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.

The problem with the citadel woods is how much space it requires to transport something like 2-4 of the things. That's why I traded out the trees for mine, an upside down 50mm base will fit perfectly in the spaces for the trees, just fill it in with some gs and work on making some nice replacements with aquarium plants and such.

Even treating them as components to your army, I would be perfectly fine with someone using another producer than GW, just as I am fine with people using miniatures from other companies than GW. I always love me some conversion!

I bet the Citadel trees and your Sylvaneth look stunning together, though!

Solaris wrote:
Even treating them as components to your army, I would be perfectly fine with someone using another producer than GW, just as I am fine with people using miniatures from other companies than GW. I always love me some conversion!

I bet the Citadel trees and your Sylvaneth look stunning together, though!

That'll probably be my first AoS project posting...
@n0t_u - I'm intending to add some arcane ruins to mine just to keep things different.

RoperPG wrote:

Solaris wrote:
Even treating them as components to your army, I would be perfectly fine with someone using another producer than GW, just as I am fine with people using miniatures from other companies than GW. I always love me some conversion!

I bet the Citadel trees and your Sylvaneth look stunning together, though!

That'll probably be my first AoS project posting...
@n0t_u - I'm intending to add some arcane ruins to mine just to keep things different.

I look forward to seing that =)

RoperPG wrote:

Solaris wrote:
Even treating them as components to your army, I would be perfectly fine with someone using another producer than GW, just as I am fine with people using miniatures from other companies than GW. I always love me some conversion!

I bet the Citadel trees and your Sylvaneth look stunning together, though!

That'll probably be my first AoS project posting...
@n0t_u - I'm intending to add some arcane ruins to mine just to keep things different.

Sounds good, I just went the tall grass route like pokemon pretty much.
I think the most important thing likely is having the citadel woods base so it takes up the exact same physical space, still provides a little los blocking cover but not as much as it did.

That's very nice looking, and a lot easier to transport I assume. Well done!

Agreed, they look very nice. I do like the idea of using terrain as a tactical advantage rather than just being "a forest". But having to many of them can be considered TFG and generally over-elm-ing, as already discussed.

The problem with the TFG dilemma is that, at least in the competitive sense, if the rules allow it then expect it in that environment.

In a non competitive for fun sense its a whole different thing.

 auticus wrote:
The problem with the TFG dilemma is that, at least in the competitive sense, if the rules allow it then expect it in that environment.

In a non competitive for fun sense its a whole different thing.

There are different degrees of competitiveness, though. In every group of players there are acceptable and unacceptable levels of using the strongest combinations you can think of. It's not a black and white scale of "people playing to win" and "people playing for fun", there's a full spectrum in between those two.

Thats true. I assume in a competitive environment that all legal rules will be in play and that people will push the rules to extremes, but thats because thats what the competitive environments where I am do.

In a competitive environment a citadel wood would be the optimal choice as its the standard that is set. A home made piece of terrain made of the same size and shape should not be discounted simply because it is not exactly the citadel wood. If there is no noticeable difference or modeling advantage made with it any reasonable TO should rule that it is acceptable. If anyone would rule against a home made piece of terrain that is not the same size and shape (including the trees on it) should not be a TO in my opinion. If the ruling of the tournament would be to require citadel woods only that is something that should be pre stated in the packet. This is my opinion on the matter each competitive event will have its own ruling and as always it is best to check with the organizers prior to the event.

Even in a friendly game a home made piece of terrain that was built to provide a modeling advantage with the rules for the terrain I would have an issue with. It is just too gamey and frankly the definition of TFG just like the same guy who builds all of his space marine on bases kneeling so they are a half inch shorter. Let common sense prevail otherwise d6 it or don't play.

It's a staple of the army back to 5th ed, iirc? I ran Drycha wood spirit army and was a tree surfing fool.