I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
Not reflective of the community.
and its been a part of wargamming since 4000 BCE
sounds like brainwashing to me since even 7th ed BRB tells sizes of buildings and hills for small medium and large..and how to represent various bits o terrain.
Provided it's battlefield scraps, and not say, a Bunker you've purchased as a fortification, I think people need to belt up.
Aegis etc - well, perhaps tone it down in club play - but I can understand more organised affairs insisting on approved and not hand made stuff, because specific dimensions etc.
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Where? What stores? What gaming groups? Where specifically is this happening?
The only issue I could see would be accusations of MFA with terrain you pay points for (like VSGs or landing pads).
Or GW’s shift for pre-packaged stuff you buy from them, which they push a lot harder then they used to. So in a GW official store, or one filled with true believers, I could see an issue.
But those are corner cases. I think the vast majority of the community is on board with scratch built terrain.
Yeah, I have heard of this but never seen anyone choose not to play due to the terrain. Just a rumor. Sometime soon someone will be claiming you can only use GW approved dice.
Yeah, I've never heard this before; I actually have the blue version of the book you speak of, and it's fantastic. While GW doesn't do much along the lines of that stuff anymore to promote their own plastic terrain instead, I don't think they'd ever encourage people to rule out homemade pieces, especially when a lot of the stuff they use in WD Battle Reports is made from scratch.
If the piece has a ruleset to go with it, such as a special building, and you're playing in a tournament, then perhaps it is unlikely that such a piece is allowed into the game. In any other circumstance, I would say that it's bad sportsmanship to not allow a homemade piece to be fielded, at least when it's not in the deliberate advantage of your opponent (i.e. it's in their deployment zone)
General Annoyance wrote: Yeah, I've never heard this before; I actually have the blue version of the book you speak of, and it's fantastic. While GW doesn't do much along the lines of that stuff anymore to promote their own plastic terrain instead, I don't think they'd ever encourage people to rule out homemade pieces, especially when a lot of the stuff they use in WD Battle Reports is made from scratch.
Pretty much this.
Though I am promised (via letter published in WD no less!) that WD will be including Terrain Making articles in the near future.
Third party or scratchbuilt terrain, unless it represents something that GW doesn't have a model for (like a bridge, or giant crystals) is banned in my local GW store, unless it is at least 75% GW components. Yes, card terrain made out of GW boxes is also banned. I tried this.
Other than that, never heard of this.
Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.
My local community has also had some people complain about custom terrain, saying its somehow illegal or not fair.
All the Games Workshop stores I've been to don't allow it, for the same reason they don't allow 3rd party models.
I've never seen it in a local store, but the only reason I could fathom to justify it would be someone trying to bring in terrain modeled to give them an advantage.
More recently I've seen people arguing that their preference on terrain is the "right" way to play 40k and any others are wrong. If someone like that owned the store, I could see an outcome like this being possible.
Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
I have only seen this mentality in a GW store itself (which, while unfortunate, makes sense). I have seen this concept crop up on the AoS Facebook group (I assume this is what you were referring to, Auticus) and cannot understand it at all. It sounds like GW fanboyism, although I would not doubt GW to try and make this the default mindset, that you must be using GW terrain and GW boards to play GW games. I could see having homebrew rules for terrain get some flak depending on the game and players, but not actual pieces of terrain, doubly so since GW makes woefully few terrain pieces for AOS for instance.
The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
General Annoyance wrote: Yeah, I've never heard this before; I actually have the blue version of the book you speak of, and it's fantastic. While GW doesn't do much along the lines of that stuff anymore to promote their own plastic terrain instead, I don't think they'd ever encourage people to rule out homemade pieces, especially when a lot of the stuff they use in WD Battle Reports is made from scratch.
Pretty much this.
Though I am promised (via letter published in WD no less!) that WD will be including Terrain Making articles in the near future.
So YOU sent that. It pretty much summed up everything I was going to ask them. So I didn't send a letter.
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
Never seen or heard of this. I guess it makes sense (somewhat) in GW stores since the managers have an obligation of sorts to sell their kits, though local-ish GW stores to me still have kitbashed terrain (using their kits, generally).
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
How would he even enforce that rule? Couldn't you just say it was blended paint? What's next, needing to bring in a reciept with your models to prove that that they were purchased in that store?
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
Wow. Where are they running into these "unfair kits"? When they play at other people's homes? When they play at non-GW stores?
Seems silly to me. Rates about a 0.4 on my Give-A-gak meter. Complaining about it rates a 8.4, which puts you in the "Wouldn't even bother getting my minis out to play you" range.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
How would he even enforce that rule? Couldn't you just say it was blended paint? What's next, needing to bring in a reciept with your models to prove that that they were purchased in that store?
Could it be the quality of the work on the homemade terrain?? If it looks like two beer cans glued to a cardboard sheet but counts as a oil refinery..
There lies the problem and I might see the issue they are having... Also as mentioned before, Games Workshop store usually don't allow any
non GW stuff in their stores, no matter how cool it looks.
The other thing that might be the case is when I would run demo tables or games at conventions, My group wanted the best presentation possible
of the game to attract new players.. So you might get a picture of the terrain in question to see what the forum has to say.. but you will always
encounter in you life elite gamers that you will never please them.. because of terrain.. how your army is painted.. even how you built your army list..
they will find a reason to complain.
News to me. Generally the host provides the terrain in my group, or we use the store's. The whole idea of buying terrain with points and bringing it with you still feels alien to me.
(And for the rare times I play at a GW store I just use their terrain - playing on a different table with different terrain is sort of the point.)
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
I just play that a unit in a forest gets a 5+ and not worry about the individual trees. I think there's some saying about that.
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
Man what is with the people you play with? They hate anything casual and narrative, had fan-stuff (like your Azyr comp) because it's not official, whine "it's not fair" for everything that isn't GW made stuff. Also who would try to claim you can shoot through a window in a building?
You need some new gaming people, man. You obviously play with man-children.
I think some people are forgetting the point of toy soldiers in order to cause some stir on the internet. If someone said this to me I would first laugh, then when I realized they were serious I would probably find some excuse to stop playing them. That is not the type of person I want to play with.
I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?
I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?
To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Though I am promised (via letter published in WD no less!) that WD will be including Terrain Making articles in the near future.
I think this is one of those rare cases that no one has ever had to deal with except for maybe a small handful of people. Besides, LOS blocking terrain is the best terrain IMO.
Never come across this idea, in conversation or in practice.
I DO understand GW only supplying GW terrain in store these days, but previous to this I also recall many instances of in store scratch built terrain too.
auticus wrote: Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.
My local community has also had some people complain about custom terrain, saying its somehow illegal or not fair.
It probably stems from the Sylvaneth ability to create forests and the book specifies the GW forest. Main justification is the footprint. Back in 8th there were problems with people abusing the create forest rules by throwing down a forest that takes up the entire middle section of the board. It could stem from some areas where people "modeled for advantage".
The only rule we have in our local area is that the forest footprint match the GW one for the Sylvaneth ability. One player made a number of tin cutouts, flocked them, and has trees with magnetic bases attached to them. It's pretty cool and no one complains.
auticus wrote: Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.
My local community has also had some people complain about custom terrain, saying its somehow illegal or not fair.
It probably stems from the Sylvaneth ability to create forests and the book specifies the GW forest. Main justification is the footprint. Back in 8th there were problems with people abusing the create forest rules by throwing down a forest that takes up the entire middle section of the board. It could stem from some areas where people "modeled for advantage".
The only rule we have in our local area is that the forest footprint match the GW one for the Sylvaneth ability. One player made a number of tin cutouts, flocked them, and has trees with magnetic bases attached to them. It's pretty cool and no one complains.
Well the 8th edition Wood Elf book specifically said "use a Citadel Wood", so if some d-bag was making forests that take up large portions of the table, well, they're a d-bag because the intention of the rule was clearly for it to be the same size as the Citadel Wood, it said so right in the rules.
That said, people only joked about HAVING to use a Citadel Wood, as long as the homemade forest was the same size as the Citadel one no one actually cared if it was homemade.
God, some of the stores you guys play at suck ass......
Man, I think he only storebought GW terrain pieces I own are the crashed shuttle from Battle for Macragge, and a ruined tower from the ancient line of foamed resin pre-painted terrain they used to sell, and I have been gaming for 20 years. I have a good chunk of the old Armorcast ruined buildings, though, and a shedload of the AT43 cargo containers.
Oh, good, another chance to use this Tommy Lee Jones picture as my reaction:
Spoiler:
That being said, I understand the idea of not allowing 3rd party terrain in GW stores (and, to some extent, scratchbuilt, as they want to sell their terrain kits). I can also understand not allowing scracthbuilt terrain for terrain that has actual rules (fortifications and such) if they don't properly match up in size and appearance, particularly in events like tournaments and leagues.
But to not allow, say, scratchbuilt hills? Forests? Ruins and/or intact building?
I'll be honest...someone who's concerned enough about any wargame to the point that they declare terrain "illegal" is someone I'm not gaming with (in any fashion). That person has some serious issues.
Anyone who takes stuff that seriously is not someone I want to spend time with.
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
Never encountered that, seems a bit silly to me. As long as the terrain is not--well, lame to the point of making the game look unattractive (like, a shoe or unaltered can of Pringles) I see no issue. If it somehow affects rules then common sense. I've encountered folks tracing the citadel wood to make their own but it looks good, so...
Now, what I have seen in the last couple of years is communities contributing to terrain or pitching in a few bucks for modular terrain for the store so the battlefields look better. And taking better care of the store/club terrain so it lasts. In any GW store I've been in I can understand being respectful and not bringing in 3rd party terrain but lots of nice conversion terrain, even if not every component is from a GW kit, and then, the rule of cool.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
How would he even know?...did he have a mass spectrometer in the back office or something?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
How would he even know?...did he have a mass spectrometer in the back office or something?
*Jigsaw voice* Some of these models I painted with GW paints purchased in this very store! Others, I used coat d'arms! Can you tell which is which BEFORE it's too late!?! /Jigsaw voice.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: The wood elves can create their own woods as I recall and the rules probably stipulate that you must have the models to represent them to use. Much like summoned Daemons.
I'd say that's what the OP is on about, just in a very confusing manner.
My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
How would he even know?...did he have a mass spectrometer in the back office or something?
I think it was maybe based on shades and the finish. One guy used craft paints because they were a third the price for twice as much. They were much more flat than GW. It wasn't that he could even do anything about it, he just said stupid gak like that. Working with him was a whole other level of Hell.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: My old GW had a hardcore employee (read "Idiotic fanatic") who used to tell customers their models had to be painted with GW paints to play in-store. God he was a pain in the ass.
In the mid nineties, GW stores were starting to spread in Australia. My brother and I were happy one opened in a mall we frequented. We brought our stuff in to play, and we were told my brothers miniatures were painted wrong. They had black rimmed bases and green flock. The miniatures had to be painted like GW did then, which was glued down sand, base painted entirely goblin green, and drybrushed sunburst yellow. It was awful and garish (which is why my brother didn't do it) but that was the only way the manager let you play in his store.
My miniatures were haphazardly built and not painted. They were fine.
I, for one, would never, not ever, not under any circumstance, play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ on a table with scratch-built terrain. Nor AoS. Nope. No way.
I would not play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ if any of the minis my opponent had were wearing "fur" either.
I can see requiring only GW paint if you are participating in a painting night at the store. (Which is why I don't) I can also see people abusing the rules and coming in with an aegis line that fills half the table. Maybe this is the real problem. A well balanced table with some LOS blocking hills, thick woods and other unique terrain can be fair and fun to play on if it works the same way for both players.
If you want to play on my table at my house while eating my food and hanging out with my friends, you probably would be smart not to complain about who made my terrain.
(BTW, funny thing playing at Kirk's place... His cat jumped up on the table and laid right down in the middle of it on turn two. We immediately declared the cat to be impassible terrain that blocked LOS. At the very last turn of the game, after Kirk had his harlequin glass cannons hidden behind the cat, his Wife came in the door. Apparently, she is the primary feeder of the cat, because it jumped right up and ran into the kitchen, meowing loudly, leaving me wide open to mow down Kirk's last units. There are times when going second can be an advantage!) (Yes, we do take 40K seriously, but sometimes it's just too much fun to roll with the moment.)
-Loki- wrote:The miniatures had to be painted like GW did then, which was glued down sand, base painted entirely goblin green, and drybrushed sunburst yellow. It was awful and garish (which is why my brother didn't do it) but that was the only way the manager let you play in his store.
Urgh. You couldn't pay me.
My miniatures were haphazardly built and not painted. They were fine.
GoblinChow wrote:I can also see people abusing the rules and coming in with an aegis line that fills half the table. Maybe this is the real problem.
I think the real problem is applying special rules to official terrain kits.
General Annoyance wrote: Yeah, I've never heard this before; I actually have the blue version of the book you speak of, and it's fantastic. While GW doesn't do much along the lines of that stuff anymore to promote their own plastic terrain instead, I don't think they'd ever encourage people to rule out homemade pieces, especially when a lot of the stuff they use in WD Battle Reports is made from scratch.
Pretty much this.
Though I am promised (via letter published in WD no less!) that WD will be including Terrain Making articles in the near future.
So YOU sent that. It pretty much summed up everything I was going to ask them. So I didn't send a letter.
Indeed.
(Picture shows randomer somewhat less sexy than Mad a Doc Grotsnik's actual sexiness of not-terribly-sexy
Here's a link to when GW got rid of all of their scratch built terrain and OOP shop models.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/297314.page It was back in 2010, the stores lost all of their character back then and I had little reason to ever go into a GW other than for a pot of paint since.
Wow, the denial and GW apologism in that thread...
And yep, GW store tables are a joke now. Every independent store in the area has way better tables and terrain options than the cookie-cutter Official™ GW™ Hobby Center™ tables.
The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.
Many years ago, GW US decided to toss a bunch of GT terrain. I was an Outrider back then and fairly local to the Baltimore HQ, so I got this phone call telling me to meet them at the dumpster...
auticus wrote: The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.
I'm not that familiar with AoS rules, but if Wood Elves/Sylvaneth get a free wood or similar like they used to in 8th then it makes sense you model it in a way that matches the wood GW make.
But that is a very specific case of, yes, you should either use GW terrain OR make your terrain match GW as closely as possible because otherwise you're bending the intention of the rules.
auticus wrote: The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.
If your army doesn't pay for the terrain in question (like it would a Bastion), any complaints about terrain will be ignored by me.
If it made that big a deal to my opponent, I'd say "Fine, it doesn't block line of site, but I'm still getting a cover save. Roll the dice and let's play."
If we can't get to an agreement about fething terrain on the table, then I don't want to play with you. Hell, I don't even want to have a beer with you.
I'm sorry that you play with man-childs. I'd say neck beards, but I doubt they can grow the patch-work stubble!
I've never heard mention of this before. But if someone did put that to me, they'd be the kind of anal gamer that I'd probably hate playing in the first place.
auticus wrote: The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.
For Sylvaneth woods I could see this argument, as only using the actual model since it's essentially a part of your army (and bullgak anyways). But for regular forest terrain this sounds like delusional fanboys crying that people aren't supporting GW.
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
No. There is no "New Movement". Your idea must have come from a Reichstag worker from a GW store. We get the type from time to time.
The idea is one of those lame ones that comes from a GW store/ stores to shill you to buy that GW terrain, or give a false crisis, where they are nobs on the subject, but on the whole, GW themselves gives you ample articles on how to make terrain, So it is as well, a false dichotomy. Workers like that need to be schooled on the subject, and quickly, or they keep that mentality and take it farther and push it into everything they do. They become B.S. shill artists in the end, and a real drain on the store.
If anyone gives you that grief, smile, pick up your stuff, and go find another place to game. Even the HHHobby isn't that dense. THOSE type of particulars are some of the ones that don't know much, except from what they learned in their "Red Books".
7th edition rulebook wrote:Scratch-built Terrain Many players enjoy making their own terrain features from scratch (thus the term ‘scratch-built terrain’), and it’s also possible to improvise a perfectly usable set of terrain using everyday objects at hand. Players that do so will need to devise their own datasheets for the terrain models they have created. Don’t worry, this is very easy
Some employees might discourage you to play with all scratch build terrain instead of showcasing the terrain models they sell, in order to boost his or her sales. But this is a store specific thing really.
The local Geedub has scratch built, official (including long out-of-print stuff, which is confusing because the store just opened on the day they released the Imperial Space Marine) and converted official stuff. I don't know how much water this idea holds
We use 90% home-made terrain on our gaming tables. We have a handful of GW Trenches / a Ruin or two, but that's just because a friend won a Gift Certificate or something, and wanted some trenches.
GW in London, ON, only allows GW terrain to be used. It rather sucks, because I'm not terribly fond of GW's terrain. Whenever I've been to other LGS, they usually have scratchbuilt terrain. I mean, you can make a playable ruin for about $5 worth of foam board and glue. Spray with a textured stone spray and you're off to the races for under $10, including a thinwood base and a handful of gubbins spread about. I figure I could build a respectable city fight board's worth of terrain for the cost of a couple of large ruin kits from GW.
Don't get me started on forests! I can buy $10 worth of aquarium plants at the dollar store, make a few bases, and make about 1/4 of a board's worth of trees for about $20.
Low walls? I like round dowel for the ends of the sections, so I can put them together at any angle and they match up ok. Cut some sections of foam board, spray the whole thing in textured paint, add a base and some gubbins... 48" worth of walls for under $20.
Hills? For me, a little more expensive. I like to use insulation board for the durability, and it comes in 1" thick plates. 4' x 8' sections costs about $50, if I recall, but you can make beautiful hills, heavy bastion type buildings... anything that you'd want to have a predictable thickness. I also bought a 1/2" thick piece, but I had money to burn at the time. I've lost count of the number of hills and buildings I've made from those pieces, but to be fair, I would probably make ruins out of the foamboard you can buy at dollar stores, now. And you can get cheaper foam, but the pink insulation stuff can be sanded to make nice, smooth edges and corners.
I can see where someone could be coming from if it's a purchased fortification, but even then I built a Bastion sized building that was within 1/2 inch on the dimensions, so I never had a problem with my gaming group. [$5 worth of the Foam, maybe another $5 worth of glue, paint, and craft sticks.] The low walls I've built could easily be used as an Aegis... I just bought that kit because I wanted the Quad-Gun... the walls were a bonus.
Thats weird... the only thing I can see may be a problem is in AoS with Sylvaneth Wyldwood... say if your opponent doesn't make them the correct size/shape.
I think the real problem is making terrain pieces part of the rules themselves. If I was a cynical type..... I would assume this is an intentional policy to promote the sale of terrain..... but I ma not that cynical.
Easy E wrote: I think the real problem is making terrain pieces part of the rules themselves. If I was a cynical type..... I would assume this is an intentional policy to promote the sale of terrain..... but I ma not that cynical.
I don't think it's really a problem as long as the rules are well defined. If the rules say to use a "Citadel Wood" which is 6" wide (or whatever it is) and has 3 trees and my opponent turns up with a 12" wide wood with 30 trees on it, at that point I'm blaming my opponent's stupidity rather than GW It'd be like proxying a Warlord Titan with a coke can or a goblin with a large cereal box.
I haven't touched Wood Elves in AoS so I don't know how the rules are now, but it made sense in 8th edition because WE had lots of forest-specific rules, so the free forest basically became part of your army.
Red Harvest wrote: I, for one, would never, not ever, not under any circumstance, play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ on a table with scratch-built terrain. Nor AoS. Nope. No way.
I would not play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ if any of the minis my opponent had were wearing "fur" either.
Is it sarcasm if it is a fact? Not an *alternative fact* but a real fact.
I am not impressed by the Games Workshop™ terrain, any of it. Nor am I impressed by that Realm of Battle® table either. I'm surprised that that is not yet a required thing for play. I suspect it will be soon enough, in some capacity.
OTOH, any other tabletop miniature game I play will have plenty of scratch-built terrain. Check out my P&M blog (link in sig) to see just what sort of cool things would be on a gaming table where I played. Start at the beginnning. You'll see some interesting and unusual things including a genuine 'golden throne'
(Yeah, my first post was really just click-bait. Shameless self-promotion is in this year. And I have people telling me that if I do not make my weekly quota of page views I'll be in serious trouble. So help a brother out, willya?)
I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?
To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?
Yes! Page 2!
No, sorry you are confused - that's the internet.
I have never encountered this 'rule', mentioned by the OP.
But I can say that any store that tried such shenanigans would never have to worry about me trying to run a game there.
Red Harvest wrote: I, for one, would never, not ever, not under any circumstance, play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ on a table with scratch-built terrain. Nor AoS. Nope. No way.
I would not play a game of Warhammer 40,000™ if any of the minis my opponent had were wearing "fur" either.
good. because otherwise i, and many other fellow amature legal scholars out there (wargaming and the study of international copyright infringement and intellectual property are my two hobbies), would personally have to write a notorized letter to games workshop informing them of the number of your transgressions and the dates on which they occured. should this happen be prepared to provide proof of purchase along with names and addresses of sellers of all your Games Workshop products.
Wow, the denial and GW apologism in that thread...
And yep, GW store tables are a joke now. Every independent store in the area has way better tables and terrain options than the cookie-cutter Official™ GW™ Hobby Center™ tables.
All the GW's near here have their own tables, so the issue of using ones own terrain doesn't arise.
At the club I run, we do have a lot of "official" GW Cities of Death and Forge World ruined buildings, but we also have a lot of 3rd party terrain and a few boxes of individually-based trees. We leave it up to players to sort out how they'll be used, but I haven't heard any arguments yet.
To be honest, I usually still go with the rules from 4th edition Warhammer; forests grant cover to all models in them and block LOS over 2", regardless of individual actual tree models. I've found that rule works fine in subsequent editions of Warhammer, AoS, 40k, Infinity, Warmachine, etc, etc
If there were such a a policy, enforcing it would be an uphill struggle as they've simply been surpassed by other ranges. I find their terrain good, with the exception of their 40k ruined buildings which are all a bit "samey" for my liking. But when you have the alternative of beauties like this, it's a hands down decision for most hobbyists. http://www.tabletop-world.com/watermill.php
Warhammer 40k the rules, handheld edition, page 183 has a paragraph mentioning scratch-built terrain and how to use it. Basically, as long as both players can agree on how it works, nothing is banned.
I chalk it up to successful indoctrination by GW over the last 10-15 years, where the built up 40k and fantasy to be 100% off the (GW-stocked) shelf.
Imagine the shock of some of these people if they saw how the common 15mm fantasy or sci-fi game uses minis from several different manufacturers in one army! The horror!
Us oldies, and many lucky newer players, know better. So much more of this hobby is about imagination and fun.
That might be part of it (people that think that everything has to be a gw model, even the table lol)
But a lot of it is people trying to keep things that put them at a disadvantage off the table.
If you show up with forests that legit block line of sight, shooty type players are going to feel the rage. Which means if you are creating scratch built forests, you would be compelled to make the "forest" be nothing more than two or three trees.
auticus wrote: That might be part of it (people that think that everything has to be a gw model, even the table lol)
But a lot of it is people trying to keep things that put them at a disadvantage off the table.
If you show up with forests that legit block line of sight, shooty type players are going to feel the rage. Which means if you are creating scratch built forests, you would be compelled to make the "forest" be nothing more than two or three trees.
You seem to play with some of the absolute worst people, dude. My sympathies. Almost all your posts are about how people around you want to always play tournament type games, hate campaigns/narrative games, hate anything fan-made, and demand everything be "official" models.
auticus wrote: That might be part of it (people that think that everything has to be a gw model, even the table lol)
But a lot of it is people trying to keep things that put them at a disadvantage off the table.
If you show up with forests that legit block line of sight, shooty type players are going to feel the rage. Which means if you are creating scratch built forests, you would be compelled to make the "forest" be nothing more than two or three trees.
You seem to play with some of the absolute worst people, dude. My sympathies. Almost all your posts are about how people around you want to always play tournament type games, hate campaigns/narrative games, hate anything fan-made, and demand everything be "official" models.
Yeah. I mean, if that's your thing, I get it. But not everyone wants to play that way.
My view, honestly, is that competitive players tend to turn everything they touch to gak. that's hard, I get it. But it's always the min-maxer, WAAC, don't care about anything but whatever gives the most chance for victory that always tend to corrupt everything, because they just can't let it go and have fun without fun being 100% tied to "Did I win". And I say this as someone who loves Warmachine as a great example of a solid competitive game.
Codex: Catachans literally had a few pages dedicated to making trees out of household/generic hobby supplies, as well as how to make your own heavy flamer guardsman and some other goodies. Of course that was more common before 4th edition.
auticus wrote: That might be part of it (people that think that everything has to be a gw model, even the table lol)
But a lot of it is people trying to keep things that put them at a disadvantage off the table.
If you show up with forests that legit block line of sight, shooty type players are going to feel the rage. Which means if you are creating scratch built forests, you would be compelled to make the "forest" be nothing more than two or three trees.
Are there no rules or systems for randomising terrain placement, or at least mitigating it's deliberate placement? Divide the table in segments and roll for what's placed in each? Terrain is moved 2d6 in a random direction? Turn about for placing terrain? One player places terrain and the other chooses table side? Two or more of the above?
And what Wayniac and Kronk said: if these people are mathammering shooty armies and then throw a paddy when they don't get wide, flat expanses to show off their wind-up, line-up-and-shoot, one-trick ponies... it feels like that's on them. And the game.
I've never had a problem with homemade terrain. BUT... I reserve the right to have a problem with converted/homemade models when they are part of an army list.
In the case of Sylvaneth Wyldwoods, I expect the woods to either be official models OR be roughly identical. If you want to make them yourself, I think it's reasonable to have them on the same sized/shaped base and have three "trees" in roughly the same spots and roughly the same shape. Modelling for advantage becomes a thing for terrain when that terrain is a part of your army.
I have a friend who plays Sylvaneth. He traced the woods base on cardboard and cut out a bunch of templates. Sprayed them green. That's it. Flat green bases. Those were the woods he wanted to use. Dude... no. I want to see trees. "But they get in the way and I can't place all my models on the tree base." Tough. Those trees are supposed to be there and you're not supposed to be able to fit 30 Dryads on one tree stand. Clear modelling for advantage.
For regular terrain on the table, who cares? More variety means every game plays out differently.
Honestly, I've always played it as you remove the trees when you move into the woods, that's why they come off the base. Although that might be other games bleeding in
Wayniac wrote: Honestly, I've always played it as you remove the trees when you move into the woods, that's why they come off the base. Although that might be other games bleeding in
You're probably confusing being "Practical / Sensible" with playing 40k.
I do the same. All my home-made forests are on bases that get plunked on a larger base that outlines the shape of the forest. If you want to move into the forest, just move the chunks of trees that are in the way, and put them nearby so you remember to put them back when you're done.
"But what about TLOS!?!" a person might frightfully enquire... I just agree pre-game with my opponent whether or not Forests block LOS. If they don't, you can shoot through them whether or not you can draw an imaginary line through the foliage, because really, if you try, you can do that. There will be some unimaginably small space you can "see" through that you can draw LOS to your target. Or we agree that forests block LOS regardless of TLOS, and generally have a more interesting game.
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
I have thankfully never heard this argument before. I'd either just laugh hysterically pack my stuff up, or I'd laugh hysterically and shoot the place. Who's to say which would happen.
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
I have thankfully never heard this argument before. I'd either just laugh hysterically pack my stuff up, or I'd laugh hysterically and shoot the place. Who's to say which would happen.
Really, Frazzled? I'm disappointed in you.
...
I'd have thought you would unleash your wiener dogs.
auticus wrote: Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.
My local community has also had some people complain about custom terrain, saying its somehow illegal or not fair.
Just exlcude those persons from all gaming in the future, like they have some unmentionable form of rash.
I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?
To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?
Yes! Page 2!
Newb. Back in my day (RT) it was drink booze, eat pizza, and make loud pew pew noises!
auticus wrote: I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.
Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.
Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?
I have thankfully never heard this argument before. I'd either just laugh hysterically pack my stuff up, or I'd laugh hysterically and shoot the place. Who's to say which would happen.
Really, Frazzled? I'm disappointed in you.
...
I'd have thought you would unleash your wiener dogs.
That would be inhumane, unleashing nature's perfect killer on some unsuspecting doritio drenched kid? That sounds...like I have to try it...
Wayniac wrote: Honestly, I've always played it as you remove the trees when you move into the woods, that's why they come off the base. Although that might be other games bleeding in
I vaguely recall that was the idea when GW first released them, that you could just remove the trees and any models that were on the base counted as being in the forest to avoid having to fiddle around getting models to fit in and around the trees.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: I have a friend who plays Sylvaneth. He traced the woods base on cardboard and cut out a bunch of templates. Sprayed them green. That's it. Flat green bases. Those were the woods he wanted to use. Dude... no. I want to see trees. "But they get in the way and I can't place all my models on the tree base." Tough. Those trees are supposed to be there and you're not supposed to be able to fit 30 Dryads on one tree stand. Clear modelling for advantage.
I'd be fine with that because to me the point of the removable trees was so you didn't have waste time trying to fit 27 Dryads around the trees when you can instead just remove the trees and put down 30 of them without having to play a game of reverse dryad jenga.
I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?
To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?
Yes! Page 2!
Newb. Back in my day (RT) it was drink booze, eat pizza, and make loud pew pew noises!
And stay up wwaaayyy too late, into the wee hours of the morning.
The Auld Grump - this practice predates RT by more than a decade....
I remember when 40k had something as simple as area terrain. Ahhh, those heady days before the stupidity of true line of sight and every copse of trees having exactly three trees with no undergrowth.
auticus wrote: The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.
You want to know one of the many reasons that I play Classichammer instead of the modern rules? Area terrain. Life was much simpler when the entire blob of woods was treated as a line of sight blocking mass than trying to figure out how much of a whip antenna/spear tip one could see through the leaves of a tree.
Damn it, now I have to get a game of 6th WFB or 3rd 40K in this weekend...
I wrote a long post saying there's nothing stopping you from saying that woods grant a cover save to all models in them regardless of actual obscurement, then I looked at the Terrain Datasheet for the "Twisted Copse", ie the Citadel Wood (depicted here with no leaves); Difficult Terrain, all models in it gain a 5+ cover save regardless of obscurement.
For everyone who only allows cover in a Citadel Wood if the model is actually obscured, you're cheating.
I kinda get the idea that terrain purchased as part of the total points of an army should meet some specifications (still don't think it has to be some name brand though), but beyond that, I find anymore concern about terrain strange in terms of gaming. I am a pretty casual gamer who recognizes they are getting more and more casual in their play style focusing more on the spectacle.
Nearly every game I am the one setting up the table with an admitted bent toward denser rather than sparser terrain. This is done not for any in game advantage, but rather, because I like an interesting looking table. I try to do the best I can with the terrain pieces I have avaible to make the table look like a place that could exist, but still playable, or did exist as I tend to play mostly historicals. When I gamed at a FLGS, often people would come over to see what was going one because of my elaborate table setups (real lights always seem to bring them in).
Only recently, have I tried making scratch built terrain with a couple of buildings. I want to make more but I have limited work space as an urban apartment dweller. I would be shocked if someone declined a game because some of perfectly nice looking terrain pieces were scratch built. Especially if I think they really tie the table together nicely.
That's the one place I wouldn't expect to see complaints about the terrain. For the simple reason that every GW I've ever been in has their own terrain, so you don't get a choice!
On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.
In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.
The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.
Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.
Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.
I don't know if anyone was suggesting those were different things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.
In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.
The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.
Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.
But you can understand the poor reception it receives, based on the fact that it runs contrary to one of the central pillars of the hobby? That of creativity and modelling skills of creating terrain. Something that GW itself helped to espouse for nigh on thirty years before they started to go through (I think what we will look back on it as) a nob-phase.
This isn't something that has affected me personally fortunately but I feel for the people that it does affect, even if it is just newbies starting out and that can only play in a GW store.
As I said, doesn't matter what you think of the decision, it was a straight forward business one. Sell a £12 book, or sell multiple sets of £12 terrain.
I don't know that it does really affect anyone. I mean, it came a time when GW had been seriously developing their terrain range, so to compare this approach to one taken when they didn't really sell their own terrain isn't a fair comparison.
But hey - not justifying it nor attempting to justify it. Just giving first hand info on why it happened
My manager at the time had just completed a beautiful waterfall board....he then raffled it off.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.
In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.
The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.
Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.
There's a big difference between using GW terrain in a GW store (if the terrain works we always used local terrain, else supplemented if not enough), and then saying its illegal or somehow cheating.
notprop wrote: I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.
This issue came up again in another AOS facebook page. It seems to come up fairly regularly in the AOS fan groups along with the arguments for and against.
notprop wrote: I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.
This issue came up again in another AOS facebook page. It seems to come up fairly regularly in the AOS fan groups along with the arguments for and against.
It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately
I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.
The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.
The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.
Yeah but this argument seems to stem from actual terrain for the battlefield, e.g. forests and hills and buildings, not specifics like the Wyldwood, which I can't understand since GW's selection of actual terrain is very limited anyways, and doesn't fit all boards anyways. One of the most annoying things about playing in a GW store is being "forced" to use the stupid realm of battle board (and not even the shattered dominion board, the original one with the molded hills), and having the mighty choice of: Citadel Woods (not Wyldwood), Ophidian Archway, Baleful Realmgate, Numenous Occulum, Dragonfate Dais or massive Khorne castle, along with some old WHFB towers/houses (not sure from what set, but looks Empire) and maybe a garden of Morr or some walls. I guess all our battles take place in the same area :(
What I wouldn't give for actual home made terrain so we could fight in the realm of metal, or realm of fire, or some such, and have things actually look different.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.
The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.
Vermis wrote:I think the real problem is applying special rules to official terrain kits.
It might be a business decision and not particularly machiavellian, but it's an underhanded thing to do that benefits GW rather than gamers. I struggle to see any benefit to gamers. It funnels them into buying a specific, overpriced GW kit (Woods, even! It's like sticking special rules on static grass. GW static grass, mind.) and by appearances, further drives into them the mindset that GW's strange ways of hobby gaming are the only 'right' way. Even if it's just a few people around Auticus (and I doubt it) it leaves a bad in my mouth.
For me, the line is 'have you included that as part of your army?'
If the answer is yes, I'd prefer you use off the peg.
If it's just random scatter terrain, whether or not it has in-game rules, not so much.
This is how I feel. For regular terrain that DOESN'T have specific rules, there is no issue. If it's a piece of terrain that you've chosen as part of your army, I apply the same conditions I would for any other models. I expect what you bring to be the same size and shape as the official model. If you bring a custom converted Ork Bastion, it needs to be roughly the same height and width as the GW model. It needs to have one heavy bolter per cardinal direction. If you bring a custom Sylvaneth Wyldwood, it should have the same footprint and have three roughly tree sized things where the official trees would be. I feel this is a very reasonable expectation.
For AoS, the Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a huge offender. The Sylvaneth Allegiance gains a major advantage from having this terrain in their army. Allowing them to change the shape/size/number of trees can have a very measurable impact on the game. In other words, it's incredibly easy to accidentally model for advantage when not using the official model.
It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately
You're in the group. I've seen you post in there so I know you are. Two threads lately got shut down recently. In fact another post came up a few days ago with the picture of the citadel terrain book and the mods immediately locked it, but it garnered like 170 likes.
I don't think that they are indoctrined fanboys. Every argument against it is entirely from the gamist point of view where it gives an advantage to model things like forests that block line of sight and "screws over" shooting armies and that if citadel woods don't really block line of sight then no woods should block line of sight.
Or that the 40k buildings have windows so don't block line of sight so if you scratch build a building with no holes or windows then you are "screwing over" shooty armies by blocking line of sight and thus only GW official terrain should be used so you aren't "screwing over" shooty armies.
I think they wouldn't have a problem with home made anything so long as it doesn't block line of sight. I think thats the key thing here. They want to be able to shoot across the table because GW terrain would allow that for the most part and if they can't then you are "screwing them over" and modeling for advantage.
I've also seen the arguments where wood elf player scratch builds sylvaneth woods that are a lot bigger than citadel woods and thus "modeling for advantage".
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.
The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.
Yeah but this argument seems to stem from actual terrain for the battlefield, e.g. forests and hills and buildings, not specifics like the Wyldwood, which I can't understand since GW's selection of actual terrain is very limited anyways, and doesn't fit all boards anyways. One of the most annoying things about playing in a GW store is being "forced" to use the stupid realm of battle board (and not even the shattered dominion board, the original one with the molded hills), and having the mighty choice of: Citadel Woods (not Wyldwood), Ophidian Archway, Baleful Realmgate, Numenous Occulum, Dragonfate Dais or massive Khorne castle, along with some old WHFB towers/houses (not sure from what set, but looks Empire) and maybe a garden of Morr or some walls. I guess all our battles take place in the same area :(
What I wouldn't give for actual home made terrain so we could fight in the realm of metal, or realm of fire, or some such, and have things actually look different.
All you have to give is a bit of money to the hobby shop for supplies and your time. I think that there is a misconception generally that terrain is a pain/difficult because models take ages to paint. Not the case in my opinion, terrain is allot easier with a little planning.
I reckon I made enough scenery for a 6' x 4' Warmaster table (so 10mm) in a week of evenings, so approx. 20 hours. Not AoS bubblerealm stuff I grant you but rocks/lava is no more difficult than trees. Also never had a problem with the trees!
For me, the line is 'have you included that as part of your army?'
If the answer is yes, I'd prefer you use off the peg.
If it's just random scatter terrain, whether or not it has in-game rules, not so much.
This is how I feel. For regular terrain that DOESN'T have specific rules, there is no issue. If it's a piece of terrain that you've chosen as part of your army, I apply the same conditions I would for any other models. I expect what you bring to be the same size and shape as the official model. If you bring a custom converted Ork Bastion, it needs to be roughly the same height and width as the GW model. It needs to have one heavy bolter per cardinal direction. If you bring a custom Sylvaneth Wyldwood, it should have the same footprint and have three roughly tree sized things where the official trees would be. I feel this is a very reasonable expectation.
For AoS, the Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a huge offender. The Sylvaneth Allegiance gains a major advantage from having this terrain in their army. Allowing them to change the shape/size/number of trees can have a very measurable impact on the game. In other words, it's incredibly easy to accidentally model for advantage when not using the official model.
Yup. And as they have ways to create more Wyldwoods, I would expect my opponent to treat it like any other summoned unit - ain't got the right models, your summoning fails' - specifically because they have additional rules.
Now, there are exceptions to that broad rule. For example, I bought some 3D asteroids for X-Wing (before Disney sat on the producer). They're nice enough, and greatly improve the visuals of the game. But the producer did something clever. The various bases in the kit matched the outline of the Asteroid markers that come with X-Wing - so for rules interaction, they're workable.
Same could be applied to home made terrain. Buy a single Citadel Wood for measurement, and make sure your wood's base is the same dimensions (draw round it, cut it out. Rinse and repeat). Right there, you're onto more of a winner. But varying that shape is right out for me.
It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately
You're in the group. I've seen you post in there so I know you are. Two threads lately got shut down recently. In fact another post came up a few days ago with the picture of the citadel terrain book and the mods immediately locked it, but it garnered like 170 likes.
Oh those posts, I thought you were talking about another one about it after those. I recall the two that got locked, didn't read through it too much but it seemed rather heated for like zero reason.
I don't think that they are indoctrined fanboys. Every argument against it is entirely from the gamist point of view where it gives an advantage to model things like forests that block line of sight and "screws over" shooting armies and that if citadel woods don't really block line of sight then no woods should block line of sight.
Or that the 40k buildings have windows so don't block line of sight so if you scratch build a building with no holes or windows then you are "screwing over" shooty armies by blocking line of sight and thus only GW official terrain should be used so you aren't "screwing over" shooty armies.
I think they wouldn't have a problem with home made anything so long as it doesn't block line of sight. I think thats the key thing here. They want to be able to shoot across the table because GW terrain would allow that for the most part and if they can't then you are "screwing them over" and modeling for advantage.
I've also seen the arguments where wood elf player scratch builds sylvaneth woods that are a lot bigger than citadel woods and thus "modeling for advantage".
Yeah, that sounds like people just want to have unobstructed shooting to everything; I would bet those are probably Sylvaneth and Tau/Eldar players that are complaining? The scratch built sylvaneth woods I get as being illegal (unless matching exactly) because scratch building one is the same as scratch-building a model. But for regular terrain it sounds stupid.
What would be the purpose of having a wood that does not block line of sight?
Even the GW one should block line of sight as it is representative of a wood. If you modelled a realistic wood you'd never get your bloody hand in it to move a model much less fit a model in it either.
All the woods we tend to use have loose trees (on 25mm bases) that can be shifted about to suit the models inside. LoS is blocked beyond 2cm/2" in/trough depending on scale of game.
I think I'm going to go to my club tonight and hug every man jack of 'em for not being like the sort of people that would come up with that sort of nonsense. Of course then i'll be TFG that hugs everyone but they'll get used to it!
The citadel woods don't really block line of sight. You can pretty much see through it in almost every angle.
Because the game uses true line of sight, you can see through a citadel wood and thus freely shoot through it.
People show up with woods that have a ton of trees on them that actually do block true line of sight and this gives shooty players rage because they feel that they are being modeled against since if only citadel woods were available, they could still shoot through everything with impunity.
In AOS and 40k both systems use true line of sight and woods do not have a rule that says they block line of sight.
Ornamentation. In 40k being in it gives you a light cover save. In AOS it also gives a +1 to saves.
Thats about it.
I personally hate that as well. In any campaign I run, woods block line of sight... but I regularly for the past few years have to argue with shooty players that say that screws them over. Even though it makes sense and every other game does it that way (and warhammer of course used to do it that way)
On the subject of actual woods, it should be like Warmachine; can't see more than X inches through the woods, so no shooting across woods and across models. however with true LOS being a (stupid IMHO) thing, i find most terrain that isn't solid to be basically worthless. Walls, fences, etc, are just decoration might as well play on an empty field most of the time. Especially since so many people I've seen ignore the terrain rules anyways, terrain literally is just there and does nothing, other than like you can't move through a solid building.
auticus wrote: There are a bunch of ways to handle woods yeah.
For me to keep it simple, you can shoot into woods and the unit gets their save, but you cannot shoot THROUGH woods to things behind it.
Simple and brilliant. That's exactly how they should work.
I haven't played in a while but isn't that how woods used to work in 40K? You could fire up to 4 inches in but, irrespective of the size of the wood, you couldn't shoot or see all the way through.
The wood's area was set by the size of the base and the number of the trees was representative of the woods rather than literally being the only trees there.
As for homemade terrain being illegal, what am I meant to do with the plastic bits of the air fresheners in my room? Throw them away? Not when they could represent vents from an underground storage facility.
The part where its simpler is in my campaigns i do away with X" in. X" in just takes more time while people measure 1000 ways to find that they are/are not in cover and then argue over the millimeter.
It saves time to just say if you're in the woods you can be seen and see out and you can get cover and if you are on the other side you can't be seen at all.
Vermis wrote:It funnels them into buying a specific, overpriced GW kit and by appearances, further drives into them the mindset that GW's strange ways of hobby gaming are the only 'right' way.
Oh, and it stifles creativity and imagination. (Remember when we used to have to use that in fantasy games? )
Kriswall wrote:For AoS, the Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a huge offender. The Sylvaneth Allegiance gains a major advantage from having this terrain in their army. Allowing them to change the shape/size/number of trees can have a very measurable impact on the game. In other words, it's incredibly easy to accidentally model for advantage when not using the official model.
It almost sounds like you shouldn't apply special rules to terrain kits.
notprop wrote:I reckon I made enough scenery for a 6' x 4' Warmaster table (so 10mm) in a week of evenings, so approx. 20 hours. Not AoS bubblerealm stuff I grant you but rocks/lava is no more difficult than trees. Also never had a problem with the trees!
That's what happens when you don't get special rules applied to terrain kits.
(Tell me if I'm getting repetitive. I won't actually stop, though.)
The trees look great. I've got giant pipecleaners around here for doing something similar with conifers, in 10mm. Where'd I put them...?
auticus wrote:The citadel woods don't really block line of sight. You can pretty much see through it in almost every angle.
Because the game uses true line of sight, you can see through a citadel wood and thus freely shoot through it.
People show up with woods that have a ton of trees on them that actually do block true line of sight and this gives shooty players rage because they feel that they are being modeled against since if only citadel woods were available, they could still shoot through everything with impunity.
In AOS and 40k both systems use true line of sight and woods do not have a rule that says they block line of sight.
AoS and 40K are such well-thought-out, friendly, narrative-driven games.
auticus wrote: Ornamentation. In 40k being in it gives you a light cover save. In AOS it also gives a +1 to saves.
Thats about it.
I personally hate that as well. In any campaign I run, woods block line of sight... but I regularly for the past few years have to argue with shooty players that say that screws them over. Even though it makes sense and every other game does it that way (and warhammer of course used to do it that way)
In AoS, if one player has Sylvaneth models, the woods have a TON of extra rules associated with them. Models can teleport back and forth between them, you can lose 1/6 of your models by charging into them, you can take mortal wounds if someone casts a spell near them, etc, etc. Really only benefits the Sylvaneth player. For MOST factions, it's just +1 to save. For Sylvaneth, it can be a frustratingly strong force multiplier.
auticus wrote: Ornamentation. In 40k being in it gives you a light cover save. In AOS it also gives a +1 to saves.
Thats about it.
I personally hate that as well. In any campaign I run, woods block line of sight... but I regularly for the past few years have to argue with shooty players that say that screws them over. Even though it makes sense and every other game does it that way (and warhammer of course used to do it that way)
In AoS, if one player has Sylvaneth models, the woods have a TON of extra rules associated with them. Models can teleport back and forth between them, you can lose 1/6 of your models by charging into them, you can take mortal wounds if someone casts a spell near them, etc, etc. Really only benefits the Sylvaneth player. For MOST factions, it's just +1 to save. For Sylvaneth, it can be a frustratingly strong force multiplier.
I am pretty sure that's only Sylvaneth Wyldwoods, not regular woods (even if they use the same kit, pretty sure the regular woods do not do that, but I could be mistaken)
Aside from all the previously mentioned points, the notion of players having to buy the same identical piece of terrain over and over, e.g. if they want multiple forests on a board, is a ludicrous one that I imagine would have most players boycotting the stores in question.
auticus wrote: Ornamentation. In 40k being in it gives you a light cover save. In AOS it also gives a +1 to saves.
Thats about it.
I personally hate that as well. In any campaign I run, woods block line of sight... but I regularly for the past few years have to argue with shooty players that say that screws them over. Even though it makes sense and every other game does it that way (and warhammer of course used to do it that way)
In AoS, if one player has Sylvaneth models, the woods have a TON of extra rules associated with them. Models can teleport back and forth between them, you can lose 1/6 of your models by charging into them, you can take mortal wounds if someone casts a spell near them, etc, etc. Really only benefits the Sylvaneth player. For MOST factions, it's just +1 to save. For Sylvaneth, it can be a frustratingly strong force multiplier.
I am pretty sure that's only Sylvaneth Wyldwoods, not regular woods (even if they use the same kit, pretty sure the regular woods do not do that, but I could be mistaken)
Yeah, regular woods don't. My mistake. I thought we were talking about Wyldwoods. As I said before, the really egregious issues are with pieces of terrain that have rules and are intended to work a certain way. If they're included as part of the army, they should be as close as possible to the official models. Conversion are fine. Fundamental changes are not.
Don't the rules generally have provisions for you to trade off putting down terrain? If you don't like what's available, make and bring your own? Complaining about the terrain someone else provided seems a little iffy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Buy a single Citadel Wood for measurement, and make sure your wood's base is the same dimensions (draw round it, cut it out. Rinse and repeat). Right there, you're onto more of a winner. But varying that shape is right out for me.
That's a bit extreme - as long as it's a rectangle roughly the same size as a Citadel Wood, that'd be fine for me.
As for blocking LOS, you get enough foliage pieces in a Citadel Wood kit to block LOS across it even using TLOS rules.
I'd need to see an example of a citadel wood with full foliage blocking LOS. All my citadel woods I used all of the foliage and they in no way block line of sight other than the tree trunks themselves.
auticus wrote: I'd need to see an example of a citadel wood with full foliage blocking LOS. All my citadel woods I used all of the foliage and they in no way block line of sight other than the tree trunks themselves.
auticus wrote: Thats true but any of my moderate man-sized to cav sized models have no problem seeing through a citadel wood (to include ogre size).
Our guys even use laser pointers to draw LOS and have no problems doing this through the citadel woods.
Same here. Citadel Woods don't really block LOS at "ground level". If you use all of the foliage, they do tend to block line of sight from an "aerial view". In other words, short models can generally hide from particularly tall or flying models in a Citadel Woods, but short (infantry to cav) can generally see each other.
You'd have to attach all the foliage in a vertical orientation rather than horizontal, and perhaps completely blocking LOS across the entire width of the base is an exaggeration, but you could do it to an extent. If you'rew happy with your terrain feature looking noting like actual trees, that is.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah but this argument seems to stem from actual terrain for the battlefield, e.g. forests and hills and buildings, not specifics like the Wyldwood
It sure as hell seems to me like this whole discussion stemmed for the Sylvaneth....
auticus wrote: Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.
Which is why I think most people see it as such a confusing topic, because in general no one gives a crap (unless it's a specific rules based reason like the Sylvaneth) and it's shocking to think that someone actually cares just about general terrain that doesn't have specific special rules. Even going back to the olden olden days I remember there being a stink kicked up due to Lizardmen's aquatic rules and some Lizardmen players wanting to use excessively large swamps.
The problem comes when armies have specific rules that they can take advantage of. Back when Wood Elves in WHFB had forest specific rules you'd occasionally see arguments when a board was either completely covered in forests or completely barren of forests.
Of course GW's own store tables are littered with GW terrain, they make terrain and want to promote it. The olden days when GW stores had more unique terrain was before GW really got in to the terrain making business (back when GW's terrain mostly amounted to cardboard buildings and the odd plastic ammo box/barrel).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Which is why I think most people see it as such a confusing topic, because in general no one gives a crap (unless it's a specific rules based reason like the Sylvaneth) and it's shocking to think that someone actually cares just about general terrain that doesn't have specific special rules. Even going back to the olden olden days I remember there being a stink kicked up due to Lizardmen's aquatic rules and some Lizardmen players wanting to use excessively large swamps.
The problem comes when armies have specific rules that they can take advantage of. Back when Wood Elves in WHFB had forest specific rules you'd occasionally see arguments when a board was either completely covered in forests or completely barren of forests.
I think you've hit on the core issue here. I think it's fair to say that the designers generally assume you are using Citadel miniatures. I think it's also fair to say that the designers generally assume you are building your Citadel miniatures per the included instructions. As an extension, I think it's fair to say that the designers generally design the rules with the assumption that players will be using Citadel Miniatures built using the included instructions.
So... given that the rules are 'tuned' for use with official models, it's very reasonable for a player to challenge the use of unofficial models, especially where there is a measurable in game impact. Now... MOST of the time, if there is an impact with a piece of unofficial terrain, it impacts both players more or less equally. An unofficial wall blocks line of sight from both directions. An unofficial hill can be climbed from both sides Etc, etc. If the impact is roughly equal, usually nobody cares. It just makes the game different, but not lopsided.
When the impact affects one player far more than the other, there is an issue. Right now, a Sylvaneth player using unofficial Sylvaneth Wyldwood models can potentially gain a large in game advantage by playing around with how his Wyldwoods are built. I can't think of any other specific factions that can so easily game in game benefit.
I would say that a good rule of thumb is that homemade terrain is fine when it's part of the table. Homemade terrain can quickly turn into modelling for advantage when it's taken as part of an army. If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
Thats my experience. If you scratch build forests, no one cares so long as they don't really block line of sight. If you scratch build a building, no one cares so long as it has windows you can shoot through like the citadel 40k buildings.
If you build a forest that blocks line of sight, a player that built a shooting army to take advantage of the fact that most tables don't have restricted line of sight will complain.
REALLY depends on your gaming group, though. My group tends to like lots of line of sight blocking terrain with some 'shooting lanes'. That way, melee units don't get mowed down turn 1, but shooting units can still usually shoot something at range.
Really, the only issue that has ever consistently popped up is the Sylvaneth player and his Wyldwoods. It quickly made the game no fun... and if it's no fun, why play?
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
I would direct them to these two books:
and then tell them to stop being such an idiot. Making your own terrain and models is a huge part of the hobby.
kronk wrote: Is this terrain like an AoS equivalent of home made bastions or Aegis Defense Lines that you paid points for but is larger than the GW version, or has some other Modeling For Advantage?
Its typically anything not a gw kit. Home made forests (there are too many trees in there and now they block line of sight and thats not fair), home made buildings (the windows are boarded up so the building blocks line of sight so thats not fair), home made lakes or swamps (there are no rules for those, and trying to use those as difficult terrain is not fair), home made hills (those block line of sight and are not fair). Pretty much anything like that I have seen a lot of.
The home made forests are the ones that I hear the most about when I read online or at the store.
I would direct them to these two books:
and then tell them to stop being such an idiot. Making your own terrain and models is a huge part of the hobby.
If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
Thats my experience. If you scratch build forests, no one cares so long as they don't really block line of sight. If you scratch build a building, no one cares so long as it has windows you can shoot through like the citadel 40k buildings.
If you build a forest that blocks line of sight, a player that built a shooting army to take advantage of the fact that most tables don't have restricted line of sight will complain.
But then, why should all forests be exactly the same density? Google pictures of a birch forest and a tropical jungle. You can see a lot further ahead in the birch forest than the jungle. Not all forests have the same obscuring abilities and so to have every forest in our games be the same (when using TLOS at least) makes little sense.
Going the abstract route where yes, there are only three trees modelled there but they are just a representation of tens to hundreds of trees, and no, your goblin is not literally half the size of the tree, removes that issue and I think GW was incorrect to move away from the abstracted systems.
Kriswall wrote: I think you've hit on the core issue here. I think it's fair to say that the designers generally assume you are using Citadel miniatures. I think it's also fair to say that the designers generally assume you are building your Citadel miniatures per the included instructions. As an extension, I think it's fair to say that the designers generally design the rules with the assumption that players will be using Citadel Miniatures built using the included instructions.
I think you've hit on the core issue... if you substitute 'assume' with 'railroad'.
And does a piece of terrain, which is more or less neutral in most if it's use, count as a miniature?
So... given that the rules are 'tuned' for use with official models, it's very reasonable for a player to challenge the use of unofficial models,
I've seen you use the 'R' word before, in this topic. I didn't much agree with it then, either. I'd see it more as a conditioned response, than 'reasonable'.
An unofficial wall blocks line of sight from both directions. An unofficial hill can be climbed from both sides Etc, etc. If the impact is roughly equal, usually nobody cares. It just makes the game different, but not lopsided.
You're right of course, but I still can't help but boggle at the mindset of 'unofficial' walls and hills. Especially after this bit:
If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
I know you're trying to justify things, but from where I'm sitting it's inadvertently adding to the case of the toxicity of GW gaming culture. In what other company's games do players get so wound up about terrain - thanks largely to how it's written into the rules, especially about using official terrain pieces? Even in Warmahordes, AFAIK, the worst millimetre-measuring nitpicking takes place over randomly-sized cardboard shapes. (Unofficial cardboard)
The current approach to terrain by GW is about maximum cash extraction. Realm of Battle boards with terrain kits they sell you. Make your own? Then you're not participating in the Games Workshop hobby: the purchasing of their products.
Kriswall wrote:I would say that a good rule of thumb is that homemade terrain is fine when it's part of the table. Homemade terrain can quickly turn into modelling for advantage when it's taken as part of an army. If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
Emphasis mine. It makes sense for GW (financially speaking) to find a way to both sell terrain kits and to make them part of the army list.
What a coup! Monetizing terrain to the point where some people will now only play with the citadel kits. P. T. Barnum was definitely right.
I do find this state of affairs to be repugnant though. Has anyone participating in a group where it's official only and no homemade terrain actually stopped and asked themselves "what are we doing?!"
Forbidden!
Illegal!
How dare you!
Look away citizen!
You know it's good because of all the skulls! Include it in your army list! Purchase approved! £200 extracted.
As I said, most of the complaints aren't about people using this excuse because they feel you need to use GW terrain, it seems to be because they feel you are modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight when the official terrain doesn't block line of sight.
auticus wrote: As I said, most of the complaints aren't about people using this excuse because they feel you need to use GW terrain, it seems to be because they feel you are modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight when the official terrain doesn't block line of sight.
Its gotten very gamey.
Blocking line of sight used to be the thing that made 40k interesting. So that's really sad.
Good for GW's bottom line either way though. They want to sell terrain and a gamey element of the community wants no home made terrain because they think it's unfair. Perfect storm.
auticus wrote: As I said, most of the complaints aren't about people using this excuse because they feel you need to use GW terrain, it seems to be because they feel you are modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight when the official terrain doesn't block line of sight.
So is this like the only LOS blocking terrain they sell for 40k?
Or have big huge walkers become so prevalent that this doesn't block things anymore? Or are these destroyable (and thus removable)? There are storm bolters mounted on them, so perhaps these need to be bought as part of the army list? Has GW found a way to make shipping containers a codex entry? (I haven't played 40k since late 4th or early 5th edition).
Kriswall wrote: I think you've hit on the core issue here. I think it's fair to say that the designers generally assume you are using Citadel miniatures. I think it's also fair to say that the designers generally assume you are building your Citadel miniatures per the included instructions. As an extension, I think it's fair to say that the designers generally design the rules with the assumption that players will be using Citadel Miniatures built using the included instructions.
I think you've hit on the core issue... if you substitute 'assume' with 'railroad'.
And does a piece of terrain, which is more or less neutral in most if it's use, count as a miniature?
So... given that the rules are 'tuned' for use with official models, it's very reasonable for a player to challenge the use of unofficial models,
I've seen you use the 'R' word before, in this topic. I didn't much agree with it then, either. I'd see it more as a conditioned response, than 'reasonable'.
An unofficial wall blocks line of sight from both directions. An unofficial hill can be climbed from both sides Etc, etc. If the impact is roughly equal, usually nobody cares. It just makes the game different, but not lopsided.
You're right of course, but I still can't help but boggle at the mindset of 'unofficial' walls and hills. Especially after this bit:
If you build terrain that doesn't more or less match the size/shape/line of sight transparency/etc of the official models, you run the risk of being challenged on your choices.
I know you're trying to justify things, but from where I'm sitting it's inadvertently adding to the case of the toxicity of GW gaming culture. In what other company's games do players get so wound up about terrain - thanks largely to how it's written into the rules, especially about using official terrain pieces? Even in Warmahordes, AFAIK, the worst millimetre-measuring nitpicking takes place over randomly-sized cardboard shapes. (Unofficial cardboard)
I don't think this has anything to do with the toxicity of GW gaming culture. GW started out with generic terrain. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that both sides could benefit from. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that only one side could benefit from. They effectively weaponized terrain. Color me unsurprised that players in a competitive game are using weaponized terrain as weapons. If anything, this shows a lack of foresight from GW. Terrain taken as a part of your army should be treated no differently than any other model in your army. If you do a custom conversion that grants too much in game advantage, be prepared for some push back. GW has always been willy-nilly about clearly defining what is and what isn't allowed. I think they really want everyone to be reasonable and casual. That works most of the time, but doesn't work at all with super competitive players who are looking to min/max every opportunity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: So is this like the only LOS blocking terrain they sell for 40k?
Or have big huge walkers become so prevalent that this doesn't block things anymore? Or are these destroyable (and thus removable)? There are storm bolters mounted on them, so perhaps these need to be bought as part of the army list? Has GW found a way to make shipping containers a codex entry? (I haven't played 40k since late 4th or early 5th edition).
Yes. Shipping containers now have a datasheet and can be selected as part of your army. Ludicrous, but true.
One indicates the only reason people would complain is because they have a burning need to only have GW official terrain on their table because thats the only thing that hsould be official simply because its GW terrain.
The other indicates that people aren't as interested in who creates the terrain, but rather that the terrain match the line of sight blocking that the official terrain does, to prevent "screwing shooty players over".
The ends may be very similar, but the thought process between the two are not.
One indicates the only reason people would complain is because they have a burning need to only have GW official terrain on their table because thats the only thing that hsould be official simply because its GW terrain.
The other indicates that people aren't as interested in who creates the terrain, but rather that the terrain match the line of sight blocking that the official terrain does, to prevent "screwing shooty players over".
The ends may be very similar, but the thought process between the two are not.
Agreed. Anecdotally, it seems like the second version is the more common. In decades of playing, the only times I've seen someone challenge terrain was over a rules advantage. I've never seen an official v. unofficial conversation that wasn't centered around actual in game advantage.
It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".
Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.
(BTW, funny thing playing at Kirk's place... His cat jumped up on the table and laid right down in the middle of it on turn two. We immediately declared the cat to be impassible terrain that blocked LOS. At the very last turn of the game, after Kirk had his harlequin glass cannons hidden behind the cat, his Wife came in the door. Apparently, she is the primary feeder of the cat, because it jumped right up and ran into the kitchen, meowing loudly, leaving me wide open to mow down Kirk's last units. There are times when going second can be an advantage!) (Yes, we do take 40K seriously, but sometimes it's just too much fun to roll with the moment.)
I think this is the best thing I've read all week!
Most of the guys I play with are in it for fun, but when we run public campaigns there are always a small handful of guys that give a lot of stink over these things, essentially trying to meld the campaign into a competitive tournament style event as well.
Wayniac wrote: It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".
Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.
I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.
Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.
Wayniac wrote: It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".
Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.
I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.
Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.
To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.
Wayniac wrote: It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".
Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.
I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.
Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.
To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.
Right. It's bad NORMALLY. It gets even worse when the woods are modelled for advantage.
Wayniac wrote: It seems more like powergamers trying to say that their shooty Tau/Eldar (because let's not pretend here...) should have LOS to everything or "waaah it's not fair I can't shoot you".
Seems to be the fact that auticus plays with extreme WAAC powergamers that hate anything which doesn't give them an advantage.
I've almost exclusively seen the complaints coming from casual players who are tired of the WAAC players trying to modify terrain to their advantage. I've never actually seen a Tau or Eldar player complain about terrain. Of course, I'm the Tau player in the group and recognize that line of sight blocking terrain works both ways. I can jump/shoot/jump my way across the board while remaining out of sight on your turns. Or, I can just stand and shoot. All the same to me. Depends on what the board looks like.
Mainly, I hear non-Sylvaneth players complain about Sylvaneth players abusing Wyldwoods. That army's power level swings pretty dramatically based on how many of those woods they have and where they're placed.
To be fair though, the fact they can place 1-3 forests as one terrain piece, every turn, is pure bullgak. I played a game the other week where literally half the board was covered in sylvaneth woods the very first round (1 set at deployment, 2 during his turn). It is a bit ridiculous.
Right. It's bad NORMALLY. It gets even worse when the woods are modelled for advantage.
Yeah. I would say the Wyldwood needs to be the correct scale/size/dimensions, just like any other model, since it's part of the army.
Kriswall wrote: GW started out with generic terrain. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that both sides could benefit from. ...then, they added special rules to terrain that only one side could benefit from. They effectively weaponized terrain. Color me unsurprised that players in a competitive game are using weaponized terrain as weapons. If anything, this shows a lack of foresight from GW. Terrain taken as a part of your army should be treated no differently than any other model in your army.
I don't think it was a lack of forsight at all. I think it was intentional. They use the rules to sell the models, so if you want to sell terrain kits through the same sales process, they need the same sort of rules. Just as there are players who choose a particular vehicle kit for rules reasons, I bet there are people who choose a particular terrain kit for rules reasons. Weaponized terrain, as you put it. I just don't think it was an accident.
So what are the odds that giant skull covered fortress has a "war scroll" (or whatever)? Is it weaponized as well?
Yes. Shipping containers now have a datasheet and can be selected as part of your army. Ludicrous, but true.
Thats my experience. If you scratch build forests, no one cares so long as they don't really block line of sight. If you scratch build a building, no one cares so long as it has windows you can shoot through like the citadel 40k buildings.
If you build a forest that blocks line of sight, a player that built a shooting army to take advantage of the fact that most tables don't have restricted line of sight will complain.
So all terrain can be seen through and shot through? Why bother with it then?
I thought the idea behind terrain was to be blocking and add tactics to the game, not just to look fancy. You might as well just keep a flat empty table.
To players that choose shooty armies, this is a large reason why they choose shooty armies. Because they can shoot with impunity on most tables typically.
Its not that terrain can be shot through its that the games employ True Line of Sight, so if you can see it from your model, you can shoot at it. The easiest way to see if this is possible is simply placing a laser pointer on the head of your model and pointing it at the target. If the red dot hits the enemy model, your model can see and target it.
auticus wrote: To players that choose shooty armies, this is a large reason why they choose shooty armies. Because they can shoot with impunity on most tables typically.
Its not that terrain can be shot through its that the games employ True Line of Sight, so if you can see it from your model, you can shoot at it. The easiest way to see if this is possible is simply placing a laser pointer on the head of your model and pointing it at the target. If the red dot hits the enemy model, your model can see and target it.
That still sounds like powergamers trying to eke out everything. "I play a shooting army, I should be able to shoot anything!" uh no, that's not how terrain nor shooting nor battles work.
auticus wrote: Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.
And they'll sit there and take it and say 'thank you sir, may I have another?'
Recently I've been reminded of a man with a Hulkster-baby avatar who used to say 'take control of your hobby and stop slavishly following the damned book', or words to that effect. It's still very relevant.
auticus wrote: Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.
I don't think True Line of Sight is really the issue. Bolt Action uses True Line of Sight, and when I think about most tables they tend to have quite a bit of terrain with the exception of ones setting up for places like North Africa and typically both players know what to expect. Deadzone also makes use of True Line of Sight yet unless it is just the starter box, most people pack the 2'x2' area to the gills with terrain (although one could make the argument that it is mostly, if not all, Mantic terrain).
I might not agree with idea of True Line of Sight being the best method to determine whether a mode can be see or not, but I don't it can be blamed for what you are describing. I think it is more a function of the players and their expectations than that particular mechanic.
I think I can agree with weaponized terrain might be one of the issues. I think games work best with terrain elements (I am most thinking of fortifications here) being part of the scenario rather than a unit that can be purchased outright with a players army point total. Fortifications have an important element to wargaming, but can definitely be something difficult to balance especially if they are not put in check. Biggest problem there is rules like that don't work get for pick up style games played at stores/clubs.
Grot 6 wrote: On one hand it is the standard issue "gaming the system" on the other, it comes to selling terrain, I'm not seeing the logic here.
Makes more sense when you consider that GW writes particular terrain kits into the system in order to sell them. They're not either/or problems. They're not even the primary problems.
Grot 6 wrote: GW's terraign doesn't last long, as far as kits go, they crank it out for awhile, then the stuff goes to the OOP. I don't see the equity.
From the disclosure in the chapterhouse lawsuit, it was shown that the vast majority of GW's releases sell strongly on release and then trickle off to near nothing. Except for Space Marine "core" type products like battleforces, tactical squads and tanks. So the terrain working the exact same way works just like the rest of the products they sell. Also, GW outright owns all of its own tooling and injection moulding equipment, so it's not very capital intensive for them to run a batch of whatever off.
I just did a quick bounce through 10 battle report videos posted on youtube in the last couple months, jumping to where they show the table, and it looks like a mixed bag. I saw some tables with homemade terrain that blocks line of sight. Others with only citadel scenery kits. Others with next to no terrain. I bet each locale develops their own tradition of how it's done and they all think their way is what's supported by the rules.
If the terrain is a paid-for item in your army list it should either be the GW model or something REALLY close to GW dimensions. I saw ork Aegis Defense Lines, a Landing pad, and a Bastion that were perfectly fine because they were made to almost the same physical dimensions as the real thing.
If it is general fill-the-board terrain, who cares? Modeling the terrain is supposed to be part of the hobby. There is a reason they give us rules for terrain that blocks line of sight.
auticus wrote: Well unfortunately with current 40k and AOS and true line of sight, and how most gaming tables are bereft of terrain, thats the standard.
Thats a pretty awesome table. Sadly the ones that I see mostly have four or five small pieces and thats it. I have a nice terrain collection for my home table.
Have to break out this image again as it exemplifies what I dislike about bad terrain usage:
On the surface it looks good, but it's actually a really gakky set up.
As it happens, this is the way we usually do forests though - a green base to show where the forest 'is' and then a few trees that can be moved around to accommodate iniatures.
You know it's good because of all the skulls! Include it in your army list! Purchase approved! £200 extracted.
Wake up people. Really.
The GW store near my work has a table set up with a full ring of this stuff. It looks incredible. Makes me want to build the stuff I own.
GW makes excellent terrain, and as someone who adores terrain and making cool themed boards I will always champion it unless it is something that guns contrary to such things (like the Ream of A Lack of Imagination™), or if it's something truly horrendous like whatever the feth these things are supposed to be:
It's an alien tree, from the new GW Deathworld set I think.
And I'm not going to deus agree with HBMC here; tables should be filled with a variety of terrain or the games just not worth playing.
In a tournament situation I accept that there might be constraints of resources and time to consider but generally there should be as much as possible otherwise you're losing a lot of the manoeuvre and strategy in allot of systems.
If I've got a limited amount of terrain, it goes towards the middle of the board, leaving the deployment zones empty if need be.
Forests depends on the game and the size of the actual model trees. For 40k, placing trees on an area of felt or similar (or using a Citadel Wood) works well. For something like Infinity or Kill Team, I use individual trees as separate terrain elements, as the single models can move from one to another easily enough.
I don't play 40k often, but when I do, we load up the board with terrain. I have yet to run into a player who refused to let me put at least someLOS blocking terrain on the board. Why would you want to play on an empty table? Dull, boring, snore.
I make my own terrain for home games. Guess that's "illegal". I'm such a rebel.
Not sure I understand the TLOS issue... doesn't the 40k rulebook say that ruins, forests, and even craters provide a cover save?
In the Battlefield Terrain section, the rulebook defines "Difficult Ground", identifies woods as one type of Difficult Ground, and then says that "Unless specifically noted otherwise, a model in cover behind difficult terrain has a 5+ cover save". Earlier, the phrase "in cover behind" is defined as being at least 25% obscured (using the TLOS rules). So, going by that, your miniature needs to actually be behind a tree.
However, later on in the Terrain Datasheets section, the Dense Thicket rule of the Twisted Copse terrain datasheet (composition: 1 Citadel Wood) says Models ... receive a 5+ cover save, regardless of whether or not they are 25% obscured".
Ruins and craters are defined specifically in the rules as granting cover saves even if models are not actually obscured.
The Terrain Datasheets section then goes on to encourage you to make up your own datasheets for your own scratch-built terrain, so you could define your own terrain that grants a better cover save than 5+ or blocks LOS entirely if you want to.
The issue isn't the rules. The issue is people being insufficiently creative.
As far as I'm concerned there should be lots and lots of terrain on a board. The more the better.
Of course there should be plenty of LOS blocking stuff as well. Good games should have plenty of fire and manuever and no army should be able to simply sit in a corner and dominate the board. Any game where that is allowed to happen is not one I want to be playing.
