just means that the "actual" area in which you start to be considered a threat to the security of the objective startes an inch or so outside the actual area of the terrain.

To me, it's weirder that we ever started allowing a unit to be considered "controlled" while their were enemies around in the first place. I gave the grot vs terminators example earlier, and that's how we ended up where we are now, but still.

In the diagram Tyel provided, my expectation would be to say that nobody "controls" that objective. That objective is clearly actively being contested. Two units are posted up on either side of some cover poised for violence. The wyches in this scenario may not be in the center of the objective's mass, but they're in position to do violence to anyone else who's in that area.

Maybe if they made it to where 3/4 of regular models bases had to be over it to control and vehicles/ large base models 1/4 of the base?

Objective control is always going to have weird edge cases that don't entirely make sense. There's always some arbitrary point at which control is gained/lost. Starting to look at fractions of a base to determine OC would make things worse, not better.

I agree with Wyldhunt here - the issue is more to do with conceptualisation of what's happening than the rule itself. Just toeing-in to an objective might seem weird to someone, but in game terms we're basically saying those models are in a position to meaningfully contest the area. If they were 5mm further back they wouldn't be, but there's always going to be a point where that's true, so setting the limit to be a clearly defined area is reasonable enough in most cases. You could change it to only count models that are wholly within a terrain feature, but then you'd have the edge case where a model is 2mm short of being able to get fully within and therefore not counting.

Slipspace wrote:Objective control is always going to have weird edge cases that don't entirely make sense. There's always some arbitrary point at which control is gained/lost. Starting to look at fractions of a base to determine OC would make things worse, not better.

I agree with Wyldhunt here - the issue is more to do with conceptualisation of what's happening than the rule itself. Just toeing-in to an objective might seem weird to someone, but in game terms we're basically saying those models are in a position to meaningfully contest the area. If they were 5mm further back they wouldn't be, but there's always going to be a point where that's true, so setting the limit to be a clearly defined area is reasonable enough in most cases. You could change it to only count models that are wholly within a terrain feature, but then you'd have the edge case where a model is 2mm short of being able to get fully within and therefore not counting.

Exactly. Also, making it so that you have to be entirely on the terrain piece has this minor-but-wonky consequence of meaning that models with large bases essentially have to walk farther to reach an objective. If my eldar on a 25mm base and your marine on a 32mm or whatever marines are on these days both deploy as close as possible to our nearest extension objectives, and those objectives are each 14" away from our deployment line... Then my eldar functionally needs to travel 14" + 25mm whereas your marine needs to travel 14" + 32mm. So making it toe-in avoids that and basically just creates a clear cut boundary for when you're officially close enough to the objective to count as threatening it.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Agreed. I think 40k would be better off dropping the OC value nonsense and just saying that, in order to control an objective, one player needs to hold it uncontested.

But now you've got the situation where a single surviving Gretchin is enough to deny an entire brick of Terminators from having secured the building
GW introduced OC in large part to gave basic troop choices a leg up over elite units in terms of capturing objectives. If you remove that the basic troops choices lose basically their last redeeming feature.

Ehhh. I have mixed feelings about it. I feel like OC as a concept could maybe work if you said something like,

"If you have at least 4 times more OC on an objective than your opponent, then you control the objective even if it's contested."

Essentially saying that you have enough presence in the area to be able to vox in to your commander and go, "Yeah, we're good here. Just cleaning up."

This gets around the 1 grot denying the objective to 5 terminators thing. However, it also starts to feel like kind of a niche mechanic at that point. But if you did go that route you should probably give higher OC to the scarier units; not the (often) less scary battle line guys. Giving battleline units higher OC was an evolution of objective secured which was an attempt to put a bandaid on the problem of troops frequently being designed in a way that made them undesirable. See the force org thread for discussions of "troop tax."

Basically, making people actually fully clear the enemy off of the objective is probably the cleanest and most intuitive approach. I can see the appeal of not requiring people do that (it makes high lethality necessary), but OC has been handled awkwardly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mrangryork wrote:

Maybe if they made it to where 3/4 of regular models bases had to be over it to control and vehicles/ large base models 1/4 of the base?

I think that just obscures the additional problem while adding arguments about whether 24% or 26% of your vehicle is in the ruin. :(

 KingGarland wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
I will agree however that I think that models wholly within should have more impact on holding an objective, but at the same time it means that you get really dull looking battlefields because it incentivises terrain that's open squares with thin walls rather than interesting looking, non "standard" terrain.

Well that already happened in 10th were 99% of terrain became L shaped ruins so it happening a again is likely regardless.
I do like this idea, maybe if a unit is within a terrain area the units total OC is halved and if they are wholly within it is normal.

I agree, but I don't think it should be that way. I want boards to look interesting and not be "optimal" boring Ls and squares. I want theme and flavour in my games as well as it being a game you actually have to engage your brain for.

I like the OC halving idea, alternatively it could be a reduction by 1 per model that isn't wholly within or something. Or a unit gets +1 total OC for every 5 models wholly on it.

Breton wrote:

 Afrodactyl wrote:
An objective denial stat would be nice in giving units that are good at clearing objectives but bad at holding them a little extra oomph.

However, it does lead towards people having to do maths during a game (even if it's just addition and subtraction), and with the idea that 10th/11th are meant to be simpler (meaning smoother) it means it's a potential issue in the rules bloat/unnecessarily "complex" category.

Its a game, you have to do math. You have to add hits. Subtract wounds. Count models.

I fully get that, but it's just an additional step to add what some people will call rules bloat. I'm fully on board with units having an Objective Denial stat, but there will be a good amount of people that dislike it. Like I said about Old World and WHFB and combat resolution, it's just another step of addition and subtraction that pulls people out of the game rather than having fun and rolling dice/moving models around. People will always find something to complain about and adding something that complicates something that is simple and works (even if it's not particularly elegant at times) will just give the complainers another boogeyman to moan about.

Again, I'm all for an Objective Denial stat, just pointing out that it would definitely get complaints in the sweatier parts of the community. I've been playing Warhammer in some form or another since 2001, I'm fully on board for the amount of numbers involved

"Non-standard terrain" is something you're just not that likely to see in general 40k these days, the game has become streamlined and highly focused on competitive. That doesn't mean that most players actually attend tournaments, very much the opposite actually, but it means that the game is highly standardised.

It's like League of Legends. That game, in theory, is identical whether you're an absolute newbie playing against bots or a tournament player trying to win big prize money. The game itself is refined to be extremely tight, for better or for worse.

One of the positives of the new terrain system is essentially all terrain is the same, so hopefully we'll start to see some variety on the table.

Although ruins still have walls that just block LoS

 kirotheavenger wrote:
One of the positives of the new terrain system is essentially all terrain is the same, so hopefully we'll start to see some variety on the table.

Although ruins still have walls that just block LoS

Anything you declare as dense (which is also specified in the layout) blocks LOS regardless of gaps. The main reason you're liking to see L-Shape ruins remain popular is just the need to have things you can fight through.

ccs wrote:
Today at the shop I watched a game where after everything was set one player quietly nudged a # of L ruin pieces (all facing his deploy zone) ever so slightly further away, into the template.
Conveniently creating a few mm of exposed template. Completely blocked from enemy sight thanks to the 1st floor walls now being solid regardless of the fact the pieces in question are far more window than wall...

I have ideas on how to fix this...

I also have ideas on how to fix this, and only half of them involve bricks (note: the terrain wasn't the issue).

 BorderCountess wrote:

ccs wrote:
Today at the shop I watched a game where after everything was set one player quietly nudged a # of L ruin pieces (all facing his deploy zone) ever so slightly further away, into the template.
Conveniently creating a few mm of exposed template. Completely blocked from enemy sight thanks to the 1st floor walls now being solid regardless of the fact the pieces in question are far more window than wall...

I have ideas on how to fix this...

I also have ideas on how to fix this, and only half of them involve bricks (note: the terrain wasn't the issue).

From what I've seen, this is actually how they're supposed to be set up. All of the layouts show the walls inside the template enough that you can contest from outside them.

 LunarSol wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

ccs wrote:
Today at the shop I watched a game where after everything was set one player quietly nudged a # of L ruin pieces (all facing his deploy zone) ever so slightly further away, into the template.
Conveniently creating a few mm of exposed template. Completely blocked from enemy sight thanks to the 1st floor walls now being solid regardless of the fact the pieces in question are far more window than wall...

I have ideas on how to fix this...

I also have ideas on how to fix this, and only half of them involve bricks (note: the terrain wasn't the issue).

From what I've seen, this is actually how they're supposed to be set up. All of the layouts show the walls inside the template enough that you can contest from outside them.

Yeah, I was watching their debut stream and got that impression.

But again, the problem I was talking about solving wasn't the terrain...

 BorderCountess wrote:

ccs wrote:
Today at the shop I watched a game where after everything was set one player quietly nudged a # of L ruin pieces (all facing his deploy zone) ever so slightly further away, into the template.
Conveniently creating a few mm of exposed template. Completely blocked from enemy sight thanks to the 1st floor walls now being solid regardless of the fact the pieces in question are far more window than wall...

I have ideas on how to fix this...

I also have ideas on how to fix this, and only half of them involve bricks (note: the terrain wasn't the issue).

Honestly, I will without a doubt be the guy who constantly knocks the walls around. Not because I'm a malicious cheater, but because I am a clumsy dork. My instinct is to just make a note of pointing out which pieces of terrain are supposed to have a gap between the wall and the edge of the terrain area pre-game and to apologize in advance for my low Dexterity score.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
If you've ever played a shooter video game with a King of the Hill mission, you'll get what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether you're in the middle of the glowing circle or at the edge of it. If you're in the designated area, you're in the designated area. Contesting the objective while you're toe-in doesn't seem meaningfully different (to me) from contesting the objective when your entire base is on the terrain. It just means that the "actual" area in which you start to be considered a threat to the security of the objective startes an inch or so outside the actual area of the terrain.

Videogames are a good reference point. If you look at the big ones with this kind of mechanic (Battlefield comes to mind), they actually deliberately avoid this 'toe-in' situation.

You want the players to fight over the hill/objective/point/node, which means designing the map such that getting on the objective involves some risk and exposes both teams to each other so they can fight over it. Which means you want to avoid situations where one or both sides has a convenient piece of cover on the edge of the objective, which they can camp behind in order to take it while remaining safe. If an objective area extends beyond the walls of a building- such that taking it becomes a matter of just having more dudes stacked up on the exterior wall- that's bad design.

I agree that it's ultimately arbitrary what you define the objective as, and there will be some grey area. I just find it easier to accept from a verisimilitude standpoint if you have to actually be inside a building to say you control it, and from a gameplay standpoint I don't think being able to take an objective while staying safely behind LOS-blocking terrain is ideal either.

I also suspect that a system where down-to-the-millimeter positioning of terrain is so important is going to cause a lot of heartburn, but maybe I'm being uncharitable.

Slipspace wrote:
Objective control is always going to have weird edge cases that don't entirely make sense. There's always some arbitrary point at which control is gained/lost. Starting to look at fractions of a base to determine OC would make things worse, not better.

I agree with Wyldhunt here - the issue is more to do with conceptualisation of what's happening than the rule itself. Just toeing-in to an objective might seem weird to someone, but in game terms we're basically saying those models are in a position to meaningfully contest the area. If they were 5mm further back they wouldn't be, but there's always going to be a point where that's true, so setting the limit to be a clearly defined area is reasonable enough in most cases. You could change it to only count models that are wholly within a terrain feature, but then you'd have the edge case where a model is 2mm short of being able to get fully within and therefore not counting.

I still go back to Objective Denial, and making the stats scale with points rather than battlefield role - especially now that most battlefield role is gone. 10 Grots sitting on an objective next to a Land Raider Crusader control the objective based on the rules - but does anybody really think the cowardly Grots are going to contest an objective against the big bad tank that can shoot them all to pieces in one turn and still have shots left over? But I can absolutely see a full squad of Deathshroud Terminators controlling the objective next to the Crusader - I also could see nobody controlling the objective because the Deathshrouds would be too focused on the nearby tank - but the driver of the tank can't get out and do anything thus a low OC resulting in a nobody wins. Even more so I can see them controlling the objective instead of the 20 Guardsmen.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
One of the positives of the new terrain system is essentially all terrain is the same,

That is absolutely the opposite of being a positive.

Without OC then we go back to Objective Secured, in which a single Grot always controls the objective even against a potentially infinite amount of Land Raiders and Terminators.

Without Objective Secured we go back to only troops scoring which I admit would be an interesting mix with the progressive scoring of modern 40k.

First game night was five tables of Death Star/Hullspam; Purge the Foe fighting either Death Star/Hullspam Purge the Foe or someone who hadn't cribbed from the first set of RTT/GT winner's lists and was trying to field a cool army.

This is rancid.

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
One of the positives of the new terrain system is essentially all terrain is the same,

That is absolutely the opposite of being a positive.

I gotta agree with Kiro. I know at first blush it sounds lame that terrain is functionally interchangeable, but historically the worst part of building tables for 40K in my experience has been making cool stuff that doesn't function because it isn't a TLOS-blocking L-shaped wall.

Ideally I'd like to see a cover system that does more than a minor reduction to damage, so that the game isn't overwhelmingly driven by whether or not you can stay out of LOS. But since that's not happening, I'll settle for a system where I can use my jungle without it being rendered worthless by virtue of having tiny gaps and not perfectly conforming to an ITC-standard footprint.

 catbarf wrote:

ccs wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
One of the positives of the new terrain system is essentially all terrain is the same,

That is absolutely the opposite of being a positive.

I gotta agree with Kiro. I know at first blush it sounds lame that terrain is functionally interchangeable, but historically the worst part of building tables for 40K in my experience has been making cool stuff that doesn't function because it isn't a TLOS-blocking L-shaped wall.

Ideally I'd like to see a cover system that does more than a minor reduction to damage, so that the game isn't overwhelmingly driven by whether or not you can stay out of LOS. But since that's not happening, I'll settle for a system where I can use my jungle without it being rendered worthless by virtue of having tiny gaps and not perfectly conforming to an ITC-standard footprint.

Yeah, a return of interesting tables that aren't just "Imperial city number 5" which, for some reason, is the site of a clash between the Tau and Necrons or whatever, would be good.

Bring back the jungles, the forests, rivers and marshes, hills, cliffs, a crashed spaceship scattered over the battlefield etc.

Agreed. I feel like I've been fighting in the same imperial city for most of a decade now. Looking forward to seeing some new aeesthetics in my terrain.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Agreed. I feel like I've been fighting in the same imperial city for most of a decade now. Looking forward to seeing some new aeesthetics in my terrain.

When will this Eternal War end!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bespoke terrain rules are one of those things that are more fun to create than actually use. Its fun to come up with rules to represent interacting with every unique thing, but when it comes to implementing that on the table, it often results in complicated ways of saying "impassible".

The more specific your terrain rules are, the more you need terrain built to those specifications. Marvel has incredibly generic terrain rules, but as a result the terrain can be a city or a dinosaur filled jungle or an interdimensional hellzone or whatever you like. Simple terrain enables incredibly creative tables.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Agreed. I feel like I've been fighting in the same imperial city for most of a decade now. Looking forward to seeing some new aeesthetics in my terrain.

When will this Eternal War end!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bespoke terrain rules are one of those things that are more fun to create than actually use. Its fun to come up with rules to represent interacting with every unique thing, but when it comes to implementing that on the table, it often results in complicated ways of saying "impassible".

The more specific your terrain rules are, the more you need terrain built to those specifications. Marvel has incredibly generic terrain rules, but as a result the terrain can be a city or a dinosaur filled jungle or an interdimensional hellzone or whatever you like. Simple terrain enables incredibly creative tables.

Agreed. If we *did* want some more variety in terrain rules, I feel like you could have some sort of environmental twist added to your games. Playing in a flooded area? Maybe units move a bit slower over open ground if they don't have the Fly keyword because they're slogging through knee-deep water. Jungle world? Maybe units with Torrent weapons can use an action to remove the Solid rule from terrain as they burn away all the vines covering up the windows.

Having different rules for different categories of terrain should be very easy. There can be multiple levels of cover with different levels of modifiers, combined with different levels of visibility, combined as well with different levels of movement modification, which can then apply to different units.

Barbed wire impedes infantry while not blocking LOS

Tank traps could block vehicles, provide cover for Infantry, and not block LOS

Forest can slow units down, impede LOS and provide cover

Buildings could block movement for everything but Infantry, provide heavy cover and block more LOS

Craters should slow units down, provide cover for or block LOS to units inside them but none for targets beyond them.

There should be a ton of variety available.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having different rules for different categories of terrain should be very easy. There can be multiple levels of cover with different levels of modifiers, combined with different levels of visibility, combined as well with different levels of movement modification, which can then apply to different units.

Barbed wire impedes infantry while not blocking LOS

Tank traps could block vehicles, provide cover for Infantry, and not block LOS

Forest can slow units down, impede LOS and provide cover

Buildings could block movement for everything but Infantry, provide heavy cover and block more LOS

Craters should slow units down, provide cover for or block LOS to units inside them but none for targets beyond them.

There should be a ton of variety available.

Look, I personally would enjoy that, but my regular opponents have trouble remembering that the shipping crates aren't ruins and then have trouble remembering what the shipping crate rules actually are (in 10th).