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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.

Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.

Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?

I have thankfully never heard this argument before. I'd either just laugh hysterically pack my stuff up, or I'd laugh hysterically and shoot the place. Who's to say which would happen.

Really, Frazzled? I'm disappointed in you.

...

I'd have thought you would unleash your wiener dogs.

 auticus wrote:
Its a thing I've noted on various facebook groups over the past few months (particularly when sylvaneth came out). There was a big stink on a fb group yesterday that had like 200 responses.

My local community has also had some people complain about custom terrain, saying its somehow illegal or not fair.

Just exlcude those persons from all gaming in the future, like they have some unmentionable form of rash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?

To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?

Yes! Page 2!

Newb. Back in my day (RT) it was drink booze, eat pizza, and make loud pew pew noises!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I've noticed a new movement that has picked up over the past couple of years (mainly dealing with games workshop games) where homemade terrain is called "illegal" and that a lot of people are refusing to play against homemade terrain because its not legal to use in games.

Creating homemade terrain has been a staple of wargaming since the 70s. Games Workshop itself sold a book on How To Make Wargaming Terrain (which has two printings, one with a red border and one with no border that is blue). Making terrain used to be as much a part of the hobby as playing the game itself.

Is this something that is becoming more common do you find or is this just a phenomenon that I myself am only starting to see and its not really reflective of the community as a whole?

I have thankfully never heard this argument before. I'd either just laugh hysterically pack my stuff up, or I'd laugh hysterically and shoot the place. Who's to say which would happen.

Really, Frazzled? I'm disappointed in you.

...

I'd have thought you would unleash your wiener dogs.

That would be inhumane, unleashing nature's perfect killer on some unsuspecting doritio drenched kid? That sounds...like I have to try it...

Wayniac wrote:
Honestly, I've always played it as you remove the trees when you move into the woods, that's why they come off the base. Although that might be other games bleeding in

I vaguely recall that was the idea when GW first released them, that you could just remove the trees and any models that were on the base counted as being in the forest to avoid having to fiddle around getting models to fit in and around the trees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
I have a friend who plays Sylvaneth. He traced the woods base on cardboard and cut out a bunch of templates. Sprayed them green. That's it. Flat green bases. Those were the woods he wanted to use. Dude... no. I want to see trees. "But they get in the way and I can't place all my models on the tree base." Tough. Those trees are supposed to be there and you're not supposed to be able to fit 30 Dryads on one tree stand. Clear modelling for advantage.

I'd be fine with that because to me the point of the removable trees was so you didn't have waste time trying to fit 27 Dryads around the trees when you can instead just remove the trees and put down 30 of them without having to play a game of reverse dryad jenga.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I believe they have forgotten the Most Important Rule. It has been a long time since I bought a GW rulebook. I assume the Most Important Rule is still in them. Is it?

To crush your enemies, laugh at their tears, and mock their short comings?

Yes! Page 2!

Newb. Back in my day (RT) it was drink booze, eat pizza, and make loud pew pew noises!

And stay up wwaaayyy too late, into the wee hours of the morning.

The Auld Grump - this practice predates RT by more than a decade....

I remember when 40k had something as simple as area terrain. Ahhh, those heady days before the stupidity of true line of sight and every copse of trees having exactly three trees with no undergrowth.

 auticus wrote:
The main complaints that I hear locally (not on the facebook group arguments) is that a citadel wood can be seen through so its not fair if someone makes a forest that actually blocks line of sight and that citadel woods should be the only thing used otherwise you're modeling for advantage by blocking line of sight.

You want to know one of the many reasons that I play Classichammer instead of the modern rules? Area terrain. Life was much simpler when the entire blob of woods was treated as a line of sight blocking mass than trying to figure out how much of a whip antenna/spear tip one could see through the leaves of a tree.





Damn it, now I have to get a game of 6th WFB or 3rd 40K in this weekend...

I wrote a long post saying there's nothing stopping you from saying that woods grant a cover save to all models in them regardless of actual obscurement, then I looked at the Terrain Datasheet for the "Twisted Copse", ie the Citadel Wood (depicted here with no leaves); Difficult Terrain, all models in it gain a 5+ cover save regardless of obscurement.

For everyone who only allows cover in a Citadel Wood if the model is actually obscured, you're cheating.

I kinda get the idea that terrain purchased as part of the total points of an army should meet some specifications (still don't think it has to be some name brand though), but beyond that, I find anymore concern about terrain strange in terms of gaming. I am a pretty casual gamer who recognizes they are getting more and more casual in their play style focusing more on the spectacle.

Nearly every game I am the one setting up the table with an admitted bent toward denser rather than sparser terrain. This is done not for any in game advantage, but rather, because I like an interesting looking table. I try to do the best I can with the terrain pieces I have avaible to make the table look like a place that could exist, but still playable, or did exist as I tend to play mostly historicals. When I gamed at a FLGS, often people would come over to see what was going one because of my elaborate table setups (real lights always seem to bring them in).

Only recently, have I tried making scratch built terrain with a couple of buildings. I want to make more but I have limited work space as an urban apartment dweller. I would be shocked if someone declined a game because some of perfectly nice looking terrain pieces were scratch built. Especially if I think they really tie the table together nicely.

News to me. I could see it happening in a GW store for reasons, but that's about it.

That's the one place I wouldn't expect to see complaints about the terrain. For the simple reason that every GW I've ever been in has their own terrain, so you don't get a choice!

On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.

In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.

The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.

Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.

I don't know if anyone was suggesting those were different things.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.

In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.

The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.

Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.

But you can understand the poor reception it receives, based on the fact that it runs contrary to one of the central pillars of the hobby? That of creativity and modelling skills of creating terrain. Something that GW itself helped to espouse for nigh on thirty years before they started to go through (I think what we will look back on it as) a nob-phase.

This isn't something that has affected me personally fortunately but I feel for the people that it does affect, even if it is just newbies starting out and that can only play in a GW store.

As I said, doesn't matter what you think of the decision, it was a straight forward business one. Sell a £12 book, or sell multiple sets of £12 terrain.

I don't know that it does really affect anyone. I mean, it came a time when GW had been seriously developing their terrain range, so to compare this approach to one taken when they didn't really sell their own terrain isn't a fair comparison.

But hey - not justifying it nor attempting to justify it. Just giving first hand info on why it happened

My manager at the time had just completed a beautiful waterfall board....he then raffled it off.

I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.

 notprop wrote:
I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.

I felt that way, then one day I saw woods made with pubic hair and sticks.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the subject of GW not allowing their stores to use non-off-the-peg terrain, a decision made circa 2009/early 2010, I can throw some actual first hand light on that, as I was working as a till monkey for them at the time.

In short, the theory was 'if we don't sell it, we shouldn't be advertising it'. And that stemmed from the concept of each shop's boards being an interactive advert for the game, and GW's products.

The demo armies wouldn't be OOP or scratch built models after all. There's little point in that. The aim is intro game, sell them a starter set and paints.

Whatever you think of that decision, can people please stop pretending there's some kind of Machiavellian pantomime going on behind the scenes? Because there's not. There's just business decisions you don't agree with.

There's a big difference between using GW terrain in a GW store (if the terrain works we always used local terrain, else supplemented if not enough), and then saying its illegal or somehow cheating.

Oh absolutely.

For me, the line is 'have you included that as part of your army?'

If the answer is yes, I'd prefer you use off the peg.

If it's just random scatter terrain, whether or not it has in-game rules, not so much.

 notprop wrote:
I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.

This issue came up again in another AOS facebook page. It seems to come up fairly regularly in the AOS fan groups along with the arguments for and against.

 auticus wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I still find this whole thread utterly perplexing.

This issue came up again in another AOS facebook page. It seems to come up fairly regularly in the AOS fan groups along with the arguments for and against.

It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately

I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.

The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.

The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.

Yeah but this argument seems to stem from actual terrain for the battlefield, e.g. forests and hills and buildings, not specifics like the Wyldwood, which I can't understand since GW's selection of actual terrain is very limited anyways, and doesn't fit all boards anyways. One of the most annoying things about playing in a GW store is being "forced" to use the stupid realm of battle board (and not even the shattered dominion board, the original one with the molded hills), and having the mighty choice of: Citadel Woods (not Wyldwood), Ophidian Archway, Baleful Realmgate, Numenous Occulum, Dragonfate Dais or massive Khorne castle, along with some old WHFB towers/houses (not sure from what set, but looks Empire) and maybe a garden of Morr or some walls. I guess all our battles take place in the same area :(

What I wouldn't give for actual home made terrain so we could fight in the realm of metal, or realm of fire, or some such, and have things actually look different.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.

The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.

Vermis wrote:I think the real problem is applying special rules to official terrain kits.

It might be a business decision and not particularly machiavellian, but it's an underhanded thing to do that benefits GW rather than gamers. I struggle to see any benefit to gamers. It funnels them into buying a specific, overpriced GW kit (Woods, even! It's like sticking special rules on static grass. GW static grass, mind.) and by appearances, further drives into them the mindset that GW's strange ways of hobby gaming are the only 'right' way. Even if it's just a few people around Auticus (and I doubt it) it leaves a bad in my mouth.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh absolutely.

For me, the line is 'have you included that as part of your army?'

If the answer is yes, I'd prefer you use off the peg.

If it's just random scatter terrain, whether or not it has in-game rules, not so much.

This is how I feel. For regular terrain that DOESN'T have specific rules, there is no issue. If it's a piece of terrain that you've chosen as part of your army, I apply the same conditions I would for any other models. I expect what you bring to be the same size and shape as the official model. If you bring a custom converted Ork Bastion, it needs to be roughly the same height and width as the GW model. It needs to have one heavy bolter per cardinal direction. If you bring a custom Sylvaneth Wyldwood, it should have the same footprint and have three roughly tree sized things where the official trees would be. I feel this is a very reasonable expectation.

For AoS, the Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a huge offender. The Sylvaneth Allegiance gains a major advantage from having this terrain in their army. Allowing them to change the shape/size/number of trees can have a very measurable impact on the game. In other words, it's incredibly easy to accidentally model for advantage when not using the official model.

It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately

You're in the group. I've seen you post in there so I know you are. Two threads lately got shut down recently. In fact another post came up a few days ago with the picture of the citadel terrain book and the mods immediately locked it, but it garnered like 170 likes.

I don't think that they are indoctrined fanboys. Every argument against it is entirely from the gamist point of view where it gives an advantage to model things like forests that block line of sight and "screws over" shooting armies and that if citadel woods don't really block line of sight then no woods should block line of sight.

Or that the 40k buildings have windows so don't block line of sight so if you scratch build a building with no holes or windows then you are "screwing over" shooty armies by blocking line of sight and thus only GW official terrain should be used so you aren't "screwing over" shooty armies.

I think they wouldn't have a problem with home made anything so long as it doesn't block line of sight. I think thats the key thing here. They want to be able to shoot across the table because GW terrain would allow that for the most part and if they can't then you are "screwing them over" and modeling for advantage.

I've also seen the arguments where wood elf player scratch builds sylvaneth woods that are a lot bigger than citadel woods and thus "modeling for advantage".

Wayniac wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think it comes down to stuff like Citadel Woods and Sylvaneth Wildwoods.

The War Scroll for Wildwoods specifies it's Citadel Woods - so I can understand people being reticent if their opponent is just plonking down any old trees in that instance.

Yeah but this argument seems to stem from actual terrain for the battlefield, e.g. forests and hills and buildings, not specifics like the Wyldwood, which I can't understand since GW's selection of actual terrain is very limited anyways, and doesn't fit all boards anyways. One of the most annoying things about playing in a GW store is being "forced" to use the stupid realm of battle board (and not even the shattered dominion board, the original one with the molded hills), and having the mighty choice of: Citadel Woods (not Wyldwood), Ophidian Archway, Baleful Realmgate, Numenous Occulum, Dragonfate Dais or massive Khorne castle, along with some old WHFB towers/houses (not sure from what set, but looks Empire) and maybe a garden of Morr or some walls. I guess all our battles take place in the same area :(

What I wouldn't give for actual home made terrain so we could fight in the realm of metal, or realm of fire, or some such, and have things actually look different.

All you have to give is a bit of money to the hobby shop for supplies and your time. I think that there is a misconception generally that terrain is a pain/difficult because models take ages to paint. Not the case in my opinion, terrain is allot easier with a little planning.

I reckon I made enough scenery for a 6' x 4' Warmaster table (so 10mm) in a week of evenings, so approx. 20 hours. Not AoS bubblerealm stuff I grant you but rocks/lava is no more difficult than trees. Also never had a problem with the trees!

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh absolutely.

For me, the line is 'have you included that as part of your army?'

If the answer is yes, I'd prefer you use off the peg.

If it's just random scatter terrain, whether or not it has in-game rules, not so much.

This is how I feel. For regular terrain that DOESN'T have specific rules, there is no issue. If it's a piece of terrain that you've chosen as part of your army, I apply the same conditions I would for any other models. I expect what you bring to be the same size and shape as the official model. If you bring a custom converted Ork Bastion, it needs to be roughly the same height and width as the GW model. It needs to have one heavy bolter per cardinal direction. If you bring a custom Sylvaneth Wyldwood, it should have the same footprint and have three roughly tree sized things where the official trees would be. I feel this is a very reasonable expectation.

For AoS, the Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a huge offender. The Sylvaneth Allegiance gains a major advantage from having this terrain in their army. Allowing them to change the shape/size/number of trees can have a very measurable impact on the game. In other words, it's incredibly easy to accidentally model for advantage when not using the official model.

Yup. And as they have ways to create more Wyldwoods, I would expect my opponent to treat it like any other summoned unit - ain't got the right models, your summoning fails' - specifically because they have additional rules.

Now, there are exceptions to that broad rule. For example, I bought some 3D asteroids for X-Wing (before Disney sat on the producer). They're nice enough, and greatly improve the visuals of the game. But the producer did something clever. The various bases in the kit matched the outline of the Asteroid markers that come with X-Wing - so for rules interaction, they're workable.

Same could be applied to home made terrain. Buy a single Citadel Wood for measurement, and make sure your wood's base is the same dimensions (draw round it, cut it out. Rinse and repeat). Right there, you're onto more of a winner. But varying that shape is right out for me.

 auticus wrote:

It does boggle the mind how any true hobbyist could argue that it's illegal to use homemade terrain. I mean, are they just GW indoctrinated fanboys or what? Also I must not be in that group because I don't recall any of those arguments coming up again lately

You're in the group. I've seen you post in there so I know you are. Two threads lately got shut down recently. In fact another post came up a few days ago with the picture of the citadel terrain book and the mods immediately locked it, but it garnered like 170 likes.

Oh those posts, I thought you were talking about another one about it after those. I recall the two that got locked, didn't read through it too much but it seemed rather heated for like zero reason.

I don't think that they are indoctrined fanboys. Every argument against it is entirely from the gamist point of view where it gives an advantage to model things like forests that block line of sight and "screws over" shooting armies and that if citadel woods don't really block line of sight then no woods should block line of sight.

Or that the 40k buildings have windows so don't block line of sight so if you scratch build a building with no holes or windows then you are "screwing over" shooty armies by blocking line of sight and thus only GW official terrain should be used so you aren't "screwing over" shooty armies.

I think they wouldn't have a problem with home made anything so long as it doesn't block line of sight. I think thats the key thing here. They want to be able to shoot across the table because GW terrain would allow that for the most part and if they can't then you are "screwing them over" and modeling for advantage.

I've also seen the arguments where wood elf player scratch builds sylvaneth woods that are a lot bigger than citadel woods and thus "modeling for advantage".

Yeah, that sounds like people just want to have unobstructed shooting to everything; I would bet those are probably Sylvaneth and Tau/Eldar players that are complaining? The scratch built sylvaneth woods I get as being illegal (unless matching exactly) because scratch building one is the same as scratch-building a model. But for regular terrain it sounds stupid.

What would be the purpose of having a wood that does not block line of sight?

Even the GW one should block line of sight as it is representative of a wood. If you modelled a realistic wood you'd never get your bloody hand in it to move a model much less fit a model in it either.

All the woods we tend to use have loose trees (on 25mm bases) that can be shifted about to suit the models inside. LoS is blocked beyond 2cm/2" in/trough depending on scale of game.

I think I'm going to go to my club tonight and hug every man jack of 'em for not being like the sort of people that would come up with that sort of nonsense. Of course then i'll be TFG that hugs everyone but they'll get used to it!

The citadel woods don't really block line of sight. You can pretty much see through it in almost every angle.

Because the game uses true line of sight, you can see through a citadel wood and thus freely shoot through it.

People show up with woods that have a ton of trees on them that actually do block true line of sight and this gives shooty players rage because they feel that they are being modeled against since if only citadel woods were available, they could still shoot through everything with impunity.

In AOS and 40k both systems use true line of sight and woods do not have a rule that says they block line of sight.