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.

 Desubot wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
From what I've seen of MDF with a very basic paintjob (one color, wash, drybrush) I think it's acceptable. It seems about like when people paint SM one color, paint their shoulder pads a different color and pick out the boltgun and Aquila with metal. It hits the point for me where imagination can take over. Especially when most of the time things are at arm's length.

I can definitely appreciate better paintjobs and better terrain, don't get me wrong. It's just that basic level of detail pulls me out of the "green plastic army men fighting over books and soda cans" mentality and puts me into a more immersive state of mind.

 warhead01 wrote:

MY only problem for terrain is hills. Sure we can make foam hills but I was elevated ground for about 1/3rd of the table. I want it to look like it's worth fighting over.
My problem is where am I going to store something like that! I'm kidding, I have a shed I just have to clean it out and get it organized. ..... One day.

Maybe you could make nesting hills like the nesting buildings people mentioned?

I've been trying to figure out how to do more sloping hills as opposed to the stepped, ziggurat looking hills. I mean, they seem like they would be easy to make, but I would guess 40k models would tip over alot when placed on them.

You could get into vacuum formed hills.

not a lot of people do it but it could be a very affordable way to make nesting terrain.

I had never looked into vacuum-forming before you mentioned it. Thanks, it looks like it could be handy for several things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 sockwithaticket wrote:
Not every piece of terrain has to accommodate models, it'd just be a LoS blocker that looks cool.

... and takes up half the board. Looking at that, it's precisely the sort of structure that troops would occupy, for cover if nothing else. Having it sat there inviolate while the battle rages round it just doesn't make sense for me, so it stops being cool.

So why not come up with rules for units to occupy it? That might be difficult in a tournament setting, but it shouldn't be in a friendly game.

I was going to say if people are paying that much for a set piece that takes up a corner of the board, even an aesthetically rich detailed one like that, players shouldn't have to pretend to have units in/atop it. GW charges similar for pre-distressed buildings but models can interact with the spaces.
However, going from this image from their gallery hinting at interior vestibule details, and in checking the assembly instructions there's actually a few of ways models could occupy it in games depending on how it's constructed by the players.
A feature they should probably be advertising up front.

 sockwithaticket wrote:
Not every piece of terrain has to accommodate models, it'd just be a LoS blocker that looks cool.

True though keep in mind effect this will have on game balance. Let's just say the big cathedral somewhere around middle of board(doesn't even need to be dead middle) with dark eldar army vs say orks(one where it would be most painful). Basically what would happen is dark eldars park their vehicles top of the building. Good luck then with orks shooting them as they can't get there(no hanging in walls mid air). And that thing is big enough dark eldars could park their whole army there 100% immune to h2h leaving orks dueling in gun duel against dark eldars.

Wanna bet what's the result is going to be like?

You do need to pay attention to playability. Which is why one of my terrain projects is on backholder as it would be basically be super unplayable piece except maybe for specific scenario while being major PITA to storage.

To be honest the issue around models sitting on top of terrain and being untouchable isn't a terrain issue as such, but a daft rules issue - this is a wargame, or should be, gimpy ways to stop things fighting shouldn't be here, stuff should be going bang.

be that "can't hit you, will hit the building" or some rule about always being able to hit a floor above or below (so you fight and clear floor by floor)

would prefer to have wonderful looking terrain and adapt the rules, than build terrain around the rules (which seem to change pretty often, with the common factor of being rubbish)

MDF is good for buildings and other angular structures, it needs work to stop it looking like MDF though, but you end up with multi-floor, stackable buildings where you can get at the inside when it matters - and if they are designed well act as storage boxes for other terrain

For me, I find a lack of terrain that I am looking for. I have had an eye out for thematic space elf terrain for as long as I have been in the hobby. Also thematic terrain for Warmachine.

Plenty of options for high fantasy and gothic that look great if your willing to pay for it.

I am an avid scratch builder of terrain .. I'm certainly not the best out there, but I do think that a thematic board full of 'Functional' terrain can be key to a fun tabletop experience.

that said, I simply cannot afford the GW lines of building in the quantity I would like to have a different / modular game nearly every time.

what do I mean by functional? well, from a purely 40K perspective it has to be classified - is it ruins (for infantry rules interaction), blocks LoS or has sight holes (a la ITC ground floor rules) can it be climbed, is it dangerous ... and on some occasions is it destructible?

and this IMHO is where I think OP was looking .. not at the terrain itself .. more of the "Does this piece apply any of the rules?" because in 8th edition... if it's not a ruin, it doesn't get rules as they all interact horribly with certain different unit types (infantry, beasts, cavalry, swarms, vehicles, bikes, monsters... and more)

To me .. a Lump of expandable foam rock is not functional outside of LoS blocking, models that can't go in it.. on it .. traverse up and across etc. it's just not really interactive enough for me.

The other thing I'm still, a year on, getting to terms with is how any model that is 99% obscured but is actually not ON a hardboard base for a terrain piece still does not get any cover.

and I know the answer is houserules.. but those get thrown out as soon as you go to a semi competitive shop for a RAW game with those not of your own social group.

and lastly ... I think the game suffers from not having BUNKERS that troops can embark into ... I would like Chapter Approved this year to re-introduce bunkers.

As well as other fortifications that are not imperium only, like the bastion and the landing pad ..

generic buildings that have a rough set of dimensions that any faction can scratch build or even buy MDF / 3D printed etc. that can really open up the game with some protection from T1 alpha strikes.

tneva82 wrote:

 sockwithaticket wrote:
Not every piece of terrain has to accommodate models, it'd just be a LoS blocker that looks cool.

True though keep in mind effect this will have on game balance. Let's just say the big cathedral somewhere around middle of board(doesn't even need to be dead middle) with dark eldar army vs say orks(one where it would be most painful). Basically what would happen is dark eldars park their vehicles top of the building. Good luck then with orks shooting them as they can't get there(no hanging in walls mid air). And that thing is big enough dark eldars could park their whole army there 100% immune to h2h leaving orks dueling in gun duel against dark eldars.

Wanna bet what's the result is going to be like?

You do need to pay attention to playability. Which is why one of my terrain projects is on backholder as it would be basically be super unplayable piece except maybe for specific scenario while being major PITA to storage.

If it doesn't work for GW rules, then so be it. Not the only game in town these days, albeit a major portion of the market. There are plenty of producers who create and market their stuff specifically for the likes of Infinity where LOS blockers and impassable areas are both necessary and force tactical decisions.

Terrain isn't lagging behind quality wise, as most people have said here it's the will to buy decent terrain over cheaper stuff that can be thrown on a table.
As a person who spends probably twice as much on GW terrain than actual models I can say it come along just as much as the models in the 30 yrs I've been collecting.

In what respect? Manufactured scenery is of a similar quality to most miniatures so no, but the range is restricted comparatively so yes.

Personally I've built a few scratch-terrain pieces but would never consider a scratch-mini, so no.

In terms of actually playing games, in my experience absolutely. Most people I know are content to use almost no terrain and no LOS blockers. A lot of them are perfectly happy with piles of books on a table and a blanket over it all to make 'hills'.

*shudder* Not me. I'm going to build a 40K Mamayev Kurgan with a 13" tall Motherland Calls! right in the middle of it..

To answer the original question -- no.

There is more terrain available now than ever before. There are all sorts of kits, ready built pieces including aquarium ornaments, detailing parts, mats, and it's easier than ever to get stuff for building your own terrain.

MDF, Foamcore and hot glue guns are now cheap and easily available. Battery operated tools, and so on. Spray paint, textured spray paint. Decal paper and home printers.

All easy to research and order from the Internet with a few clicks, plus video tutorials on how to do it.

If there is a discrepancy between the availability of terrain and the look of people's tables, it's because of the players.

Agree with Killkrazy, there's a massive range of stuff available with minimal googling, and even cheap MDF can look good with a bit of work, any shortcomings are mostly on players

It's the player's attitude to terrain, which lags behind the rest of their hobby, that leads to Shakespearean 'hills'.

I'd rather have a table of MDF buildings than your typical 40k table of 2 hills/buildings and 1 tree

Most players underestimate the amount of terrain needed to cover 25% of the table.

And I'd argue that 25% isn't nearly enough.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most players underestimate the amount of terrain needed to cover 25% of the table.

25%? Sparse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I'd argue that 25% isn't nearly enough.

I second this. The more terrain on the table, the better.

I feel people also underestimate the importance of variety when it comes to terrain.

Now I'm not necessarily advocating trees and rivers and swamps and industrial and bastions and the kitchen sink on one board. Though if you want to, go for it.

No, dear reader. I'm talking about differing LoS blockers. Differing heights. That sort of thing. Lift the game up off the tabletop with towers and walkways, and for my money, you get a far more enjoyable game. Especially at Skirmish scale, where those best able to exploit terrain will have an easier time of it.

For larger scale including 40k, one just needs to remember to leave room enough for all unit types to move around relatively freely etc.

To my mind, too many tables look like Airsoft arenas rather than actual battlefields.

I think the biggest aspect is that most terrain is too bulky to pack down and carry around. Play mats on tables and table segments like GW makes at least make the board itself possible to transport quite easily; but a lot of bigger terrain can be hard to pack and move around regularly alongside a full army - baring in mind that armies like Tyranids and some others, now have a lot of BIG models and thus carrying is already trickier than it was 20 years go or so (heck things like the hive tyrant alone are twice as big as they were back then and that's before you add wings)

Plus high detail bigger terrain is not always going to be able to be taken apart so can't be broken down for transport - plus setting up such terrain can be eating into play time.


I think a lot of clubs that don't have on-site storage can show this; esp those that also don't have large club budgets to pay for high grade large terrain (or local gamer willing to donate such terrain items).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For larger scale including 40k, one just needs to remember to leave room enough for all unit types to move around relatively freely etc.

Actually I think couple strategically placed spots where bigger stuff can't fit through adds up to aesthetics and provides more tactical challenges. In AT planning to create couple narrower roads where reaver+ won't fit. Maybe even some that are passable only by knights....MAYBE warhound side stepping(which means halved speed).

There's reason why infantry is still essential in warfare. Ability to traverse smaller pathways is one of them.

Yes, I was thinking that. (although a Warhound is on a round base, so sidestepping won't get it into a smaller gap ). In the case of AT, remember buildings don't need to be tall to block movement, just have a large footprint (a Warhound on an 80mm round base can actually clear a slightly larger area than a Reaver whose base is only 70mm front-to-back).

Well my buidings are big enough most block at least reaver if not warhound. Many block even warlord