Comments on: When Is Good Terrain Bad?

By: Z

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:06:03 +0000

Yeah, David W. absolutely refuses to let people claim elevation with their pinky on the hill. For his vehemence alone I had to make a house rule at tourneys stating that if you were not at least HALF on the hill, you don’t get the elevation bonus. Also, if the hill cannot support the model, then it’s up to your opponent.

Less headaches for me, I’ll tell you that.

Stu, what exactly is FCT?

By: Feeple

Feeple — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:58:33 +0000

I like pretty terrain as much as anyone else, but when it comes time to play, I need to only identify and utilitze it. Frankly, wargaming brings pretty paintjobs, but also requires durability and the acceptance that things happen. I’ve had and still have a few models that have gotten chips on them during play and transport. Nothing specifically from DieCon, but they happen. I like to put forth a good effort on my painting, but I also realize in the back of my skull that this model may need to see the paint table later to repair some (hopefully) well-earned scars.

Not to say that it shouldn’t be prevented, but going the full polar opposite of pretty terrain and busting out Flanzer’s Clown Terrain (FCT) really irritates me too, mainly because I don’t have his color code key memorized, and sometimes I see a hill when I need to see a forest. Playing on a glass table with the terrain placed underneath so that there is a completely level field seems to work, but also seems silly. Shallwo hills and removable trees seem to help the terrain issue immensely.

The only other issue I can think of is something elss likely to occur: a rules change. Instead of being half on/off/in/out of a feature, rule it so the model must be completely on/off/in/out to get the effect or lcak thereof. This would reduce people trying to just get a toe on a hill so they can stay in position but still get the +2 DEF, which in my expereince is where much of the terrain problems lie. I said this is less likely to occur, as it would mean a sweeping change to not only the rules but our own meta. I respect people in the game who go through the trouble to paint and work on their models, and always hate to see a chip happen on anyone’s piece, but I also think that if one is loathe to ever get a chip on their model, well, maybe they should paint just for display purposes.

By: Dankelzahn

Dankelzahn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:38:12 +0000

It’s definitely tricky balancing quality with quantity with aesthetics. And cost. I think that the Zuzzy mats are a good solution since they’re rubber, sculpted, and able to be painted, but they’re also about $35 per table plus time and effort to paint them. It’s not a practical solution on a large scale.

Looking specifically at DieCon, I think the two biggest issues were some of the terrain boards and the few terrain templates that were warped. I actually didn’t play on any tables where the hills were an issue. I had the most problems with some forest templates.

I don’t have a ton of terrain making experience so I don’t know of any preferable materials off hand but I’ll start looking around. And if we need to have some sort of terrain day (or a few) to get ready for DieCon I’d be up for helping out with that too.

By: Iskandar

Iskandar — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:13:53 +0000

I come from historical wargaming and have seen some incredibly beautiful terrain setups. I definitely would prefer playing on a table closer to that than just felt. Some of the table setups in fantasy games are really pathetic.

But at the same time (and this is much harder to find), I want the terrain to be functional. That means trees that are removable; hills with ledges that can support a figure; clearly defined edges of a terrain piece, etc. I heard an episode on the Iron Agenda podcast about a lady who puts together superb terrain but designed with an eye towards playability. That should be the community standard IMHO.

–Norbert

By: Z

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:23:11 +0000

I have two very distinct groups, one who prefers felt vs one who prefers pretty terrain.

Me? I don’t care, except for those really textured multi-layered and leveled hills, which are nigh impossible to stand on. Very sad, really.

I like seeing nice terrain at tourneys, but at home, I’m ok with felt terrain. My table doesn’t really need huge hills and real trees. Green felt for woods, brown for hills, blue for water, and it’s all good.

By: Aslain Kheog

Aslain Kheog — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:05:15 +0000

Where do you draw the line of form vs function and in situations like Diecon where were trying to get enought terrain to base 40ish boards when is something good enough? A lot of the terrain for events like this in particular are donated by the organizers and patrons and we use what we get. I know that the worse offenders in this instance are the boards and hills I made but at this point I did the best I could at the time and they are already done and ready to use. Plans are in the works for improvements for next year and new or improved terrain could be added to the list of items to accomplish if the players in general feel it’s a direction we need to take.

By: D.Vader

D.Vader — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:21:32 +0000

I agree with both of you guys that while terrain can hopefully look nice it should be functional/safe foremost. Any recommendations on changes for next year that would be visually appealing yet safe/functional? Is there something more visually appealing than simple felt but yet safer?

By: XanderStormblade

XanderStormblade — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:05:25 +0000

I agree with you on this. I too love seeing well done terrain for boards, but i still look at over detailed boards with disapointment b/c of how they end up limmiting how well you can play on them. For tournment play i belive that a functional piece of terain works better than the nice detail ones. Then again i love seeing the awsome terrain shown in the books. I guess you can be of two opinons about terrain.