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.

If the Marauders have come to put people off, and I think now it is starting to dominate discussion, Mantic need to distract our attention with shiny things until the Marauders are in a good state to reveal again.

So, how about some more pics of those cool looking rebel guys, and a feature on them? Or even a Forge Father (I heard those heavily armoured guys were made yonks ago, by someone who had seen them - may not be remembering that correctly however!) What about some fully painted and assembled terrain, perhaps even with a battle report featuring the Alpha/Beta version of the rules?

It's amazing how momentum can shift with a KS - it's up to Mantic now to try and push things forward, and create a more positive atmosphere with this KS I think.

 Pacific wrote:
If the Marauders have come to put people off, and I think now it is starting to dominate discussion, Mantic need to distract our attention with shiny things until the Marauders are in a good state to reveal again.

I don't know. I like that they are addressing the issue front and center instead of doing magical hand waving and going "look over here guys!".

I suspect while there is a strong desire for terrain here on Dakka it's not the gamer norm

most folk will play at a store/club/somebody elses house and they'll have terrain already

so while the hardcore loe terrain the casual gamer (and that's who make big KS projects big) isn't so interested. Sure they'll buy the Deadzone, but they're not going to add on lots of extra terrain

I think you're right Orlando!

 Azazelx wrote:
I personally don't care if they're hunched Rogue Trader Orks, "apelike" modern 40k Orks, hunched, longfaced Mantic Orx or Apelike DreadBall Orx as long as they're well sculpted, properly-proportioned to the template they go with, and don't look like the amateur/semi-pro not-warhammer figures that used to come out in the mid-late 1990's

I want the Ripper suit back to the concept art where it is a power-lifter machine with a cockpit driver and not just fancy armor. One-handing those guns, it needs some gumption in the design. I also think there is room for 'Orx holding rifle like he is shooting' poses. After collecting hundreds of ork models, something has to be said for the simplicity of a non-dynamic infantry man. It is ok if he is just standing there with a gun instead of running, throwing a grenade, leaping over a box or checking his iPhone. Just stand there and be a nice simple model.

 Alpharius wrote:
I think you're right Orlando!

I think Dwarfen Forge disagrees with Orlando

Enough about the Orx... when is something being done about that butt-ugly captain for the Enforcers? How can they make such an awesome one for Warpath, and try to push that lame figure for Deadzone?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think you're right Orlando!

I think Dwarfen Forge disagrees with Orlando

I'd split RPG terrain off from TTG terrain personally

This is based of my circle of friends & folk I've known over the years, a lot more of the people I played pen and paper RPGs were likely to take a 'turn' at running a game (and thus perhaps having a desire to pick up bits a pieces for doing so), even if it was just play mats, giant sheets of graph paper etc.

I'm not certain if this is because RPGs could be squeezed into smaller, less optimal spaces (so more of them felt comfortable offering to have a go) or because one person in the TTG group was so much better (and keener than the rest of us) on building tables

(I know this is just anecdotal, but it is what I've known over the years)

The terrain is also very similar price to GW terrain (which tends to be one of the better value things they sell). If you look at this from a terrain value focus, the kickstarter doesn't provide a great value (and doesn't look like it will benefit from any stretches).

I feel that for may people its not a good deal yet, it lacks variety and the deal could be more a single battlezone atm is a single 2x3 one story building, not impressive to be honest, if mantic wants to see the terrain pledges go in big, they must work their terrain value.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think you're right Orlando!

I think Dwarfen Forge disagrees with Orlando

I'd split RPG terrain off from TTG terrain personally

This is based of my circle of friends & folk I've known over the years, a lot more of the people I played pen and paper RPGs were likely to take a 'turn' at running a game (and thus perhaps having a desire to pick up bits a pieces for doing so), even if it was just play mats, giant sheets of graph paper etc.

I'm not certain if this is because RPGs could be squeezed into smaller, less optimal spaces (so more of them felt comfortable offering to have a go) or because one person in the TTG group was so much better (and keener than the rest of us) on building tables

(I know this is just anecdotal, but it is what I've known over the years)

The thing is RPG players and Wargamers are different groups with different needs.

Deadzone terrain is middle of the pack quality for a market super saturated with alternative products for customers who have a large percentage of people who need zero terrain.

Dwarven forge was a top of the market product for a market starving for cheaper alternatives for customers who usually sell large terrain batches to DMs or clubs.

The Deadzone terrain (outside the counts as skyshield) has almost no appeal to me. It seems too focused for a specific gaming system, and doesn't appeal as generic wargaming terrain. I may use parts for conversions of custom terrain, but it will not be the same as a deadzone terrain. I don't need enough to fill a 4x6 table because I want varied terrain, not a table full of static-looking 3"x3" blocks. Gorkamorka bulkheads were great for making custom terrain, not 3"x3" bricks. I feel like I can make my own terrain better or buy better alternatives ont he market which are not deadzone specific. So it limits your appeal to the wargaming market.

How is it you feel limited to making 3"x3" blocks out of these panels?

I think we'll see more interest in the terrain once the ruins battlezone is unlocked.

The thing with making enclosed intact buildings is that it takes up a lot of tiles, even if you're using the city of death stuff.

Whereas with ruins you only need half or less than half the amount of plastic to cover the same kind of area in gaming terms, and it's easer to move minis in and out of, too. So from the gamer POV, you want open stuff, lots of gangplanks, ruins, lots of dense cover but still easy to move around in.

So, while one regular battlezone is indeed a 9" x6" intact building (+ 2 spare 3x3 tiles, and a bunch of half tiles/ walkways etc.), a ruined one could easily double that coverage.

Also, you can't get a 9x6" single storey intact building out of a GW CoD kit, just not close to being possible, so I'm certain there's a good bit of value there.

$5 per sprue isn't bad however you look at it. It's possible that going with the connectors is a factor making it more expensive though, since that's one connector sprue that has to be provided for every 3 other sprues instead of just requiring glue and having a 4th building sprue in place of the connector sprue.

Would be interesting to get the option to buy the terrain without connector sprues, they do glue together without them.

 CptJake wrote:
How is it you feel limited to making 3"x3" blocks out of these panels?

Because there are dozens of better alternatives for terrain. And these, while might make a few nice ruins, if I fileld a 4x6 table with them, it simply doesn't appeal to me.

Regardless how you slice it, these will make some varient of a 3"x3" brick of a building. Did I miss something which allowed these to be all sorts of random dimensions like 2"X7" or 5"x5"?

I would have bought sprues of Necromunda bulk heads $5 a piece, and they really are not as flexible as these Mantic ones will be.

The biggest hurdle for them is the mind set of gamers, like myself, who are used to making their own terrain, as opposed to buying it.

I'm for strike force, and I appreciate the terrain tiles that will be part of it, but I won't be buying more of those tiles beyond that.

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
How is it you feel limited to making 3"x3" blocks out of these panels?

Because there are dozens of better alternatives for terrain. And these, while might make a few nice ruins, if I fileld a 4x6 table with them, it simply doesn't appeal to me.

Regardless how you slice it, these will make some varient of a 3"x3" brick of a building. Did I miss something which allowed these to be all sorts of random dimensions like 2"X7" or 5"x5"?

Availability of 'better' alternatives (for your definition of better) don't make your statement about 3"x3" accurate. You may be limited to multiples of 3 (or 1.5, see below) for any given run of a wall, but you could easily construct L or T shaped buildings for example, have a large warehouse type building, and so on. To declare 3"x3" bricks as the only possibility is disingenuous.

If this is what the sprue ends up looking like, the two half panels give quite a bit of flexibility I would think.

nkelsch wrote:

Regardless how you slice it, these will make some varient of a 3"x3" brick of a building. Did I miss something which allowed these to be all sorts of random dimensions like 2"X7" or 5"x5"?

Aside from LEGO terrain, no commercial made terrain is going to deliver the same flexibility as scratch built terrain.

If you don't like them that's cool.

This thread really isn't a pulpit to discuss the pros and cons of prefab terrain. This kickstarter will include them no matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is.

They actualy lost out on the terrain stuff mostly from me, simply due to bad timing.

Shortly before the kickstarter was announced, I had just bought the completely Galeforce 9 Halls of Heroes kits, plus extra pre-painted ruined walls. That and my GW stuff pretty much means that I'm just going to get a couple of extra 'ruined' style battlezones to add variation to my strike team pledge.

 adamsouza wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Regardless how you slice it, these will make some varient of a 3"x3" brick of a building. Did I miss something which allowed these to be all sorts of random dimensions like 2"X7" or 5"x5"?

Aside from LEGO terrain, no commercial made terrain is going to deliver the same flexibility as scratch built terrain.

If you don't like them that's cool.

This thread really isn't a pulpit to discuss the pros and cons of prefab terrain. This kickstarter will include them no matter what anyone's opinion on the matter is.

I didn't say I didn't like them... As a Wargaming terrain collector, I only need a few pieces, not an entire table full, hence why I feel that this type of terrain didn't explode the way people assumed it would.

A single terrain base of pre-fab terrain on its own looks fine. Cover an entire table with it, and you get boring an repetitive. I feel like wargamers who focus on terrain have loads of different sizes and styles from lots of manufacturers, and each piece being different is part of the appeal. As for RPG terrain, people literally want a 4x6 table of dungeon corridors. So different groups want different needs. If I was big into Custom Space Hulk, that is another design which wants endless 'exactly the same' terrain.

I think some games want pre-fab and repititon, warmgaming likes variety. Deadzone looks to be reliant on a 3x3 grid, but people may not know if dreadzone will pan out in the end, so the fallback is using these models and terrain for other wargaming games... which means I only need a few bases of terrain from this type. The more variety and other options they give, the more they will draw out of people like myself looking for wargaming terrain first, Deadzone terrain second (or not at all for people not interested ind eadzone as a game and want just terrain)

Yeah, the half-tiles are what really adds potential. There will be triangular pieces and angled connectors with the landing pad set too.

With some minimal cutting (one of the barricade pieces in half), you could create a small balcony.

The half tiles can be turned into gangplanks between buildings, either covered or uncovered.

The barricade pieces can form battlements on top.

You can even take the two half tile pieces and turn them into one regular tile to get 7 3x3's out of each sprue.

You say repetitive, I say consistent. I worry that mixing terrain from three manufacturers plus adding in some scratch built stuff is going to lead to a table that looks messy.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I think you're right Orlando!

I think Dwarfen Forge disagrees with Orlando

I'd split RPG terrain off from TTG terrain personally

This is based of my circle of friends & folk I've known over the years, a lot more of the people I played pen and paper RPGs were likely to take a 'turn' at running a game (and thus perhaps having a desire to pick up bits a pieces for doing so), even if it was just play mats, giant sheets of graph paper etc.

I'm not certain if this is because RPGs could be squeezed into smaller, less optimal spaces (so more of them felt comfortable offering to have a go) or because one person in the TTG group was so much better (and keener than the rest of us) on building tables

(I know this is just anecdotal, but it is what I've known over the years)

Orlando is still right, but Zweischneid loves him a 'clever' zinger whenever and wherever possible...

Anyway, I'd love to hear opinions as to why this one hasn't gone quite as well as many expected after the terrain and FF and Asterians were introduced...

I've made a quick sketch for everyone to show a building that can be made with the contents of a single battlezone, it's a bit more interesting than the plain 9"x6" single storey that Mantic uses in their sample pic:

 Lansirill wrote:
You say repetitive, I say consistent.

I agree.

What actually draws me to the Dead Zone terrain is that I will have a table full of terrain that looks like it all came from the same builders.

Standard Template Construction FTW !!

That, oddly enough, doesn't look massively dissimilar to my 40k's "Administrators House" I had built...

 scarletsquig wrote:
I've made a quick sketch for everyone to show a building that can be made with the contents of a single battlezone, it's a bit more interesting than the plain 9"x6" single storey that Mantic uses in their sample pic:

You could make a 'ruin' by taking the right wall and putting it on top of the bases then put the little one on top. Leave the little bases along the bottom (make a base for it out of cardboard) to form a fenced area.

So:

1x1
2x1
4x4

The moral of the story though is that it's modular, there's a million things you could do.

that's 21 tiles when the battle zone has an unspecified tile sections number that is 6 per sprew for 3 sprews so 18.

I would hazard a guess that the terrain has at last some issues on been vague and hazy, we know just the number of tiles, not what tiles there really are, the "X" tile for example is useless on your building but if you get 3 of them, one in each sprew it detracts 3 more tiles from the equation.

I think mantic needs to kill the sprew idea as a generic term and go with battlezones 2 generic sprews with core tiles and 2 or more specific tiles to get a building type done.

maybe even go to two battlezones buildings.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
that's 21 tiles when the battle zone has an unspecified tile sections number that is 6 per sprew for 3 sprews so 18.

As you can see from the sprue pic posted above (they're having a separate sprue for connectors in the final version but I imagine that's all that will change), you get 2x half tiles on each sprue, which can be combined into a full tile if you want. So, 21 in total.

Going on what Scarletsquig has drawn, think this would really benefit from Mantic doing some mock-ups of various ways that the terrain can be set up.

Even if it's not 100% accurate to the finish product, some battlefield pics with some nicely painted minis on it would do a lot to help advertise.

That still leaves you with the unusable X tile.

Yes connectors will be in a different sprew now, but my point still stands, details are not existent.

I think they need to organize this a bit more and present it better.