Right, well... I held off commenting in here due to the early big lead I had and I didn't want to start counting my eggs before they hatched.
Firstly, thank you everyone that has voted for my piece. I'm very pleased that you like it so much. I put a lot of (sometimes, maybe too much) effort into my models, and it's great to see the little things being noticed.
Paradigm wrote:Got to be Dr H! So many details and a Diskworld reference!
Thanks Paradigm. I had to add something for Sir Terry as this is what I was working on at the time of the sad news.
As many have said, it was a very difficult decision about what to vote for.
I was faced with a choice of 4, as a short-list, and each had varying amounts of realism / details / story / design and it required quite a lot of scrutiny and head-scratching to pick a favourite.
Now, as to the discussion on what "terrain" means:
Firstly, as mine has been used as an example a couple of times (I don't have a problem with that, I'm cool as liquid oxygen
), I have built this with the intention of it being used as terrain for gaming on and around. It is set on a thick base, and this is intentional for the use of making a modular playing surface. The depth of the base allow me to "dig" down into the surface to make craters / trenches etc. more realistic. As this is the first piece of terrain I have made with this in mind, it does stick out a bit without the other pieces of the "jig-saw" to show it up against.
Also important to note that, while I'm building an army for
40k, I've never played a game of that or any other similar games. So my thoughts are definitely more geared towards the look of the piece, rather than playability.
However, I did give some thought to the playability; the large leafed plants are spaced far enough apart to fit a model's base in and have it stand amongst them (as shown in one of my scale shots, using a model that already has some of those large leaves on it's own base). Also, the tipped over box is placed far enough away from the wall that a model can be placed behind it (also shown in the scale shots). The majority of the broken concrete pieces are flat on the ground (rather than embedded and sticking up) so that models can be placed on top with little chance of falling over. And finally, the variation in the height of the wall gives the opportunity for some models (albeit mainly tall ones) to peek over while gaining cover (the broken section of wall, the UFO and the boxes giving cover to the shorter models).
But yes, maybe for some people, or those that prefer ease of model placement / movement, mine may be a bit cluttered and prove problematic for game play. But as I said, I've not played the game so have made some choices for better or worse.
As I mentioned on my own blog, I am of the opinion that terrain is meant to get in the way. That's what it does in real life, and real life is what I aim to reproduce in all my models (in look and feel). If that means that there will be no neat squads of troops on my table, and the gamers will have to think a bit more about movement, then so be it.
There is a time and a place for simple, uncluttered pieces of terrain. With greater degrees of freedom of placement. That I will admit many of the other pieces here have me beat on. I do not intend to take anything away from any of you.
Now, as to dioramas in a terrain competition. I don't see a problem with it. It's stated in the rules that dioramas that can be used as terrain for gaming purposes are allowed. I can see a gaming table built around a burning airship being an awesome table to play on, there's even the possibility to have many scenarios staged around that.
As Red mentioned, even static models of a diorama can be written in to a gaming scenario as
NPCs.
Cam, while your piece is quite large and you would have to use it as a centre piece of a table. That is still a valid piece of terrain. That is where the large bits go, if only to make it easy for the God-like (but not disembodied) hands of the gamers to reach in. Sometimes, a model will grow by itself, calling for the extra bit of space to call itself complete.
However, if you see it as a problem (and the only problem I see is that you can't have a whole table covered in large terrain) then maybe challenge yourself to make something smaller next time.
But don't try to write yourself off from the competition. You've made a brilliant model, with lots (and lots) of details... and... I like details. If anything, details is what the League of Extraordinary Riveters is all about, your's is a pure as they come... think on that.
OMN has the call as to what is valid in his competition. As your's is up there to be voted for, it is a valid piece for this competition and the rest of us just need to decide whether we like it.
I think that's covered all I had to say.
I'll throw up my customary comments on everyone's pieces after the results (Come ooooooooooooooooooooooon OMN, We've been waiting aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages!
). But these will only be short short versions, not my extra-long, really nit-picky comments.
Good work everyone. Thanks to all the voters (even if not for me). And good luck to all entrants.
Go Me!
Thanks again. Very pleased you like it.
- 670 pts || 
- 354 pts || 
- 46 pts || 
- 106 pts || LoTR - 400 pts (Evil) vs 0 pts (Good) || Space Hulk - 1/35 || Deathwatch Overkill - 0/50
(thought I'd join in 
