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

Twisted Iron Industries (http://www.twistedironindustries.com) is introducing a new range of wreckage and craters to litter your far future battlefields. These craters are ideal for placing onto the battlefield when your vehicles suffer a "Vehicle Wrecked - explodes!" result in the most popular science fiction mass battle game. They are available in a range of sizes and a soon-to-be-expanding range of styles.

The Destroyed Heavy Armored Transport ($14.95):


The Destroyed Troop Transport ($9.95):


The Destroyed Walker ($7.95):


You can find all of these, and more pictures, on the Catalog page at http://www.twistedironindustries.com.

These craters are all built from scratch using green stuff, styrene sheet, and a fair amount of other standard terrain-making materials, and use no parts of pre-existing model kit. I use a tan resin that is durable and shatter resistant, and can be easily worked with. I built these for my own use when I grew tired of never having any craters of an appropriate size available where I play games. It seems like all anyone has are the very large plastic craters, and in the course of a close game, I'd much rather have something sized appropriately. :-)

I'd love to answer any questions you have, either here or by email (address at the website, under contact).

Thanks for reading,
Magnus

Very nice. Now you just need to make one that is flyer shaped. I'll be placing an order soon.

Nice stuff, aesthetically I think I would like to see a bit more relief and irregular borders, but overall quite nice.

*puts on hard-hat, get's under nearest table for the IP debate to repeat itself yet again :S*

Could you possibly make one for "Destroyed Lander" (Wink Wink)

Anyway, hopefully when I scrape up the cash, you'll be getting an order.

I will be putting in an order for 1-2 of each. Very nice and actually quite perfect for standard games.

Interesting. The prices are a little expensive when compared to how much it would cost to make one's own kitbash versions of the same kind of thing, but it seems like a good solution for people who want to quickly prepare for a tournament setting with a better-looking result than the standard felt or paper templates.

For the price, these are pretty darn good and would save me the time of making mine.

The totally-not-dreadnought one is cool..


Next you should make industrial towers and space corridors like this one company..

Falling Airborne wrote:Very nice. Now you just need to make one that is flyer shaped. I'll be placing an order soon.

One like this?

That landraider is a failed flyer, such a waste of a model makes me cry ...

Anyway, the walker crater seems nice but the others are a bit too "square" for my liking. I would also like to see a bit more height in there; the wreckage is a bit flat.

Lol thats what happens when a deep sriking BA Land Raider goes wrong hahahahaha.

Loving it Kroothawk


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I love the wreckage markers that twisted iron have made, will seriously contemplate buying some in the near future

ruminator wrote:That landraider is a failed flyer, such a waste of a model makes me cry ...

Anyway, the walker crater seems nice but the others are a bit too "square" for my liking. I would also like to see a bit more height in there; the wreckage is a bit flat.

That's on purpose, since the vehicles themselves are rectangular and the crater must conform to the dimensions of the vehicles.

Kroothawk wrote:

Falling Airborne wrote:Very nice. Now you just need to make one that is flyer shaped. I'll be placing an order soon.

One like this?

Looks like some Thunderhawk pilot pulled the release lever a few hundred feet too early.

If you could make a vehicle crater that was a destroyed Chimera or Vend/Valk you would have a BUNCH of sales just from me alone. I know the current one would work for Chimeras but just as a personal taste thing I would like one with some wrecked Chimera looking parts instead of Rhino.

ruminator wrote:Anyway, the walker crater seems nice but the others are a bit too "square" for my liking. I would also like to see a bit more height in there; the wreckage is a bit flat.

I built the first of these for my personal use during games, so that I no longer had to use those ubiquitous plastic moon craters. My figures kept slipping off and falling down during games.

With that in mind, I built the craters to:
- be flat enough to fit all my figures on without everything tipping off or laying down
- be interesting to look at and evoke the poor vehicle I'd spent so much time painting
- fit very close to the size of the vehicles I'd removed (some people are sticklers for this and hate using oversize craters)

So yeah, they're rectangular (like the vehicles) and as flat (for playability) as I can make them and still be interesting! Here are a few pics of the craters with Space Wolves climbing all over them:

My largest Heavy Armored Transport Crater with fifteen Blood Claws and a Wolf Priest!


The same crater with seven Wolf Guard and Logan Grimnar:


An Armored Walker Crater with some figs perched on top:


And the troop transport with a few figs on it (I swear I had a picture with all ten on there, I'll take another later!):


I certainly plan on expanding my offerings of different types. Those include a standard APC crater, a flyer crater, etc, as well as more alien designs. Keep an eye on http://www.twistedironindustries.com if you want to see WIP pictures of upcoming projects!

Thanks,
Magnus

This is why I perfer these caraters. they are versatile. Sweet simple and slightly pricy but then again i am not the one buying the poor vehicles that make up the orginal sculpt. . . so i can live with that.

Lysenis wrote: i am not the one buying the poor vehicles that make up the orginal sculpt. . . so i can live with that.

Just thought I'd point out, no vehicles were mashed up to make these. I built all the pieces out of green stuff and white sheet styrene.

So those track pieces you see on the craters? I made a track link out of styrene, and made a mold, and cast a bunch of them up!


Or that poor armored walker? He looked like this before I mounted him to the crater:


I just don't want people to get the idea that I am using existing pieces to make these craters! Its all scratch-built from common components into cool-looking wreckage.

Thanks for reading,
Magnus

magnusthetraitor wrote:

Lysenis wrote: i am not the one buying the poor vehicles that make up the orginal sculpt. . . so i can live with that.

Just thought I'd point out, no vehicles were mashed up to make these. I built all the pieces out of green stuff and white sheet styrene.

So those track pieces you see on the craters? I made a track link out of styrene, and made a mold, and cast a bunch of them up!


Or that poor armored walker? He looked like this before I mounted him to the crater:


I just don't want people to get the idea that I am using existing pieces to make these craters! Its all scratch-built from common components into cool-looking wreckage.

Thanks for reading,
Magnus

IANAL nor is the following my personal stance, but I used to work in an IP law firm, so...

Expect a C&D in the mail within a few weeks. Yes, you did not cast existing GW parts for resale...

HOWEVER, your pieces are so similar to existing GW parts, that the IP holder could claim you are trying to reproduce their IP without their consent for personal profit. Honestly, they'd be silly NOT to claim that in a court because, as your product is almost exactly the same, if they let it go, they'd risk losing their IP status.

An IP isn't simply that GW-produced piece(s), but the actual physical representation of that piece. In essence, your product is a forgery.

You should definitely consult an IP lawyer before selling any further product.

That just makes these even more impressive. I was convinced that the not-dreadnought crater was cast from an actual dread body. Would love to buy some, if I had any use for them.

Kroothawk wrote:
One like this?

Dakka needs a "Like" button. Badly.


I like these terrain bits. A lot, actually. Good work.

I just ordered 2 of the medium and Dreadnought ones. Can't wait

ancientsociety wrote:

IANAL nor is the following my personal stance, but I used to work in an IP law firm, so...

Expect a C&D in the mail within a few weeks. Yes, you did not cast existing GW parts for resale...

HOWEVER, your pieces are so similar to existing GW parts, that the IP holder could claim you are trying to reproduce their IP without their consent for personal profit. Honestly, they'd be silly NOT to claim that in a court because, as your product is almost exactly the same, if they let it go, they'd risk losing their IP status.

An IP isn't simply that GW-produced piece(s), but the actual physical representation of that piece. In essence, your product is a forgery.

You should definitely consult an IP lawyer before selling any further product.

Or contact ChapterHouse. Your two vehicle craters are more than likely generic enough to be more than fine...the walker..dunno but considering what chapter house has done they could provide some good info I bet.

Guildsman wrote:I was convinced that the not-dreadnought crater was cast from an actual dread body.

That's exactly where the problems start...


The craters are a nice idea, and they're certainly well done (although I'm not a fan of the rectangular tank craters... they might reduce arguments (although the rules don't stipulate that the crater needs to be the exact same shape and size as the vehicle) but they just look a little odd that shape) but I suspect that you would be better off keeping the wreckage a little more generic.

He didn't use any GW parts to create these, are people really going to argue that GW holds the IP on geometric shapes?

Very cool craters... I visually would have preferred them more circular but I definitely see the RAW argument that they should be vehicle shaped.

Ozymandias wrote:He didn't use any GW parts to create these, are people really going to argue that GW holds the IP on geometric shapes?

This is why I think they are fine on the vehicle wreck markers, they're just to generic. The dreadnought though...dunno. Honestly I doubt they could win in court but it's close enough that it might catch GW's attention and their philosophy seems to be to sue and ask questions later. But then again they're also really random with protecting their IP so...

Looks very nice and well done, good luck.


Oh and;

Those are rather nice.

Another good example of GW creating a need and not filling it, thus leaving a gap in the market for other companies.

Is there any truth in the rumour that reject Finecast models are melted down for the resin?

Kilkrazy wrote:Those are rather nice.

Another good example of GW creating a need and not filling it, thus leaving a gap in the market for other companies.

Is there any truth in the rumour that reject Finecast models are melted down for the resin?

Absolutely not. The various threads on dakka in the past two months have shown that there is no such thing as a rejected Finecast model. Big air bubbles obliterating whole bits, minor bubbles ruining details, mold sticking to prior models causing lumps of resins where detail should be... doesn't matter... it's boxed, shipped, and put on the rack!

yeah,
the scifi generic is actually what irks me...

I like these but I would have prefered blank craters in common 'useful' sizes that I can add actual gw rhino/dred/landraider bitz to so they are not scifi generic...

Panic...