Previously only available as part of the complete starter box, the Ex Illis game board is now available for purchase (as well as at their own store). It's a modular detailed board, but most importantly it is flat (rather than having hills that you always have to have) and isn't the cost of a black market kidney.

It's total cost is $9 more than the Realm of Battle Board extension.

Now Kyoto has one of these and could probably answer more specific questions, but for those who want a for a portable modular game board but also want to have money left over to buy terrain to put on the game board, I think this should make a good alternative to the anti-imagination piece of crap GW makes.

I have had one for some time now (got a demo version a friend's local shop had) and it is very nice. It is small (about 3 ft by 4 ft - each tile is 9" square) but you can keep adding to it. I picked mine up for a great price and I plan on using the tiles to make display boards for my armies for tournaments and other events.

Looks quite nice. The site doesn't give any sizes, so I assume we'd need to buy two of these to get a full 4x6 tabletop surface (is this correct?)

Also, there can we get the really nice and tall hill sitting on the corner in the pics?

Now if only there was a UK stockist!

looks like it could be great for Malifaux

Personally, I love GW's gameboard (not sure why it is any more anti-imagination than this one or any other), but can't stomach the price point.

While I'm not really a fan of Ex-Illis models, I have to admit that this gameboard is pretty nice-looking as well and is considerably easier on the wallet.

I'd love to hear what Kyoto or anyone else who owns it thinks of the quality (construction) of the board and how it looks in person.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Previously only available as part of the complete starter box, the Ex Illis game board is now available for purchase (as well as at their own store). It's a modular detailed board, but most importantly it is flat (rather than having hills that you always have to have) and isn't the cost of a black market kidney.

It's total cost is $9 more than the Realm of Battle Board extension.

HBMC, I don't know how anyone could seriously use that unrealistic board for a serious game, everyone knows that when you dig 6" into the ground you hit the skull layer. Omiting something that well-established in the science of skull tetonics makes me wonder if the sculpter has ever even seen ground.

Now Kyoto has one of these and could probably answer more specific questions, but for those who want a for a portable modular game board but also want to have money left over to buy terrain to put on the game board, I think this should make a good alternative to the anti-imagination piece of crap GW makes.

I do

News to me.

But yeah, I'd buy this over realms of skulls any day.

Sarigar wrote:Looks quite nice. The site doesn't give any sizes, so I assume we'd need to buy two of these to get a full 4x6 tabletop surface (is this correct?)

Also, there can we get the really nice and tall hill sitting on the corner in the pics?

I did some digging and found that each tile is 9"x9" Link

So, 20 tiles would let you set up a 4 Tile x 5 Tile board (36"x45").

you wouldn't be able to make a standard sized 4'x6' board (48 is not evenly divisible by 9). However, if you didn't mind a slightly narrower table, you could buy 2 sets and make a 45"x72".

...damn. Making it as cost prohibitive as GW's.

What I'd like to know is are these tiles as high as the Realm of Battle tiles? If so, a bigger playing area for me they be.

Prophecy07 wrote:...damn. Making it as cost prohibitive as GW's.

no not at all seeing as GW want's $290 for a board that is smaller then this one is

Looks nice, but I'm already in the process of planning and building my own...

That being said, it does look a bit easier to store. Hrmh.

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

Prophecy07 wrote:...damn. Making it as cost prohibitive as GW's.

no not at all seeing as GW want's $290 for a board that is smaller then this one is

Eh. I can pay 200 + tax for one that is the wrong size and shape, or 290 for the official GW one.

You're still wrong; they're both cost-prohibitive.

Prophecy07 wrote:...damn. Making it as cost prohibitive as GW's.

Hardly. It's $200 less than the GW one for one set. Two would still be significantly cheaper.

And wrong size? By 3"? Wow...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Prophecy07 wrote:...damn. Making it as cost prohibitive as GW's.

Hardly. It's $200 less than the GW one for one set. Two would still be significantly cheaper.

And wrong size? By 3"? Wow...

thank you for backing me H.B.M.C.

If your comparing size then it's not significantly cheaper. If you do out the math the Ex-Illis board comes out to be 6.17 cents per square inch and realm of battle is 8.39 cents psi. Meaning this board is 26% cheaper then GW's overpriced one. GW's is more likely to be of higher quality and I much rather snap together 6 tiles then trying to snap 40 tiles together.

Having 40 tiles not move while gaming can be hard. Plus GW has that nice nylon bag!

They are both expensive and both look about as nice to me. The Ex Illis one is cheaper though and flat which is nice. GW does have the exact correct size though..... guess it just depends what you are looking for.

Is the Ex illis one snap together or do they just lie next to each other?

Or you could pay $52.61 for this one from Zuzzy. It's 4'x6' and rolls up. And they have several variations.

That is pretty nice. Zuzzy does some nice work.

Or make your own out of mdf, and get some power tools into the bargain for the same price...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/110161-.html?m=2

I have a ROB board. I like it and got a good deal on it (well, it still cost a lot, but still). I'm thinking about getting a zuzzy matt too though, to paint like a desert since I have my ROB flocked with grass and stuff.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:


But yeah, I'd buy this over realms of skulls any day.

I don't know skulls don't bother me...... you can always flock over them or cover them with sand and glue.

Ehh, warpcrafter bought me over on that zuzzy board. It's cheaper, rolls up (though paint may chip off) just seems like a nicer deal to me, atleast. But in all respects, I would settle for any of these boards than a black kitchen table..

That Zuzzy mat is nice, I just don't like the prospect of having to paint it. There are several different mats/game boards out there right now that look so much better than the Realm of Battle. ROB was a neat idea, before the price hit and it was around $100 more than they had first advertised it to be.

Have a look at Total Systems Scenic, in UK: they do boards in 12"x12" or 24"x24", ready painted/flocked, with varieties including hills/ponds/rivers/roads/tracks/fields etc.
A 6'x4' board works out about £120 max, but patently with such a variety in tile size and type you can be more flexible.

OH MY GOD THAT IS SO fething SWEET.

If you are looking for a basic mat to place other terrain on top of, Zuzzy looks like it is by far the best option, unless you just want a simple green felt roll up table cover.

I have a green battle mat that is flocked, and it is great for woodland or field types of games. But you also come away with the "green knuckless" syndrome after playing for a while; and it doesn't look as good with a bunch of urban battlefield style terrain on top.

The Zuzzy wounded city mat looks great (at least in pictures), and I bet it would not be hard to paint and ink. I would probably stay away from the verdant field, because like me, you can always buy a green mat cheaper; unless you want it to be significantly different in some way. The despoiled reaches looks good, and too I could see it being a little more challenging to paint, depending on how detailed you want to go with it.

I'm not really impressed by the Ex Illis Gameboard or the Realm of Battle - If you're going to make a modular game board, the biggest advantage is that it allows you to create negative terrain like trenches or rivers. Otherwise you might as well just buy a Zuzzy battlemat for a quarter of the price.

I like the look of these

http://www.terrainmat.com/

Meh. Got my Realm of Battle, and I really like the hills on it. They're a good size compared to usual stuff, allowing pieces of terrain to be placed upon them, which in turn gives you a more impressive board to play over.

And as for this one....not sure I'd part with cash for a flat piece of plastic, when I can nip down the road and get flat bits of wood for a lot cheaper?

Years ago I went to the local hardware store and bought a thin, very large, one piece of wood and some wood glue (chip board?). Chucked it in the car, took it home and glued on some fake grass (wood glue and that green sawdust stuff). Works a treat although a little messy to make (have spare newspaper to collect all the loose "grass").

Rather cheap although not portable like the boards above (kept it in the garage). I guess you could ask the hardware guys to chop it up into pieces before you buy it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And wrong size? By 3"? Wow...

Sorry...could not help this...

3" can make a big difference...

Yeah, actually, I was thinking the same thing.

And if 3" really ain't that big a deal then I have to ask: if I'm 3" out of range for a shooting attack you'd totally give it to me right? Same with an assault?

How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

If the question is 'would you game on a table that is not 4x6', well naturally, I would. But if I was going to buy/make a table or table accessory specifically for the purpose of gaming, no way would I shell out for anything less than the exact dimensions that the game is supposed to be played upon.

sourclams wrote:If the question is 'would you game on a table that is not 4x6', well naturally, I would. But if I was going to buy/make a table or table accessory specifically for the purpose of gaming, no way would I shell out for anything less than the exact dimensions that the game is supposed to be played upon.

This. Exactly.

And yes, no matter what game you are playing, 3 inches can be a big deal.

um, I do.

Well it is either 4x6 or 4x8. Like I can use it both ways. Mind you it is a cheapo make your-own table-top that you put on top of a dining room table same as the boards listed here.

Painted 1" insulation foam.

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

I have 60!

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

*Raises hand* I have two actually, the cheap one I made with 6x4 plywood (which I annoyed the hell out of the hardware store guy with by making him quintuple check the measurements on) and some spray paints, and the Realm of Battle board, which I only bought because Mikhalia is awesome and gave me a fantastic price when it came out.

I agree with Sourclams that if you are buying something for a purpose (like a gaming board) that you can make a cheap version of for a fraction of the price, it had better meet your specifications exactly.

On the other hand, I think 6x4 is a little small, and would really prefer a 10x5 with more terrain and models. So it isn't really the exact side of the board that is unfortunate, but more that buying one the size I want is about as expensive as a RoB board, and far more expensive than making it myself.

I would prefer, or would have when I was playing regularly if my 4x8 was actually 4x10 4x12 a bit much maybe. For Hordes I/ we play 4x4.

But my next big project, besides painting of course is modular terrain. Basically Lustria meets Tomb Kings.

I mean it is not that hard to make, really. And of course there is all this excellent modular terrain you can buy these days.

Or more boards/ tables and terrain, basically.

Chacun son gout.

I'm not that fussed about 3 inches, there are many other variables in the game.

I have a Terrain Mats mat and some hills and stuff, and I make my own buildings.

I once made a large Battletech table. It was all hex-gridded and made of expanded polystyrene. It wasn't very durable.

If I had the space, I would make my own modular terrain boards using MDF as the base.

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

...how do you not? lol

I'm just saying, when you buy the wood for it it's usually cut pretty damn accurately isn't it? I'd imagine at least within a sixteenth of an inch.

Look, my point in posting this thread was to highlight the fact that there is another plastic modular board out there that is significantly cheaper and more useful than the Realm of Money Battle Board and it is especially significant in that it is flat, and therefore you can do what you want with it, whereas the Realm of Sell-my-Kidney-to-afford-it has hills that cannot be moved and are always there, limiting what the board is capable of without serious conversion work (and converting the RoB defeats the purpose of having the RoB, not to mention makes a super-expensive item into an ultra-expensive item). For the cost of a RoB you can get two of these Ex Illis sets and have enough money left over to buy terrain. Yes, simply buying a 6X4 MDF board is cheaper, and even picking up one of these is a good idea (I've got one - very nice product), but for those who want a plastic board that can be packed up and moved at a moment's notice (something a 6X4 piece of MDF cannot do), there is your alternate option.

Ok folks? I'm not asking you to fall on your knees and prostrate to the great Ex Illis modular playing board. I'm just showing you an alternative.

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

I have one table that is 6X4, and I have another that is 6X5 but I have a cover for the table that is 4 feet side, so when placing it on the table you get 1/2 a foot of spare space on either side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sheck2 wrote:Sorry...could not help this...

3" can make a big difference...

For a tournament? Yes. But for most people? Not that much.

And yes, I realise that 3" is actually 216 square inches, but still. Only 6% of a 6x4 table.

In Canada there's a chain of stores called "Loblaws" and they have these great tables in their community rooms that are 6'x2'. That means you can shove two together for a standard game board, or three for a decent sized playing surface, 6'x6'.

Nurglitch wrote:In Canada there's a chain of stores called "Loblaws" and they have these great tables in their community rooms that are 6'x2'. That means you can shove two together for a standard game board, or three for a decent sized playing surface, 6'x6'.

That's the way my trestles work, 'cept they're 6x2.5 (which is why it ends up being 5' across). Given I currently have 4 of them, it gives you a lot of options.

Hate the GW one due to the hills: miniatures keep falling over ALL the time. It's a bit prettier to look at, but parts of it just aren't worth playing on.

This is a nice alternative.

Sidstyler wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

...how do you not? lol

I'm just saying, when you buy the wood for it it's usually cut pretty damn accurately isn't it? I'd imagine at least within a sixteenth of an inch.

Not if you build your tables from scrap you find on the side of the road. Paying $6 for a sheet of plywood is for oil barons and royalty.

I do agree the hills on the RoB are a pain. I think it would have been nice if they had engineered a way to make their molded terrain something their metal models could actually stand on without sliding down the hill or tipping over. Being, you know, a miniatures company and all

I like the ROB. It can be painted how you want, and arranged in different ways, added to and easily transported (for something of that size). Whilst the cost is a big chunk of money, I would wager that many of you would have paid 100 times as much over the years for models and supplies, it's just because it's all in one go that it seems a lot.

Like anything however you can of course get something similar from different sources. but like i've said in a different post, GW have been doing this for years so they have a wealth of experience in matters such as this, so I would always be inclined to go for what is in my opinion the original and the best.

If they were as good as you claim the cost wouldn't've increased twice before it was released.

The Decapitator wrote:Like anything however you can of course get something similar from different sources. but like i've said in a different post, GW have been doing this for years so they have a wealth of experience in matters such as this, so I would always be inclined to go for what is in my opinion the original and the best.

What, in your opinion, gives GW a competitive advantage in making 4x6' plastic sheet? For approximately 200% price of comparable substitutes...

sourclams wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:Like anything however you can of course get something similar from different sources. but like i've said in a different post, GW have been doing this for years so they have a wealth of experience in matters such as this, so I would always be inclined to go for what is in my opinion the original and the best.

What, in your opinion, gives GW a competitive advantage in making 4x6' plastic sheet? For approximately 200% price of comparable substitutes...

It's proven to be of solid construction, and able to last a lifetime? Not saying the Ex Illis one isn't, but at the moment it's largely an unknown quantity. I'd hate to shell out for a board only to find it warped a few months down the line.

Kilkrazy wrote:How many people have a table which is genuinely 4x6 feet?

My table is 49" by 72", so I'm just over.

One buddy's is 45"by 72", so it's under.

Where we play most of the time is 48.5"x72".

None of these tables have posed a problem IMHO.

Mr Mystery wrote:

sourclams wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:Like anything however you can of course get something similar from different sources. but like i've said in a different post, GW have been doing this for years so they have a wealth of experience in matters such as this, so I would always be inclined to go for what is in my opinion the original and the best.

What, in your opinion, gives GW a competitive advantage in making 4x6' plastic sheet? For approximately 200% price of comparable substitutes...

It's proven to be of solid construction, and able to last a lifetime? Not saying the Ex Illis one isn't, but at the moment it's largely an unknown quantity. I'd hate to shell out for a board only to find it warped a few months down the line.

I highly doubt rolling dice and moving miniatures can cause significant damage unless you decide to do some actual drop podding

As I said it's more warping of the materials that can pose a problem. Would hate to have my board set up and a warm summers day come along and knacker it. Despite what some might claim, Realm of Battle is a solid piece of kit well suited to it's purpose.

Home made boards of course suffer the most from wear and tear (to varying degrees depending upon construction). Other manufacturers now have a benchmark set by GW. Them being the benchmark company in all respects of this hobby, seeing as they are the largest and best known wargames producer.

Mr Mystery wrote:As I said it's more warping of the materials that can pose a problem. Would hate to have my board set up and a warm summers day come along and knacker it. Despite what some might claim, Realm of Battle is a solid piece of kit well suited to it's purpose.

Home made boards of course suffer the most from wear and tear (to varying degrees depending upon construction). Other manufacturers now have a benchmark set by GW. Them being the benchmark company in all respects of this hobby, seeing as they are the largest and best known wargames producer.

Taken the words right out of my mouth there, it's not just a 'plastic sheet' at all, it's actually more than that but if some people can't see that then I guess there isn't much more to be said.

Whilst this is nice, it is not deep enough to be able to sink things like trenches, ponds, rivers etc into and make them look good (IMO). Also does not cover a large enough area and does not sell (as far as I am aware) in the UK.

If they ever made a deeper version, which covered a full 6'x4' table and which was sold in the UK then I would probably buy it, as the smaller tiles mean you can have a more varied table than the 6 (/8 with the expansion boards) tile set from GW. Plus no skulls!

sourclams wrote:What, in your opinion, gives GW a competitive advantage in making 4x6' plastic sheet? For approximately 200% price of comparable substitutes...

Claiming the Realm of Battle board costs 200% of the Ex Illis board is being intentionally disingenuous. There are plenty of faults to find with the Realm of Battle board without making stuff up. It is, in fact, approx 26% more expensive then the Ex Illis board when deployed in similar configurations.

As far as gaming surfaces go, I picked up a pair of folding tables from Lowe's. They are 6 foot by about 2.5 foot each, and I push them together to make a table that is 6 foot by 5 foot. Atop of which I have a Zuzzy mat which, nearly a year later, is still only partially painted and smells unimaginably powerfully of latex.

Ouze wrote: Atop of which I have a Zuzzy mat which, nearly a year later, is still only partially painted and smells unimaginably powerfully of latex.

Dang. I've heard that complaint a few times. That's why I haven't pulled the trigger yet. Have you tried airing it out in the garage or anything?

It's been uncovered in the basement for at least 4 or 5 months now. For the last 2 months, I have it propped up on some boxes to try and air out the bottom, but no, still quite potent indeed.

It's not completely a dealbreaker and it's a nice piece of kit, but you know, it is what it is and you should be aware of that before buying. It's gonna smell. It's gonna be kinda strong for a very, very long time, maybe forever, but definitely at least months.

I wonder if a few applications of soapy water with a soft sponge would help? I was thinking about doing that in the driveway if I got one of these. Thanks for sharing, Ouze.

(Sorry for the off-topic.)

kronk wrote:I wonder if a few applications of soapy water with a soft sponge would help? I was thinking about doing that in the driveway if I got one of these. Thanks for sharing, Ouze.

(Sorry for the off-topic.)

I did not, in fact do that, and now am disinclined to as it's partially painted. Definitely worth a try though.

Have you tried washing your Zuzzy mat? Or possibly soaking it in a bathtub with soapy water for a few days? And then letting it air out in the sun for a few days?

As for tables, I bought a folding regulation size ping-pong table. It is 5'x9'. Very nice for Apoc games, although it is difficult to find anything with specific configurations to cover the whole thing. One of the reasons I was considering Zuzzy is that it has lots of different size options, plus, presumably, I could cut it if necessary.

So, back on topic, has anyone gotten on of these Ex Illus boards? Cause I sure would like to see a review.

yeah,
This is No good for 40k. You need to buy two ExIllis gameboard sets and you still fall short of the recommended 40k table size...
Plus I don't like the pre measuring grid set up from having 40x 9" tiles. some of the tiles even look like they have 1" grids within!


ALso it's completely flat! what varied setups are you planning when you move these 40 tiles around?

I love how everytime a new board comes out people start the ROBB bashing.
ROBB's got hills - I really don't know how people complain about this, if you want a perfectly flat board just buy a battle mat!
ROBB's got skulls - grim dark! if you don't like the grim dark, your in the wrong hobby!

If GW had of released this GameBoard I can imagine the cries from the GW haters "plain empty tiles, no features, no hills!"
"GW only wants your $$$ for this plain flat mess of tiles" etc.

If your after a plastic tiled battle board IMO the GW board is better, It's the correct size, and wont take for ever to setup.
(plus it has hills and skulls... I like both.)

Panic...

Ouze wrote:

sourclams wrote:What, in your opinion, gives GW a competitive advantage in making 4x6' plastic sheet? For approximately 200% price of comparable substitutes...

Claiming the Realm of Battle board costs 200% of the Ex Illis board is being intentionally disingenuous. There are plenty of faults to find with the Realm of Battle board without making stuff up. It is, in fact, approx 26% more expensive then the Ex Illis board when deployed in similar configurations.

If you need 2 of those Ex Illis boards to get the 4'x6' table, that's $180. Compared to the ~$200 pricetag of a Realm of Battle, that's only around 10% cheaper. When you take in account that 2 Ex Illis boards are 3240 square inch comparde to the 3456 square inch of the Realm of Battle, you get 18 square inch/dollar for the Ex Illis board, and 17.28 square inch/dollar for the Realm of Battle. So basically, the Ex Illis board is only 4% cheaper for the same size. When you take in account the nice carrying bag you get with the Realm of Battle, I'd say the price difference is non-existant.

Now for the board it self, I guess that depends how much you like/hate the skull pits and hills of the Realm of Battle. Personally I don't mind em, and I like the general look of the Realm of Battle better than the Ex Illis board. Also I'm not sure how well those clasps work, but trying to keep 40 tiles in allignment during a game would probably bug the hell out of me. Not to mention that the 9" grid would pretty much eliminate having to guess a range. The Realm of Battle also has this problem, but at a 24" grid, it's not as bad.

Panic wrote:ROBB's got hills - I really don't know how people complain about this, if you want a perfectly flat board just buy a battle mat!

And if I want hills, I'll just buy a battle mat and a hill. The reason I'd want modular terrain is because there are some things a battle mat can't do, like represent trenches or waterways.

ROBB's got skulls - grim dark! if you don't like the grim dark, your in the wrong hobby!

There's a difference between grimdark and farce. If I wanted skulls, I'd add them myself in a way that actually makes sense, not as a rich vein of cranium.

If GW had of released this GameBoard I can imagine the cries from the GW haters "plain empty tiles, no features, no hills!"

The Ex Illis Gameboard has no features. The Realm of Battle has the wrong features.

Redemption wrote:...If you need 2 of those Ex Illis boards to get the 4'x6' table, that's $180. Compared to the ~$200 pricetag of a Realm of Battle, that's only around 10% cheaper...

It's 38% cheaper ($110 less)...ROBB is $290 in the states...

I like both boards...but this one is defnitely less expensive.

To the OP - thanks, always good to get advised of alternate products. I'm seriously considering one of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgV6KntOQ5A from back2base-ix (the battle frame 5000 if my link doesn't work)

Gotta love a modular board held together with rare earth magnets

yeah,
that back to basix board looks good, i take it that those tiles are wooden?

also found this photo of the exillis board on BoardGameGeek.
doesn't look very good in these photos.



Panic...

Panic wrote:yeah,
ROBB's got skulls - grim dark! if you don't like the grim dark, your in the wrong hobby!
Panic...

You and me have very diferent definition of hobby then

Panic wrote:I love how everytime a new board comes out people start the ROBB bashing.
ROBB's got hills - I really don't know how people complain about this, if you want a perfectly flat board just buy a battle mat!
ROBB's got skulls - grim dark! if you don't like the grim dark, your in the wrong hobby!

The skulls are dopey, but they aren't really a problem. The hills are, because they're always there. You always have to have the hills. You cannot move or remove them, and the best you can do is shuffle them around a little. They're always there, and they limit the configurations you can use. A flat board is the best type of board because it is a blank slate - you can do whatever you want with it. The ROB you can do whatever you want with it as well... as long as 'whatever you want' = 'whatever you want + immovable hills'.

As I said above, a flat board which is as thick as the RoBB would be great - it allows you to sink things into the board such as rivers, pools, trenches etc.

Sheck2 wrote:

Redemption wrote:...If you need 2 of those Ex Illis boards to get the 4'x6' table, that's $180. Compared to the ~$200 pricetag of a Realm of Battle, that's only around 10% cheaper...

It's 38% cheaper ($110 less)...ROBB is $290 in the states...

I like both boards...but this one is defnitely less expensive.

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/Games-Workshop/Hobby-items/Scenic-Supplies/CITADEL-REALM-OF-BATTLE-GAMEBOARD/prod_2482.html
That's where I got mine; $200 + shipping. Not sure what they'd ask for shipping a 10KG parcel to the states, but I'm assuming it's a less than $90, as it was about $15 to ship it here.

Biggest problem I see with the ex-illis board is that the tiles are pretty small - it'll need to be fully supported by the table underneath.

The RoB can be setup on a table smaller than 3x5.

It's decent value, even for the two that you'd need to get it to a decent size but if you've got to have a board to put it on as well then what's the point?

AlexHolker wrote:There's a difference between grimdark and farce. If I wanted skulls, I'd add them myself in a way that actually makes sense, not as a rich vein of cranium.

It's a little sad that it's only 2pm, and I already know I've read the best post I'll read today.

I agree in that for me, the hills are not a big deal (though I'd prefer no hills, they aren't a dealbreaker), but the human skull bedrock is ridiculous, and I'm disinclined to spend that much money on a board period, let alone one I'm going to have to resin\epoxy to fill in the gaps where the skulls are.

hey... I could use translucent resin, tinted red, and it could be like a pool of blood with skulls at the bottom. That doesn't sound too bad.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Panic wrote:I love how everytime a new board comes out people start the ROBB bashing.
ROBB's got hills - I really don't know how people complain about this, if you want a perfectly flat board just buy a battle mat!
ROBB's got skulls - grim dark! if you don't like the grim dark, your in the wrong hobby!

The skulls are dopey, but they aren't really a problem. The hills are, because they're always there. You always have to have the hills. You cannot move or remove them, and the best you can do is shuffle them around a little. They're always there, and they limit the configurations you can use. A flat board is the best type of board because it is a blank slate - you can do whatever you want with it. The ROB you can do whatever you want with it as well... as long as 'whatever you want' = 'whatever you want + immovable hills'.

The hills are sizable though. How can this be a good thing? Because you can put terrain on top of them, making your board far more interesting to play on. Me, I love my one, and wouldn't without it.

The ROBB hills are indeed an excellent feature. Many a battle I've enjoyed fighting for the high ground when the hills are configured into the plateau.

Yes but you never have the choice to not have those hills. They’re always there. They can’t be removed. Once you’ve finished playing with a eith the hills on either side, and then with a hill in the middle, and then half a hill either side... you’ve still got hills and no other configs.

A flat board where you can put down your own hills (or not) will always be superior because you have a choice. There’s no standing terrain features, so you are free to put whatever you want wherever you want. You want hills? Put hills. Don’t want hills. Don’t put hills. With the RoB you have hills, and you’ll always have hills and cannot do anything about them. That’s why I call it ‘anti-imagination’, because it’s the old “any colour you like as long as it’s black”, except this time it’s “Whatever terrain want as long as you want HILLS!”.

I wouldn’t buy an Ex Illis board for a variety of reasons, but the closest it has got to immovable pre-set terrain are a few areas with what appear to be broken tiles. But they’re still flat, and I can put a building/hill/forest/jumping castle over them. What can I do to cover up a RoBB’s super-expensive pre-moulded hills? Umm... nothing.

At the risk of sounding like I'm just out to pick a fight (I'm not), why wouldn't you want Hills on your battlefield? I cannot think of anything blander than planet bowling green, flat and featureless.

If I had a flat board, I'd bung hills on it. But those hills likely wouldn't be big enough to stick further terrain upon.

Devil's Advocate:
You do have a choice with those hills. Don't buy the "complete" set, just buy the "expansion" parts.

You'll have the skull pits in that case though, and may end up paying a bit more...

But hey, no hills! Woo!

The hills never bothered me that much, if we want a flatter board we just put the hills in the corners were we don't come very often anyway. Although that might be because my usual opponent has had a fear of deploying within 12" of the sides ever since the Genestealer Indicent of '09.

Kan...you have an even better choice. Just go and make your own board.

Seriously, the way people whinge about things on the Interwebs, you'd think they were discussing compulsory purchases.

I've actually got my own board, and am planning out a second one

As for people moaning about not being able to put scenery on top of the hills, that's a load of cack.

When the hill sections are put together so that you have one big hill it is plenty large enough to put something on. Something like the Imperial Bastion goes on no problem at all.

This is just another typical case of people moaning about everything just for the sake of it.

And i'm also pretty sure that the skulls don't represent a 'layer', but more a crevice or chasm which has filled with skulls over time due to the inordinate amount of fighting and death which has supposedly taken place in the Warhammer World or on the various different worlds in the 40K universe. Moaning about it is pretty damn ridiculous.

*Edited for spelling*

Mr Mystery wrote:At the risk of sounding like I'm just out to pick a fight (I'm not), why wouldn't you want Hills on your battlefield? I cannot think of anything blander than planet bowling green, flat and featureless.

+ =

Am I just talking to myself here or are you just wilfully reading what you want, rather than what I wrote? When I say the best type of board is a flat board with no existing terrain because it is a blank slate where you can put anything not that I want a flat featureless plain.

My problem with the RoB isn’t the presence of hills, it’s the presence of hills that cannot be moved. Firstly, of course its good to have hills, but isn’t it better to have hills that you can put wherever you want in whatever configuration you want, as opposed to the 5-6 or so the RoB allows?

The Decapitator wrote:As for people moaning about not being able to put scenery on top of the hills, that's a load of cack.

You too appear to be having some comprehension problems. I don’t think anyone has said you can’t put things on top of the hills. Once again, my problem is that you cannot remove/move the hills at all.

The Decapitator wrote:And i'm also pretty sure that the skulls don't represent a 'layer'...

I was right. You are having trouble reading what's been written. Helpful Hint: Get your sarcasm detector upgraded. No one was actually suggesting with any level of seriousness that there's a skull 'layer'. Really...

Kan wrote:... Devil’s Advocate...

Is that the new buzzword for ‘defending a GW product’ hey?

But in all seriousness to your suggestion – one of those ‘expansion’ sets costs as much as the Ex Illis board. You need 3 such expansion sets to do a hill-less RoB... and only two Ex Illis to do a full board.

Panic wrote:yeah,
that back to basix board looks good, i take it that those tiles are wooden?
Panic...

Hi Panic - good question - I looked it up, and note that its MDF - so fine wood fibres held together by a resin product. I imagine it would cut and sand much like wood (the B2B-ix blog site states these are laser cut http://back2base-ix.blogspot.com/ ). 3mm isnt exceptionally thick... but I suspect it is on par with the ROBB so far as durability goes.

The ROBB isnt a bad product, I like the skulls and the hills, the quality is great and the one I have seen looks very sturdy. But it is a fixed product, and is also expensive. If having hills 'fixed' in a set shape are not your thing, or you dont like the skulls - avoid it, its not for you.

3mm MDF? Strong as a RoBB? I shouldn't think so skip. Seriously wouldn't think so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Several years back, GW did a plain, green painted MDF board which was around (if memory serves) 5-6mm. Was alright for a bit, but soon warped out of shape (might have been how my brother stored his though!).

MDF simply isn't as tough as plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Decapitator wrote:As for people moaning about not being able to put scenery on top of the hills, that's a load of cack.

When the hill sections are put together so that you have one big hill it is plenty large enough to put something on. Something like the Imperial Bastion goes on no problem at all.

This is just another typical case of people moaning about everything just for the sake of it.

And i'm also pretty sure that the skulls don't represent a 'layer', but more a crevice or chasm which has filled with skulls over time due to the inordinate amount of fighting and death which has supposedly taken place in the Warhammer World or on the various different worlds in the 40K universe. Moaning about it is pretty damn ridiculous.

*Edited for spelling*

The big central hill configuration is big enough to bung the Fortress of Redemption on. You know, it's almost as if they planned for the board to work exceptionally well with their own scenery range!

Panic wrote:yeah,
This is No good for 40k. You need to buy two ExIllis gameboard sets and you still fall short of the recommended 40k table size...
Plus I don't like the pre measuring grid set up from having 40x 9" tiles. some of the tiles even look like they have 1" grids within!

Yeah, this is a good point for 40k. On other systems like Fantasy and LotR this is actually a bonus, since you can already premeasure, and helps for scenarios which require you to be a certain distance from one another (pitched battle, blood and glory etc) and they use 9" increments. Do they come with any sort of transport?

H.B.M.C. wrote:[

Kan wrote:... Devil’s Advocate...

Is that the new buzzword for ‘defending a GW product’ hey?

I have a Drop Bear, and am not afraid to use it HB. Be warned!

But in all seriousness to your suggestion – one of those ‘expansion’ sets costs as much as the Ex Illis board. You need 3 such expansion sets to do a hill-less RoB... and only two Ex Illis to do a full board.

I didn't say it was a cheaper alternative. I said it was an alternative!

I really don't think a couple of pieces of the board having a few concrete/stone tiles moulded into them is going to give someone a 'pre-measuring advantage'.

Of all the nits to pick, really...

You'd be surprised. The tables I built for my old FLGS, I was able to make reaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly good mortar/Basilisk "guesses"

Kanluwen wrote:You'd be surprised. The tables I built for my old FLGS, I was able to make reaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly good mortar/Basilisk "guesses"

Well duh! You built it

If you had just posted and talked about the Ex Illis board and how nice it was, and the things you could do with it, you would have gotten a nice little discussion going.

By badmouthing the GW board, all you've done is make this thread about whining, and I'm sad to see that even mods are getting in on it.

I tried to get an Ex Illis board when they sent my store a single fig and a pamphlet about the game. I emailed them twice about securing a demo kit, and never got a response. It's a shame their customer service was so poor, it looked (and still looks) like a cool concept.

Is the GW board expensive? Yes. Are most things GW makes expensive? Yes, so it's not a huge jump to pay $300 for a board to play on when 5 tac squads cost you $185.

And to suggest someone spend $200+ on a different board that will use more tiles to make a board that's not even 4' x 6' just seems like hating on GW for the sake of hating on them.

As for having money left over for terrain, I'd say if you only have $300 to spend, you probably shouldn't be wasting it on some plastic ground for toys anyway. Making it yourself is always the option for poor/smart/talented people.

Several years back, GW did a plain, green painted MDF board which was around (if memory serves) 5-6mm. Was alright for a bit, but soon warped out of shape (might have been how my brother stored his though!).

MDF simply isn't as tough as plastic.

If you handle it right, it is!

You probably applied paint only on one side and left the other side uncovered? By its nature MDF warps if it gets wet only on one side, so one should apply paint on both sides.
Second it depends where you store it. Humid places and leaning upright storage are a sure way to warp a board.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I really don't think a couple of pieces of the board having a few concrete/stone tiles moulded into them is going to give someone a 'pre-measuring advantage'.

Of all the nits to pick, really...

kind of like you harping on the skull pit every chance you get over the past few years...

it's a nice board but certainly nothing that makes GW's "eat your heart out" as your subject says. each has its own advantages and disadvantages and are comparable in price when you're comparing the same size (you'd need to buy MORE than two ex illis sets to make a legal 40k table). in the end, it comes down to the preference of the buyer as there isn't a no-brainer choice.

The fact that the sections are small and don't clip together really does kill it for me. If I need to have a 6x4 board to put these pieces on then what's the point?

The Ex Illis board looks good but I have a ROB and I like it. I feel my cash was well spent on it, and I had a lot of fun painting it up and all that stuff. I like that it came with it's own bag to store it in and I can just slide it under the bed when I don't need it. It would have been cheaper to make my own, I could have got 6 2x2 squares of plywood at home depot and painted and flocked that and saved a ton of cash. But, I like the way the ROB looks.

If I ever get any other kind of board, I will probably go with a zuzzy map and paint it in deserty colors.

So, the options for a good gaming board are:

Realm of Battle
Pros: Easy to snap together, good construction, good portability. Cons: Expensive, immovable hills, expensive, skull pits beloved by few.

Zuzzy battlemats
Pros: Good looks, good portability, relative good price. Cons: Slow shipping, they smell bad, possibly will flake if you paint it incorrectly (though not their fault, it still is an issue).

Sabol Mats
Pros: Look good, decent price. Cons: Out of Print, so can be hard to find. Advertising on one side.

Roll Your Own
Pros: good bang for the buck, potentially a fun project, will look exactly as skilled as you can make it. Cons: Will look exactly as skilled as you can make it.

Ex Illis gameboard:
Pros: somewhat less expensive then the RoBB. No molded terrain. Cons: Nonstandard size, many small tiles, a little plain.


In other words, there still is no compelling winner in the gaming board arena, and all of the choices are fairly lackluster.

warboss wrote:kind of like you harping on the skull pit every chance you get over the past few years...

Actually I don't harp on about the skull pit. The skulls are really a non-issue. It's the hills I have a problem with (as I've made abundantly clear in this thread - again, am I talking to myself here? Am I not being clear with my 'Moulded static immovable hills are bad mkay!' rants?). Are you people just seeing Commissar Calgar spinning away to the left there and just assuming you know what my post says? 'Cause that's a bad way to have a discussion people. A really bad way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:So, the options for a good gaming board are:

...

In other words, there still is no compelling winner in the gaming board arena, and all of the choices are fairly lackluster.

You forgot one. A 6x4 piece of MDF with one of these on it. I've got one of them. Worth every penny.

Mr Mystery wrote:3mm MDF? Strong as a RoBB? I shouldn't think so skip. Seriously wouldn't think so.

I agree with Mr. Mystery -- it's not even close - you can stand on a realm of battle board, whereas I'd be loath to lean on my elbow on 3mm MDF ... that's about 1/8".

I'd keep that size for small buildings or coasters and go with at least 6mm (1/4").

@BloddQuest
Depends on how you construct it. The RoBB is only so strong because of its matrix. The same matrix under a mdf-board and you can go with 3mm without a problem.

And why do you need to stand on your RoB in the first place?

My MDF board is about 3/4ths of an inch thick. It is as strong (and as heavy) as the day I got it and it didn't cost me AUD$400.

Duncan_Idaho wrote: Depends on how you construct it. The RoBB is only so strong because of its matrix. The same matrix under a mdf-board and you can go with 3mm without a problem.

I agree completely, but it doesn't sound like this is the way the other board was made.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And why do you need to stand on your RoB in the first place?

Because I like to cover myself in cardboard box armor festooned with aquillas drawn on in crayons, and roleplay as an imperator titan.

Honestly HBMC, I sometimes wonder if you even are playing the same game as the rest of us.

I think we overlapped with our posts there...

H.B.M.C. wrote:And why do you need to stand on your RoB in the first place?

I wouldn't, my point was that 3mm MDF sounds a little too lightweight.

On the other hand, I have actually thrown my RoB boards in the back seat of my car and taken them in to work to play there after hours. I wouldn't trust 3mm MDF to last too long being transported and yours would be so heavy I wouldn't want to have to carry it.

Of course, there is a happy medium somewhere around the 6mm mark, but I bet it would still weigh a lot more than my RoB board.

In all fairness, I have to say that RoB isn't perfect - mine is definitely NOT 100% true in terms of how flat it lies on the table, but the clips pull it into line.

Why does every single thread announcing a new game board have to descend into a bunch of willy waving over the merits and disadvantages of every single method.

1. We know the ROB board is expensive. It's GW. I don't suppose anyone knowingly buys an ROB thinking they are getting a cheap deal - as with everything GW, you are paying for the convenience and the quality. Can we please accept that for those of us who choose to buy an ROB, we do so for these reasons, not because we are blind GW automata.

2. We know that a cheap board can be built from scratch and will always be the cheapest option. Its not necessarily the best option given the modelling skills of some. Personally speaking, I have had my fill of playing on green painted MDF boards with terrain hacked out of polystyrene and looking like it was crafted by the local special needs community outreach group. Some people who have the skill and the time can create absolute wonders - I would suggest this is the minority however.

3. There are plenty of other alternatives out there - whether it be mats or other pre made boards. They all have advantages and disadvantages. Arguing over which is better than the other is like arguing who has the best car. Most of the time, it boils down to personal preference.

H.B.M.C , your antipathy towards GW is well known and well documented but decrying the ROB board as 'anti-imagination' is a bit strong. We get that you don't like the hills - but some of us do. In fact, I would suggest most of the people who have bought an ROB do.

Can we not just agree to disagree here? Posting alternatives is fine but presenting personal opinion as fact is a bit much.

Ouze wrote:In other words, there still is no compelling winner in the gaming board arena, and all of the choices are fairly lackluster.

You forgot one option, the Hotz felt mats (e.g. Western Town, European Fields and Moonscape with craters): http://www.hotzmats.com/felt_purchase_mat.html , and option I use regularly and am quite happy with.

@ HBMC - Well actually at least 2 people (AlexHolker and Ouze) have stated that they don't like this 'Skull Layer' and many others have too in this and similar threads, so in fact you are wrong when repremanding me for explaining that it isn't in fact a 'skull layer'. Maybe you should follow your own advice and actually read what others have posted before being quick to slam others for their comments.

I was wrong in stating that people had complained that the hills of ROB wouldn't take any scenery, I misread some previous posts and I apologise if I caused you or anyone any undue stress. Will the Dakka community ever forgive me?

I am wondering however if you are a 'spurned' ex-GW employee or something similar. Did a GW employee once accidently spill your drink or steal your girlfriend? Because the way you like to bash GW makes me think you are either on commision from GW's competitors or you once had a very bad experience with a paticulaly tricky Leman Russ.

The Decapitator wrote:I am wondering however if you are a 'spurned' ex-GW employee or something similar. Did a GW employee once accidently spill your drink or steal your girlfriend? Because the way you like to bash GW makes me think you are either on commision from GW's competitors or you once had a very bad experience with a paticulaly tricky Leman Russ.

in his defense, you don't have to be an ex-gw employee to be bitter with the things GW does; the only requirement is that you were/are a customer who even once paid full retail price (or in his case, the even more ridiculous oz pricing scheme).

filbert wrote:Why does every single thread announcing a new game board have to descend into a bunch of willy waving over the merits and disadvantages of every single method.

I don't think that's either unexpected nor unreasonable. When a product comes out I think it's natural to compare it to what's already on the market, and obviously we're going to talk about both the pros and the cons.

filbert wrote:1. We know the ROB board is expensive. It's GW. I don't suppose anyone knowingly buys an ROB thinking they are getting a cheap deal - as with everything GW, you are paying for the convenience and the quality. Can we please accept that for those of us who choose to buy an ROB, we do so for these reasons, not because we are blind GW automata.

I hope I didn't imply that when I mentioned it was very expensive in my comparison post. I was just laying out good and ill. To be honest, I've long since considered getting a RoB board... but I never seem to have enough to afford it. The skull layer is dumb but the construction looks good, I like that it's quick and easy to deploy, and I said it was expensive... not overpriced. It looks like a good piece of kit, and i don't mind the hills.

That being said I feel this is a somewhat underserved niche. I don't think any of these solutions are truly optimal.

Filbert wrote:
Why does every single thread announcing a new game board have to descend into a bunch of willy waving over the merits and disadvantages of every single method.

This is the Internet!. If you're not waving your willy at everything, you're doing it wrong!

Ouze wrote:That being said I feel this is a somewhat underserved niche. I don't think any of these solutions are truly optimal.

But can any solution truly be optimal? I mean, a game board with terrain is kind of a hard thing to make portable.

At least until we start having shrink rays and expandobeams.

Ouze wrote:

filbert wrote:Why does every single thread announcing a new game board have to descend into a bunch of willy waving over the merits and disadvantages of every single method.

I don't think that's either unexpected nor unreasonable. When a product comes out I think it's natural to compare it to what's already on the market, and obviously we're going to talk about both the pros and the cons.

filbert wrote:1. We know the ROB board is expensive. It's GW. I don't suppose anyone knowingly buys an ROB thinking they are getting a cheap deal - as with everything GW, you are paying for the convenience and the quality. Can we please accept that for those of us who choose to buy an ROB, we do so for these reasons, not because we are blind GW automata.

I hope I didn't imply that when I mentioned it was very expensive in my comparison post. I was just laying out good and ill. To be honest, I've long since considered getting a RoB board... but I never seem to have enough to afford it. The skull layer is dumb but the construction looks good, I like that it's quick and easy to deploy, and I said it was expensive... not overpriced. It looks like a good piece of kit, and i don't mind the hills.

That being said I feel this is a somewhat underserved niche. I don't think any of these solutions are truly optimal.

Discussion is fine and I am certainly not decrying that, nor am I decrying anyone's right to debate the various pros and cons of different solutions. What I am annoyed about is how every new thread about a new board or whatever immediately descends into a slanging match. The anti-GW camp attack people for buying a ROB board, the people who bought an ROB board then feel compelled to justify their purchase, then someone else jumps in to denigrate people for not making their own board etc, etc, ad infinitum.

I totally agree; there is no one universal, one size fits all solution, which is why these threads are useful and which is why it is all the more annoying that they have to be derailed by pointless arguments. I am suggesting we ought to have a truce and agree that whatever we have chosen for a game board, that our own choice remains exactly that; personal and based on personal merit and opinion. Arguing over personal choice and opinion is a fairly fruitless exercise.

The skull pits on the ROB really don't bother me at all. In fact the only thing that bothered me about them was that I had to go in and paint each skull. I eventually gave up and drybrushed them all white real quick. If it bothers you that much, spend an extra $5 and go to home depot. Buy a cheapy little tub of spackle and a cheapy plastic spackle knife. Fill in the skull pits, then just paint and flock your board the same. Problem solved

warboss wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:I am wondering however if you are a 'spurned' ex-GW employee or something similar. Did a GW employee once accidently spill your drink or steal your girlfriend? Because the way you like to bash GW makes me think you are either on commision from GW's competitors or you once had a very bad experience with a paticulaly tricky Leman Russ.

in his defense, you don't have to be an ex-gw employee to be bitter with the things GW does; the only requirement is that you were/are a customer who even once paid full retail price (or in his case, the even more ridiculous oz pricing scheme).

Didnt you know that you cant be critical about anything GW makes without having a obscure agenda? Even more... if you dont like the skull layer "your in the wrong Hobby".
Man sometimes you guys exagerate to really ridiculous levels!

For me the perfect solution is a smelless Zuzzy or a clean & cheap RoB... so I will buy nothing.

@ Painting the Zuzzy =
I got the Zuzzy battlemat - me and my friend painted it on a single night. used spray paint and house brushes. Then finished off the fine details with regular brushes. after a spray sealant, its still the best thing i have ever added to my table.

and believe me, have a table that is textured that you can roll away and super easy transport and that looks great and rolls well, is tre sweet!

H.B.M.C. wrote:And why do you need to stand on your RoB in the first place?

My MDF board is about 3/4ths of an inch thick. It is as strong (and as heavy) as the day I got it and it didn't cost me AUD$400.

Sometimes it's nice to know your product is overly resilient. Plus who knows what the next knobjockey is going to drop on your table, and from what height.

you know ROBB has lines too, you know if we're arguing the pre measuring angle.

Also Skulls suck so add me to the list.

________________________________________

There is no Layer of skulls in the creation of a planet.
1. Fire4effekt

warboss wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:I am wondering however if you are a 'spurned' ex-GW employee or something similar. Did a GW employee once accidently spill your drink or steal your girlfriend? Because the way you like to bash GW makes me think you are either on commision from GW's competitors or you once had a very bad experience with a paticulaly tricky Leman Russ.

in his defense, you don't have to be an ex-gw employee to be bitter with the things GW does; the only requirement is that you were/are a customer who even once paid full retail price (or in his case, the even more ridiculous oz pricing scheme).

But that's what I find amazing about the whole 'whining about anything GW does thing' because ultimately it's your choice. Nobody is forcing you to pay for something which you feel is overpriced! If people have such issues with GW then why do they continue to buy from them? I have been paying full retail price for years and quite frankly I don't have a problem with it as I understand that if I wish to be able to take part in a hobby which is massivly supported by fantastic models and stories, the ability to find a local store near enough wherever I am and to be able to utilise all that is and has been part of the Warhammer Universes etc, then I am not going to get it for free!

If I am unhappy with a product because of the price etc, then I will try and find a substitute at a more reasonable cost or I will just stop using it altogether. I wouldn't continue to use said product and constantly moan about it being overpriced. As the old saying goes, nothing in life is free, so if some people believe they can do a better job cheaper then GW then go for it! Then you can become one of the 'other options' which people can turn to and then GW might address the situation of they did begin to lose customers. However if you are not going to do anything about it, and wish to continue spending money on this hobby, then stop moaning about all things GW because what you are actually asking for is all the stuff GW offers for as llittle as possible. Which is just stupid as if GW didn't charge the money they do then the hobby wouldn't be as appealing as it is.

I suppose to sum it up I would say this, I would REALLY like to go on 5 or 6 holidays a year, for a few weeks at a time and not worry about what I spend when I''m there. I can't afford to do that, so I don't. What I do not do is go on said holidays and do all those things, and then moan about the cost of flights and hotels and food etc on forums and make out that I am hard done by because I want to do all those things but don't want to spend the money doing it.

Sorry for the rant but I'm getting fed up with reading about peoples attitude to GW and it's prices etc. Nobody is forcing you to participate, we are all aware that it isn't a cheap hobby either, unfortunately life is life and we don't get everything we want. GW is a buisness (which provides more it's customers than most I have to add) and not a charity.

Decapitator wins the thread.

I, personally, would rather pay 25-30% more for a ROBB that has 6 tiles than 25-30% less for a board with 40 tiles that I need to set ON TOP of a board and it's not even the right size even after buying 2 of them. ROBB I can set up on saw legs or a smaller than 6x4 table without too much worry (although balancing it on a 1x1 is obviously out of the question) wheres I need to build or have a table big enough lay the EX-Illis boards on and if I'm going to build a table to lay a table on it I might as well just flock the first table, add hills and not even buy the Ex-illis board at all.

The Decapitator wrote:Sorry for the rant but I'm getting fed up with reading about peoples attitude to GW and it's prices etc. Nobody is forcing you to participate, we are all aware that it isn't a cheap hobby either, unfortunately life is life and we don't get everything we want. GW is a buisness (which provides more it's customers than most I have to add) and not a charity.

sorry but no one is forcing you to read people's posts complaining about it either and you have the option of not participating in online forums. unfortunately, life is life and people will post things that you disagree with on the internet as you can't only read things you agree with. DakkaDakka is a discussion forum (one of the things that inevitably comes up from time to time is GW's pricing) and not a company message board toting a single message.

can we get back to discussing toy soldier battlefields now?

warboss wrote:

The Decapitator wrote:Sorry for the rant but I'm getting fed up with reading about peoples attitude to GW and it's prices etc. Nobody is forcing you to participate, we are all aware that it isn't a cheap hobby either, unfortunately life is life and we don't get everything we want. GW is a buisness (which provides more it's customers than most I have to add) and not a charity.

sorry but no one is forcing you to read people's posts complaining about it either and you have the option of not participating in online forums. unfortunately, life is life and people will post things that you disagree with on the internet as you can't only read things you agree with. DakkaDakka is a discussion forum (one of the things that inevitably comes up from time to time is GW's pricing) and not a company message board toting a single message.

can we get back to discussing toy soldier battlefields now?

But that's the point though isn't it! I don't read this forum to hear people moaning, and believe me where I can I try to avoid it completely as it's sodding boring. But it doesn't matter what the subject is it always has people moaning about how expensive GW is or such like.

I don't get wound up easily believe me, but having to sift through the endless posts of people whinging and bleeting about the 'Evil' that is Games Workshop just to find the good, informative, amusing and intelligent comments really gets on my tits.

So whilst I apologise for my rant, I don't apologise for the content which I believe is justified - agree or disagree as you will.

Seems I need to explain myself with a little more than Internet Hyperbole. *ahem*

filbert wrote:H.B.M.C , your antipathy towards GW is well known and well documented but decrying the ROB board as 'anti-imagination' is a bit strong.

...

Can we not just agree to disagree here? Posting alternatives is fine but presenting personal opinion as fact is a bit much.

My opinion is that the RoB is a great looking piece of terrain. My opinion is that, when done up really well, the RoB can be a fantastic surface to play on. But it is a fact that the RoB is exceptionally limited in what you can do and is anything but modular. Why? The hills. This is why I call it anti-imagination. Want a city? Ok, long as you have hills. What about a trench network? That's fine too, as long as you like hills with your trenches? Snow world? Long as it has hills! Desert? How 'bout some Desert Hills to go with them?

Hills! Hills! Hills! Hills! Hills!

I love terrain - I own more GW terrain than should be considered sane and I spent all last weekend building CoD buildings. I really love creating terrain, and then making cool set-ups on my tables. I get as much enjoyment from that as I often do from playing the game. Planetstrike was a God send, as now I had all these parts to make super-cool strongpoints and whatnot, and that Fortress of Redemption is one of my fav kits of all time. I like being able to create worlds, and do whatever I want, which is why I consider the best possible table to be a completely blank flat surface because it is a blank slate to work upon. It can have some details on the surface (the Ex Illis board, the Zuzzy mats, even those new airbrushed ones with the craters), but it is flat and gives you the choice over what to do and what to put where.

Do me, the hills on the RoB go completely against this line of thinking. They're are a bit like handing a painter a canvass, but you're already drawn half a face on it already and just said "Well, y'know - paint whatever you want, but the face has got to be there, ok?". It is anti-imagination because it limits what you can do because (ignoring Kan's suggestion of just buying expansion sets for a moment) no matter what sort of table you want and no matter how you paint it, it still has those hills. You can never not have them. The hills that GW sells are great because I can moved them again, or not have them at all. Why would I want the opposite of that, hills that I can't move about and can never remove? And then there's the cost. For something so expensive I would expect more than a table that has an extremely number of limited configurations. It'd be that painter again, choosing between buying a whole stack of paints that he chooses, or forking out four times as much money for some very nice and high quality paints, but there are only 2 colours.

I don't like restrictions. The RoB is a table of restrictions. What you can put on it is virtually unlimited, true, but unlimited + hills. Playing on the same terrain over and over again would drive me mad, and I just cannot see how anyone could consider the RoB a good deal when for the same money you can buy a simple sheet of MDF and spend all the money you saved on a couple of coloured mats and a heap of terrain (including GW hills, that can be moved around however you want!). With the RoB you spend all that money and still don't have any real terrain! You've just got a board (with hills!) and that's it. I just can't see how it can be a good thing.

And, on top of that, I don't like how virtually every promotional shot and battle report and everything else GW these days now takes place on a RoB, as if it was the only surface you can play on. I really do wonder where all their terrain from the past 20 years has gone. Now we ever see are those that are Official Citadel Scenery, and it's really quite bland, even if what they do with that terrain can be magnificent.

I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear prior to this (I don't think I have in this thread at least), but you were owed an explanation, so there goes.

The Decapitator wrote:@ HBMC - Well actually at least 2 people (AlexHolker and Ouze) have stated that they don't like this 'Skull Layer' and many others have too in this and similar threads, so in fact you are wrong when repremanding me for explaining that it isn't in fact a 'skull layer'. Maybe you should follow your own advice and actually read what others have posted before being quick to slam others for their comments.

Half of what you wrote above isn't even coherent. I'll try and break it down into a simple dialogue so that we might better understand whatever it is you're trying to say here:

You: HBMC you complain about the skulls all the time.
Me: No I don't.
You: But you told me it wasn't a skull layer!

No... even breaking it down doesn't help us understand it any better.

Let me try this then:

You acused me of complaining about something 'all the time' that I haven't. I called you on it, and now the best your brain can come up with is some blithering nonsense about a GW employee spilling my drink and stealing my girlfriend.

Really?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Decapitator wins the thread.

Why Fate? Because he's insulting me (or attempting to anyway)? Is that why? Crawl back into your OT hole Fate, or run off to Whineseer. Your presence here is... distasteful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BloodQuest wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:And why do you need to stand on your RoB in the first place?

I wouldn't, my point was that 3mm MDF sounds a little too lightweight.

And I was being facetious. But even in saying that "It's really strong and you can stand on it" isn't much of a point in its favour. However...

BloodQuest wrote:On the other hand, I have actually thrown my RoB boards in the back seat of my car and taken them in to work to play there after hours. I wouldn't trust 3mm MDF to last too long being transported and yours would be so heavy I wouldn't want to have to carry it.

Transportation isn't something I had considered. But I'll explain why. Regardless of how good or bad the RoB is, you still need somewhere to put it once you get to where you're going. It isn't a table, it doesn't have legs. For me, transportation has always been about the tables themselves. A couple of the guys in our group have these 2.5'x6' trestle tables where the legs fold up and then the table itself folds in half (2.5'x3'). They're of a decent weight, but if you fold down the back seet of your car and throw 'em in the boot you can usually stack the two of them needed to make a table in most cars. Throw in some sort of surface cover (anything from a table cloth to one of GW's green mats) and, to me at least, there's your table. Maybe if the RoB were an actual table, but it's not.

I guess you could play on the floor. After all - we know it's strong enough to be stood upon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I like being able to create worlds, and do whatever I want, which is why I consider the best possible table to be a completely blank flat surface because it is a blank slate to work upon. It can have some details on the surface (the Ex Illis board, the Zuzzy mats, even those new airbrushed ones with the craters), but it is flat and gives you the choice over what to do and what to put where.

That's why you use a modular board, so you can rearrange or swap out the different modules for different effects. Making all the modules the same completely blank flat surface removes that utility.

Of course, to make that a possibility GW would have to put more than 6 modules in their Realm of Battle set.

H.B.M.C, I take your point about the hills but what I was trying to explain, although I am aware I am not the most lucid of individuals at times, is that those of us who buy the ROB board do so because we want the hills, not because we are compromising. Personally speaking, I didnt look at the ROB board and think 'great, a ready to go board but dang, it has hills, OK well I can live with that'. I bought mine because I felt the hills added to the set up. Yes, it is limited in its config but there are only 6 tiles - basic maths will tell you there are only a small number of potential combinations, hills or no hills.

I think GW's intention is to release further tiles in the future to expand the usability - they released a couple of expansion tiles recently IIRC so there is slightly more potential there.

Personally speaking, if I wanted a blank canvas, I would have bought a sheet of MDF and painted it green. I didn't buy an ROB because I am anti-imagination, I bought one because I don't have the time, skill, or creativity to scratch build all my own terrain; the GW stuff, although pricey, is an excellent substitute. Having been in the hobby for nearly 20 years now, I am sick of making my own terrain, especially when I was never any good at it in the first place - hence my comment about carving lumps of polystyrene. Anything I ever created never looked or felt right. I have been yearning for 'official' terrain sets for years now. The trade off is that I swap my own creativity for homogeneity of lots of similar ROB boards but to be quite frank, I couldn't give a toss.

But I agree with you that GW push it too much and are trying to position it as the only solution. However, that's just GW; its what they always do, much in the same way that they try and suggest that GW and GW alone is the hobby.

What I am trying to say in a very convoluted way is that you have some good points but you really don't need to spew so much anti-GW bile to get it across. It kind of dilutes your message when people see your points as attacking them for their purchases (and I'm sure you don't intend for that to happen).

Threadnomantastic post removed and this one can go back to bed...