well, yeah. But i'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. If it seemed that way, then i misspoke (misstyped? misswrote?)
I'm trying to point out that the rules, as written, are ambiguous and how i genuinely think they could be clearer and leave no room for subjective interpretation.
As of right now, terrain markers may count as terrain because "they have terrain traits, so why shouldn't they count?"
the way i see it, the problem is that the game should play according to the rules, not to assumptions. Maybe cross referencing many other rules it becomes clearer, but hunting references across 45 pages of material is just... ugh
I think a simple "terrain markers count as terrain for strategies and schemes" would have sufficed.