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.

Karol wrote:

Nope, those pictures of yours tell enough about the lay of the land to say it's not enough. I get that large tournaments have to supply a lot of tables, but given how cheap it is to make good terrain from insulation foam, filler and bits, it really isn't an excuse if one wants to say terrain should matter with a straight face.

Cheap? insulation foam is only sold in palets and it costs over 10$ for one pack.

LoL. You know what we do in my WH/WH40k circles when someone bitches about the price of something? We point out that they play GW games....

And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

Or the fact that building terrain for 300+ tables also requires a huge amount of time and they are not an army of people and they all have lives and if you do a gakky job with terrain then you end up like an other infamous tournament that happened last year that everyone was hating on and jesus this is a long as run on sentence. Point being if all of this is so easy I am sure they would love some volunteers to help out!

Everyone understands it takes time to build terrain. That isn't an excuse, that is a basic thing the organizers should account for. The previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not, but the crux of the issue is still the same: their choice of terrain given makes for inferior games, it would be nice of them to fix that. Maybe it takes money, maybe it takes time, still a thing that should happen for the greater good of the game and community.

I can't really comment on how lots of terrain affects the "tactical nature" of a game, but I can say that from any of the pictures I saw, the tables certainly looked quite boring. I also had a quick look at the top 8 armies, and although I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Castellans and guards winning the competition overall, the lack of diversity in the top 8 was really disappointing, and not a reflection at all of the many diverse factions that 40k has to offer. A lay person looking at those armies might be forgiven for thinking that "Warhammer 40,000 is a futuristic game where humans use giant mecha to fight magical space elves," without any recognition for "genetically enhanced super soldiers, endless, chittering swarms of giant insects, rampaging hordes of bloodthirsty space goblins, legions of soulless, unrelenting, skeletal robots, nightmarish daemons from hell itself," and... well, whatever Tau are.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

I get around 12$ per month and 7$ of it goes for a bus pass, so something costing 10$ or more, because they sell them at store only in big quad packs is a lot of money to me. Plus this is just material, am sure you need tools and the knowladge to use it, any busted tile is 5-10$ down the drain.

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

I get around 12$ per month and 7$ of it goes for a bus pass, so something costing 10$ or more, because they sell them at store only in big quad packs is a lot of money to me. Plus this is just material, am sure you need tools and the knowladge to use it, any busted tile is 5-10$ down the drain.

I seriously doubt anyone is asking you personally to foot the terrain bill for Frontline Gaming.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Everyone understands it takes time to build terrain. That isn't an excuse, that is a basic thing the organizers should account for. The previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not, but the crux of the issue is still the same: their choice of terrain given makes for inferior games, it would be nice of them to fix that. Maybe it takes money, maybe it takes time, still a thing that should happen for the greater good of the game and community.

I think they did great job, maybe trolling most of the old terrain was mistake, because they did not manage to put the some amount of terrain like the previous years, but it was more than enough to have decent games.
They asked multiple times people to help them build more terrain and it seem they worked super hard. I`m sure they did not spare time or money for doing it.
The tournament was amassing and i`m sure they will do even better in the next editions.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Everyone understands it takes time to build terrain. That isn't an excuse, that is a basic thing the organizers should account for. The previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not, but the crux of the issue is still the same: their choice of terrain given makes for inferior games, it would be nice of them to fix that. Maybe it takes money, maybe it takes time, still a thing that should happen for the greater good of the game and community.

I was going to try arguing with you but in the end its not worth it. You are clearly have a solid grasp on the reality of running something this large and I look forward to hearing about the 700+ player events you are going to run in the future. Its going to be the most amazing event ever because you got this on lockdown!

The Salt Mine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Everyone understands it takes time to build terrain. That isn't an excuse, that is a basic thing the organizers should account for. The previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not, but the crux of the issue is still the same: their choice of terrain given makes for inferior games, it would be nice of them to fix that. Maybe it takes money, maybe it takes time, still a thing that should happen for the greater good of the game and community.

I was going to try arguing with you but in the end its not worth it. You are clearly have a solid grasp on the reality of running something this large and I look forward to hearing about the 700+ player events you are going to run in the future. Its going to be the most amazing event ever because you got this on lockdown!

Yeah, seriously.

"Greater good of the game and community" - it's just code for trashing TOs. Creeps me out every time someone utters this phrase.

I think TOs get too much credit, honestly. They know that bad terrain hurts the game, and rely on excuses to say why they can't do it. Then don't fething run a huge tournament if you can't properly fill the tables, as easy as that.

Don't half-ass it and use the excuse of "oh we are trying to fill 200 tables". Maybe don't run a huge tournament if you're going to half-ass the terrain and as a result, skew the game? Instead they do a half-ass job and everyone kisses their ass for doing "such a great job" running it with so many people.

The Salt Mine wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Everyone understands it takes time to build terrain. That isn't an excuse, that is a basic thing the organizers should account for. The previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not, but the crux of the issue is still the same: their choice of terrain given makes for inferior games, it would be nice of them to fix that. Maybe it takes money, maybe it takes time, still a thing that should happen for the greater good of the game and community.

I was going to try arguing with you but in the end its not worth it. You are clearly have a solid grasp on the reality of running something this large and I look forward to hearing about the 700+ player events you are going to run in the future. Its going to be the most amazing event ever because you got this on lockdown!

Aren't you chipper today.

I understand very well that it takes time and money to organize large events. I do dabble with events in other hobbies that encompass thousands of people, thank you very much. I'm not blaming them for anything, they do what they can and want. What is being said though is that if they'd wanted the event to use more terrain, then they'd have done so by planning for that, which includes finding time to make or get enough terrain. Unless someone knows better and it has been stated that the organizers were in a rush and had to go with less than they'd liked, I'll have to believe they did as tournaments usually do and used less terrain than I personally find is healthy for the game.

Seeing this event is on a "large enough" scale that there has to be a large number of people behind it anyway, instead of it being like your run of the mill club tournament with small resources and spaces, it is a thing one can plan for. If you want to argue something, how about the amount of terrain you see fit for an interesting "default" game of 40k and then musing about the amount used in tournaments from that basis? Personally I don't see much interest in sparse tables (unless for narrative reasons in a campaign etc.), since they do not promote interesting tactical play besides target priority unlike more stacked tables, that are often better representatives of real world skirmishing fire fights on the scale that 40k operates anyway. Large tournaments do have an impact on a large portion of the player base and would in my opinion present a more interesting show, too, if they presented more tactically challenging table layouts and fronted those harder. If the current norm for terrain is lacking and shines through in many internet debates, wouldn't it be better if large and visible tournees like LVO went on to shift that norm towards more interesting setups?

Of course it takes hours of work to do that, I just personally feel it's an investment that should be done for the benefit of the game.

Edit: techsoldaten, if you necessarily want to read it that way. I'm not saying anything about TO's being bad at their job, but I do feel they are making decisions that often promote a sort of game I don't find to be the best they could offer by running a bit thin on terrain. I don't think asking better on that front is unreasonable or confrontational.

 Vaktathi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.

This is assuming the bulk of IG firepower is invested in artillery units, which generally is not the case. If the IG player isnt running an artillery parking lot, they're gonna have to deal with it like everyone else, and artillery parking lot lists have weaknesses of their own. The undercosted Tank Commanders certainly care about LoS.

Competitive IG lists do not typically invest most of their points into infantry squads, basilisks, and mortars?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

I get around 12$ per month and 7$ of it goes for a bus pass, so something costing 10$ or more, because they sell them at store only in big quad packs is a lot of money to me. Plus this is just material, am sure you need tools and the knowladge to use it, any busted tile is 5-10$ down the drain.

I am afraid to say that 12$ per month is not the typical income of a human being in a country where GW is a hobby.

Wayniac wrote:
I think TOs get too much credit, honestly. They know that bad terrain hurts the game, and rely on excuses to say why they can't do it. Then don't fething run a huge tournament if you can't properly fill the tables, as easy as that.

Don't half-ass it and use the excuse of "oh we are trying to fill 200 tables". Maybe don't run a huge tournament if you're going to half-ass the terrain and as a result, skew the game? Instead they do a half-ass job and everyone kisses their ass for doing "such a great job" running it with so many people.

See, I feel the opposite.

People who care enough to take the time to organize tournaments have a rare combination of skills, patience and charm. The time the spend putting on events is rarely worth it by any measure, and they face a lot of criticism before and after the event as a reward. They are just amazing human beings who are fun to be around and this hobby thrives because of their efforts.

Their critics are mostly just negative people who excel at trash talk. They rarely do anything for others and delight in attacking those who do. They oversimplify logistical / organizational challenges to the point of malice even though they completely lack a frame of reference from which to judge.

"Critics" are a far bigger issue than terrain. I would be ecstatic if TOs aggressively banned them from all tournaments. This act would raise the quality of the participation pool by several orders of magnitude.

I'd be okay with putting shredded Amazon boxes and rolls of toilet paper on tournament tables if I knew I didn't have to hear someone bad-mouthing the TOs afterwards. I'd pay double to go to an event where the TO was taking a strong stand against these miserable, talentless, self-centered jerks demanding each table looks like something out of White Dwarf. If there was a way for TOs to share information and ensure these people were kept out of the entire circuit, I would probably volunteer because I knew I was doing something to help a group that actually appreciates the effort that goes into putting on an event.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think TOs get too much credit, honestly. They know that bad terrain hurts the game, and rely on excuses to say why they can't do it. Then don't fething run a huge tournament if you can't properly fill the tables, as easy as that.

Don't half-ass it and use the excuse of "oh we are trying to fill 200 tables". Maybe don't run a huge tournament if you're going to half-ass the terrain and as a result, skew the game? Instead they do a half-ass job and everyone kisses their ass for doing "such a great job" running it with so many people.

See, I feel the opposite.

People who care enough to take the time to organize tournaments have a rare combination of skills, patience and charm. The time the spend putting on events is rarely worth it by any measure, and they face a lot of criticism before and after the event as a reward. They are just amazing human beings who are fun to be around and this hobby thrives because of their efforts.

Their critics are mostly just negative people who excel at trash talk. They rarely do anything for others and delight in attacking those who do. They oversimplify logistical / organizational challenges to the point of malice even though they completely lack a frame of reference from which to judge.

"Critics" are a far bigger issue than terrain. I would be ecstatic if TOs aggressively banned them from all tournaments. This act would raise the quality of the participation pool by several orders of magnitude.

I'd be okay with putting shredded Amazon boxes and rolls of toilet paper on tournament tables if I knew I didn't have to hear someone bad-mouthing the TOs afterwards. I'd pay double to go to an event where the TO was taking a strong stand against these miserable, talentless, self-centered jerks demanding each table looks like something out of White Dwarf. If there was a way for TOs to share information and ensure these people were kept out of the entire circuit, I would probably volunteer because I knew I was doing something to help a group that actually appreciates the effort that goes into putting on an event.

That is a bit excessive, though. Pointing out inadequacies in a reasonable manner is not attacking or trashing anyone and you know that as well. I'm on board with you against people who do act like jerks, though, but consider this: if one feels terrain should play a major role in the game, do you think these tables supports that notion?




(pics from Unstable Dice FB.)

Their quality is excellent and what I've heard of LVO as a whole is very positive. Those tables though, they seem very empty and one dimensional (especially so since they lack scatter terrain). Is that bad-mouthing someone if I say I don't find them too interesting GAMEWISE and feel both those attending and watching would have better time if there was more to the "third army" than some binary LoS-blocks?

Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Spoiler:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think TOs get too much credit, honestly. They know that bad terrain hurts the game, and rely on excuses to say why they can't do it. Then don't fething run a huge tournament if you can't properly fill the tables, as easy as that.

Don't half-ass it and use the excuse of "oh we are trying to fill 200 tables". Maybe don't run a huge tournament if you're going to half-ass the terrain and as a result, skew the game? Instead they do a half-ass job and everyone kisses their ass for doing "such a great job" running it with so many people.

See, I feel the opposite.

People who care enough to take the time to organize tournaments have a rare combination of skills, patience and charm. The time the spend putting on events is rarely worth it by any measure, and they face a lot of criticism before and after the event as a reward. They are just amazing human beings who are fun to be around and this hobby thrives because of their efforts.

Their critics are mostly just negative people who excel at trash talk. They rarely do anything for others and delight in attacking those who do. They oversimplify logistical / organizational challenges to the point of malice even though they completely lack a frame of reference from which to judge.

"Critics" are a far bigger issue than terrain. I would be ecstatic if TOs aggressively banned them from all tournaments. This act would raise the quality of the participation pool by several orders of magnitude.

I'd be okay with putting shredded Amazon boxes and rolls of toilet paper on tournament tables if I knew I didn't have to hear someone bad-mouthing the TOs afterwards. I'd pay double to go to an event where the TO was taking a strong stand against these miserable, talentless, self-centered jerks demanding each table looks like something out of White Dwarf. If there was a way for TOs to share information and ensure these people were kept out of the entire circuit, I would probably volunteer because I knew I was doing something to help a group that actually appreciates the effort that goes into putting on an event.

That is a bit excessive, though. Pointing out inadequacies in a reasonable manner is not attacking or trashing anyone and you know that as well. I'm on board with you against people who do act like jerks, though, but consider this: if one feels terrain should play a major role in the game, do you think these tables supports that notion?

Spoiler:

Excessive implies insincerity. My perspective is stated honestly and clearly.

People who say the TOs did the job "half-assed" or calls the work of a mostly volunteer force a "travesty" are the problem. Justifying such comments with "the greater good of the game and community" is really just cover for attacks on the efforts of creative, intelligent people trying to put on a good event.

I would never want to be in a community with people capable of such nastiness towards fellow hobbists. Can't understand why others choose to accept these people and believe TOs are being too nice by allowing them to participate.

That terrain looks fine. Not great, but fine. I would be willing to accept much less in exchange for a better pool of participants.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Their quality is excellent and what I've heard of LVO as a whole is very positive. Those tables though, they seem very empty and one dimensional (especially so since they lack scatter terrain). Is that bad-mouthing someone if I say I don't find them too interesting GAMEWISE and feel both those attending and watching would have better time if there was more to the "third army" than some binary LoS-blocks?

Yes. Mostly because complaints have not been about the terrain but about the efforts of organizers and the claims that their efforts (or lack of) somehow dimish the game.

It's pretty sick, attacking the work of unpaid volunteers working for the enjoyment of a group of hobbists. It's kind of like telling someone their army's paint job sucks, only you're saying it to dozens of people at the same time. If you were part of my FLGS and said something like that, you would be made to leave and never come back.

There's a big difference between constructive criticism and spitting on the work of others. This has nothing to do with your expectations of quality and everything to do with the nature of the hobby. Sorry someone did not meet your expectations, that's no reason to attack them personally or as a group. Stop trying to pretend this is about your personal preferences.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

While we're talking context...
A, How many people entered the LVO this year?
B, How much did they pay to enter?
C, How many years is it reasonable to assume you can use this set of terrain for before you need to replace it? I'd assume more that a single event, but...

 Dysartes wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

While we're talking context...
A, How many people entered the LVO this year?
B, How much did they pay to enter?
C, How many years is it reasonable to assume you can use this set of terrain for before you need to replace it? I'd assume more that a single event, but...

That terrain is perfectly functional and uniform across all tables. It offers both sides the same benefits and disadvantages. It's about the level of quality one could expect to see mass-produced by a group of hobbyists.

What specifically are you complaining about?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

While we're talking context...
A, How many people entered the LVO this year?
B, How much did they pay to enter?
C, How many years is it reasonable to assume you can use this set of terrain for before you need to replace it? I'd assume more that a single event, but...

660 - the 40K ticket covers the tournament venue only and was $80 iirc. 660 entered. So, ~$53,000. A Vegas venue 3 day weekend buyout that has room, tables, chairs, A/V, and internet for 660 people will likely exceed $15,000. Then you have to consider the hefty number of hours put into planning, organizing, communicating, and so on.

Indeed those terrains are a bit light compared to what i'm used to. No wonder that players don't value cover if the tables are like that.

Still, if i remember correctly the exact layout of the missions is described in the tournament pack, so everyone had a clear idea of what to expect.

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And $10 for 1 6x4 will do a full table of terrain. Its like that so costly or something....

I get around 12$ per month and 7$ of it goes for a bus pass, so something costing 10$ or more, because they sell them at store only in big quad packs is a lot of money to me. Plus this is just material, am sure you need tools and the knowladge to use it, any busted tile is 5-10$ down the drain.

Luckily the tournament is paying for it and not you..... And are you 12yo? $12 per month? Is that your allowance?

Within the context of the LVO, it was acceptable terrain. I would be fine with it.

If you want it to be different, volunteer and make a difference. If you should to the LVO next year with 350 pieces of terrain, you wish to donate to the effort, I'm sure it will be accepted.

techsoldaten wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

While we're talking context...
A, How many people entered the LVO this year?
B, How much did they pay to enter?
C, How many years is it reasonable to assume you can use this set of terrain for before you need to replace it? I'd assume more that a single event, but...

That terrain is perfectly functional and uniform across all tables. It offers both sides the same benefits and disadvantages. It's about the level of quality one could expect to see mass-produced by a group of hobbyists.

What specifically are you complaining about?

Who said anything about complaining? I'm just looking for additional points of context to go with Daedalus' example scenario, using real-world event numbers as a basis.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's put this in context

2 cliffs
3 large buildings
2 medium buildings
2 area cover
3 other pieces of terrain

Multiple by 330

660 cliffs
990 large buildings
660 medium buildings
660 area cover
990 other

That's just about 4,000 pieces of terrain. If each (being exceedingly generous) costs an average of $5 to make and take one hour that's $20,000 and 500 8 hours days of work.

While we're talking context...
A, How many people entered the LVO this year?
B, How much did they pay to enter?
C, How many years is it reasonable to assume you can use this set of terrain for before you need to replace it? I'd assume more that a single event, but...

660 - the 40K ticket covers the tournament venue only and was $80 iirc. 660 entered. So, ~$53,000. A Vegas venue 3 day weekend buyout that has room, tables, chairs, A/V, and internet for 660 people will likely exceed $15,000. Then you have to consider the hefty number of hours put into planning, organizing, communicating, and so on.

So, post-venue we're talking a theoretical budget of approx. $38k, with various costs associated with it in addition to the cost of the terrain.

This is where the question of how many years you think you can use the terrain for comes into play - if we can get three years out of your terrain set, for example, then we're really only using ~$7k of the budget for each year towards it. Four years, and we're down to $5k, etc.

Didn't someone say that LVO replaced all their terrain this year? Wouldn't it've made more sense to do a phased approach - replace 1/3 of the terrain each year over three years, for example, assuming the old stuff was still serviceable?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


IG definitely are the gunline that craps all over the "you're just not using enough terrain lolz" argument. More terrain makes them infinitely stronger because it just increases the odds that you won't be able to hit them and they will be able to hit you with all their LOS ignoring nonsense.

This is assuming the bulk of IG firepower is invested in artillery units, which generally is not the case. If the IG player isnt running an artillery parking lot, they're gonna have to deal with it like everyone else, and artillery parking lot lists have weaknesses of their own. The undercosted Tank Commanders certainly care about LoS.

Competitive IG lists do not typically invest most of their points into infantry squads, basilisks, and mortars?

Looking at the 38 top placing IG lists for 2018 and 2019 available on BoK, not really. What we see usually is the three mortar teams (99pts) to fill out a brigade cheaply (otherwise they're left at home and make no appearance if the IG player isnt running a Brigade), and out of all 38 lists, only two had more than 2 arty vehicles, and the overwhelmingly vast majority had none at all, and I don't think any list had both mortars and arty tanks together. The Infantry Squads are ubiquitous of course, but they also are supposed to be.

So, if we are expecting a couple arty tanks and a trio of infantry mortar squads as typical (at best) in terms of LoS ignoring weapons, adding gobs more LoS blocking terrain isn't going to make these suddenly vastly more powerful, especially if the rest of the list is built around a Castellan, Hellhounds, a Shadowsword, Tank Commanders, etc. The biggest impact is likely to be the increased survivability of the allied detachments of custodes or blood angels.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Spoiler:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I think TOs get too much credit, honestly. They know that bad terrain hurts the game, and rely on excuses to say why they can't do it. Then don't fething run a huge tournament if you can't properly fill the tables, as easy as that.

Don't half-ass it and use the excuse of "oh we are trying to fill 200 tables". Maybe don't run a huge tournament if you're going to half-ass the terrain and as a result, skew the game? Instead they do a half-ass job and everyone kisses their ass for doing "such a great job" running it with so many people.

See, I feel the opposite.

People who care enough to take the time to organize tournaments have a rare combination of skills, patience and charm. The time the spend putting on events is rarely worth it by any measure, and they face a lot of criticism before and after the event as a reward. They are just amazing human beings who are fun to be around and this hobby thrives because of their efforts.

Their critics are mostly just negative people who excel at trash talk. They rarely do anything for others and delight in attacking those who do. They oversimplify logistical / organizational challenges to the point of malice even though they completely lack a frame of reference from which to judge.

"Critics" are a far bigger issue than terrain. I would be ecstatic if TOs aggressively banned them from all tournaments. This act would raise the quality of the participation pool by several orders of magnitude.

I'd be okay with putting shredded Amazon boxes and rolls of toilet paper on tournament tables if I knew I didn't have to hear someone bad-mouthing the TOs afterwards. I'd pay double to go to an event where the TO was taking a strong stand against these miserable, talentless, self-centered jerks demanding each table looks like something out of White Dwarf. If there was a way for TOs to share information and ensure these people were kept out of the entire circuit, I would probably volunteer because I knew I was doing something to help a group that actually appreciates the effort that goes into putting on an event.

That is a bit excessive, though. Pointing out inadequacies in a reasonable manner is not attacking or trashing anyone and you know that as well. I'm on board with you against people who do act like jerks, though, but consider this: if one feels terrain should play a major role in the game, do you think these tables supports that notion?

Spoiler:

Excessive implies insincerity. My perspective is stated honestly and clearly.

People who say the TOs did the job "half-assed" or calls the work of a mostly volunteer force a "travesty" are the problem. Justifying such comments with "the greater good of the game and community" is really just cover for attacks on the efforts of creative, intelligent people trying to put on a good event.

I would never want to be in a community with people capable of such nastiness towards fellow hobbists. Can't understand why others choose to accept these people and believe TOs are being too nice by allowing them to participate.

That terrain looks fine. Not great, but fine. I would be willing to accept much less in exchange for a better pool of participants.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Their quality is excellent and what I've heard of LVO as a whole is very positive. Those tables though, they seem very empty and one dimensional (especially so since they lack scatter terrain). Is that bad-mouthing someone if I say I don't find them too interesting GAMEWISE and feel both those attending and watching would have better time if there was more to the "third army" than some binary LoS-blocks?

Yes. Mostly because complaints have not been about the terrain but about the efforts of organizers and the claims that their efforts (or lack of) somehow dimish the game.

It's pretty sick, attacking the work of unpaid volunteers working for the enjoyment of a group of hobbists. It's kind of like telling someone their army's paint job sucks, only you're saying it to dozens of people at the same time. If you were part of my FLGS and said something like that, you would be made to leave and never come back.

There's a big difference between constructive criticism and spitting on the work of others. This has nothing to do with your expectations of quality and everything to do with the nature of the hobby. Sorry someone did not meet your expectations, that's no reason to attack them personally or as a group. Stop trying to pretend this is about your personal preferences.

I see, you might have misread me a bit. While I agree that Wayniac spoke pretty harshly, my first comment on things being half-assed referred to previous year's event (at London, if I recall correctly?) that had large issues with playing space and barely painted blocks of terrain without any detailing in them, that was in the very meaning of the words, rushed and half-assed. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough when I said "the previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not", meaning that LVO was indeed not a travesty, more like a missed opportunity. I'm not calling LVO's TO's half-assing anything, okay? On the contrary, I like the quality of LVO's works, just saying I'd prefer there to be more of it to make the games more interesting.

Does this clear the intention for you, techsoldaten? I love and appreciate volunteer work and the creative side of the hobby those organizers help to build with their efforts. I'm not attacking them, merely commenting that if they could provide more terrain, they could facilitate better games and as a large and visible event in the scene foster an atmosphere where people in general would be more amenable to the idea that sparse tables might not necessarily be the norm to strive for.

If this still sounds like a personal attack, I do not know what to tell you.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I see, you might have misread me a bit. While I agree that Wayniac spoke pretty harshly, my first comment on things being half-assed referred to previous year's event (at London, if I recall correctly?) that had large issues with playing space and barely painted blocks of terrain without any detailing in them, that was in the very meaning of the words, rushed and half-assed. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough when I said "the previous situation with half-assed and rushed blocks was a travesty and LVO was not", meaning that LVO was indeed not a travesty, more like a missed opportunity. I'm not calling LVO's TO's half-assing anything, okay? On the contrary, I like the quality of LVO's works, just saying I'd prefer there to be more of it to make the games more interesting.

Does this clear the intention for you, techsoldaten? I love and appreciate volunteer work and the creative side of the hobby those organizers help to build with their efforts. I'm not attacking them, merely commenting that if they could provide more terrain, they could facilitate better games and as a large and visible event in the scene foster an atmosphere where people in general would be more amenable to the idea that sparse tables might not necessarily be the norm to strive for.

If this still sounds like a personal attack, I do not know what to tell you.

Oh, I think I see now. Your first name wouldn't happen to be Dindu, would it?

Thank you for understanding.

No, I know of no Dindus

My only loss came from a game against Tau where I had no way to block LOS in a meaningful way. The tables pictured above were not as sparse as some of the other tables.

I'm not complaining, but just telling it how it is. So-cal had much more terrain.

But this also highlights why Guard and Ynarri are so good. It doesn't matter what the terrain looks like. They have the upper hand.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Thank you for understanding.

No, I know of no Dindus

I didn't say I understood your points, I said I see what's going on. Dindu Nuffin is a name for people who can't (or won't) admit a problem with their behavior.

You called the work of the LVO TOs a travesty and said it needs to be corrected for the "greater good of the game and community." Then you put up some shady posts after being called out for it, asking some pretty manipulative questions trying to get me to say I was going overboard in my distaste for your comments.

Community is a funny word, it implies shared values across a set of people. Likewise, it implies certain behaviors are unacceptable. Your posts make a big assumption about the nature of the community and the values shared by players.

The 40k hobbyist community I belong to favors a DIY spirit, personal expressions of creativity, mutual respect between members, and a shared love of the game. While there are some members of the community who are extremely gifted in various aspects of the hobby (playing the game / painting / modelling / etc,) we recognize that we all bring a different set of skills and have different thresholds regarding quality of execution. As long as someone tries, we look at that favorably; if someone wants to talk trash about other people's work, that's a big problem.

Let's say you came to my FLGS for a tournament and said the same thing about the terrain (which is all the work of volunteers.) You would get a Bagging for saying that about other hobbyists.

A Bagging means you would be told to put away your toys and get out of the store. One of us would take a slow walk to the back to get a trash bag, which takes about 2 minutes. You would have that time to pack your army, but you'd probably waste most of it arguing you didn't do nothing wrong, we don't own the store, we are going to need to get the cops to make you leave, etc. When someone gets back with the bag, we would scrape your toys into it, toss the bag in the street and watch you chase them. We'd get a picture of your face to add to the Dindu board, to make sure everyone knows you are not welcome. We'd laugh when you call the cops to complain we broke your toys. Even the people who were not there to see it happen would make jokes about it for years, you'd get an awful nickname that would be commemorated on the bathroom wall. I'd name a model in my army after you, one that dies often, and it would be better than a distraction Carnifex because everyone would treat it as a mission to destroy it.

That's how my FLGS community operates, and I see that as the right and proper response to those who want to dump on the work of creative types. The online community seems to have the same values, it's just less effective at enforcing them. In that sense, the best possible action TOs could take is banning you and others with that same passive-aggressive negativity.

I'm feel bad you can't see why spitting on the work of several dozen volunteers is a bad thing, or that you believe some big speech is going to change what you said to mean something else. But there are a hundred ways you could have expressed your concerns, you chose to talk malfeasance, and that's incompatible with the values of any community that values creativity and individual expression. I didn't see an apology in to the LVO people in all those posts of yours, so I assume you are sincere in your beliefs that volunteers making terrain for tournaments have to live up to your standards or be trash-talked on major forums. It's wrong, and I hope in time you will see that.

But the greater good of the game and community is not served by better terrain, it's served by getting rid of the trash. Could care less about terrain, give me toilet paper rolls and shredded cardboard over bad actors any day.