Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: FramFramson on May 19, 2018, 09:24:24 PM
-
(https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/33037669_1765122110201335_8840643184666083328_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=75eb78dc9fae3011720546923bc5231e&oe=5B92B6B2)
London GT knocked it out the park with this weekends events.
Amazing what £10 entry and £40 per event pays for.
-
What are we even seeing? Other than where polystyrene packaging goes to die.
-
I assume some tournament?
Have been to Warhammer World a month ago. Magnificient tables, and then 3 people playing on one of the larger tables with a huge bunch of entirely unpainted Forge World miniatures (easily worth a small car). Similar sad view tbh.
-
'London GT' makes me think it might mean pic was taken at AOS Grand Tournament?
-
Yes, some sort of big London Warhammer tourney.
I mean, sure, that's a lot of tables to have to provide scenery for, but come on!
-
Nice mats.
-
That's sad, with minimal effort and budget these styrofoam pieces could have easily been turned into rocks, walls, ruins or ziggurrats only using some hobby knives and textured paints. Would have looked way bettter.
-
That's sad, with minimal effort and budget these styrofoam pieces could have easily been turned into rocks, walls, ruins or ziggurrats only using some hobby knives and textured paints. Would have looked way bettter.
Scratch it up a bit with fingernails, then hit it with Plasticote spray even!
-
Even spraypainting them would have looked better. Yes I know that spray paint melts this stuff. Nice texture at least.
-
This is a tournament - the players probably don't want ambiguous terrain upsetting their super powergaming meta copied-from-the-internet beardy army lists of super beat-everyone power. ;)
-
Yes, that’s pretty sad, but TBH, not exactly unusual. I’m sorry to say such sights are not uncommon even here on LAF these days.
Usually followed by some chump chiming in to say ‘Wow! That’s a great table!’
At which point I usually think ‘Wow! You must want your fecking eyes tested’.
But then I am a well known ‘elitist’ when it comes to wargames aesthetics... ;) :D
The fact that so many people can recognise that this looks absolutely awful gives me some hope...
-
Yep those are a disgrace to be honest, I had to Club mates going to this today (and tomorrow) and was meant to be the new must go too 40k event for southern England.
-
Yes, that’s pretty sad, but TBH, not exactly unusual. I’m sorry to say such sights are not uncommon even here on LAF these days.
Usually followed by some chump chiming in to say ‘Wow! That’s a great table!’
At which point I usually think ‘Wow! You must want your fecking eyes tested’.
But then I am a well known ‘elistist’ when it comes to wargames aesthetics... ;) :D
The fact that so many people can recognise that this looks absolutely awful gives me some hope...
I've never seen anything close to solid chunks of plain polystyrene in this thread's first post here on the LAF.
-
Yes, that’s pretty sad, but TBH, not exactly unusual. [...]
I don't game at all- never really have actually and most likely never will properly (mind you, that that hasn't stopped me from occasionally buying/ downloading rule books) but I can understand people using this kind of set up for rules testing etc, even for spontaneous impromptu games.
Not for a tournament or a show game though. Hell, if I'd game I'd like the scenery to be somewhat more... immersive? Kinda makes you wonder if the mats are blushing underneath...
Probably shouldn't comment though- I'm very unreliable when it comes to hobby stuff, as real life keeps getting in the way and in all fairness- this just might be a case of relying on someone else that failed to deliver and havin to quickly cover it up.
.:edit:.
'coever it up' maybe 'cover it up' even, no?
-
I was in the tourney once in the place where WH40k tournament took place at the same time.. All of their terrain and tables looked lame.. Some were unplayable IMHO at all (canyon table where only terrain were canyon walls on the opposite board edges) some were poorly made or superficial, rest were just ugly.
I have nightmares toi this day.. and my tables arent first class themselves..
They have to make 100+ tables most probably.. so simplicity iw understandable to me. But thats just awful...
-
There is a sort of grim amusement in how the dismal just stretches on seemingly forever. lol
-
World's most expensive figures, World cheapest terrain lol
-
Where did you get that quote from Fram? Please tell me the original poster is being sarcastic when they say ‘ knocked it out of the park!’?
-
World's most expensive figures, World cheapest terrain lol
yet the terrain would be marketed as high end top quality playing pieces. 50 pounds per piece of GW brand polystyrene.
-
Ugh, the first impression is that of a quickly churned out most basic of tables, with obviously a shortage of paint to even cover the polystyrene fully. But then comes the realisation that all tables are exactly the same, and made to be entirely symmetrical. Heaven forbids you'd have any kind of interesting terrain, where choosing board sides means something, different armies get different advantages depending on where you are for what kind of mission. Probably thought up by the same people who want to take randomness out of dice games. At this stage, why not simply play chess, to ensure both sides are identical and balanced (just to decide who plays white of course.. best of 100 games, 50 with each?).
-
Wow those tables are truly awful.
The immersion is the best thing about wargaming in my opinion and this set up does nothing.
I don't enter tournaments but if I paid £50 and was welcomed by this I think that I'd ask for my money back.
Did the event sneak up on the organisers?
With such a small investment in time and basic craft items they could look exponentially better.
-
I don't know if books and mugs for terrain is one step below what is seen in the picture, or would be an actual upgrade in terms of terrain quality lol
Jesus christ, I would turn at the door if I saw something like that, regardless of the entry fee....
-
Very depressing
-
But then comes the realisation that all tables are exactly the same, and made to be entirely symmetrical.
Yeah I noticed that.... they are all identical! They actually seem to have gone to a lot of effort to make it so. How odd.
-
Oh dear :( :(
I can understand that they wanted every table to be the same, to not give a terrain advantage, but I’m sure they could have put some actual effort into it.
-
We are running an event in October (Bolt Action at the Ribble Rumble in Stockport 20-21 October - sold out for now!) our starting point was what terrain do we have. Between the three of us we could muster 10 decent tables easily, and another 2 at a squeeze, then we'd be looking to organise borrowing terrain.
If we can't fill the table to our satisfaction then we won't even try to put it on.
saw pics of an event in Europe where they use flat card taped to the table as terrain. I realise it was a feature of the system needing exact terrain but why bother painting things if you are playing on a 2d surface?
-
Well, normally I don't have much time for the self-appointed hanging judges of the hobby, those with the annoying tendency to say "If you don't do the hobby how I do the hobby then you are doing the hobby wrong!", because if people are having fun that's all that matters.
But even I think that is a bit sad.
-
Well, normally I don't have much time for the self-appointed hanging judges of the hobby, those with the annoying tendency to say "If you don't do the hobby how I do the hobby then you are doing the hobby wrong!", because if people are having fun that's all that matters.
But even I think that is a bit sad.
I'm the same - I think everyone should do the hobby their way if they're enjoying themselves, but these tables look depressing. No amount of strong imagination could get immersed in that! :)
-
Competetive gaming often leads to depressing terrain. As I was exiting the Warmachine competition scene, 2D terrain was becoming popular. Still, the photo in this thread is almost worse then flat pictures of roofs and canopies.
-
Where did you get that quote from Fram? Please tell me the original poster is being sarcastic when they say ‘ knocked it out of the park!’?
A friend of mine found it on Facebook. And yes, the comment is quite plainly sarcastic.
-
I'd certainly feel cheated if I'd paid to play there!
Still, in a weird way the pic makes me happy. Some of the most fun wargames I've ever played were on tables (or actually, a kitchen floor) with books for hills etc when just getting into the hobby!
-
The tables are depressing, it's true, but also funny.
I keep laughing when I see the image because you know that someone, somewhere in charge looked this over and said "Yeah... Right, that'll do."
-
Here's an interesting question.
We've got some partial information: £40 per person per event is £80 per table and maybe... I don't know... let's say 3 events throughout the day? So £240 per table per day. No idea if they ran the event for multiple days, which would add more to the take. Could be more, could be less, but at a minimum (2 events) they'd have taken in £160 per table.
Of course, as most of us know, these events don't make vast amounts of profit (well, maybe this one did ::) ) and most of the funds would be used in renting the hall, paying staff, providing prizes, etc.
So, let's say you're running a tournament like this. It's far too huge to hand-make terrain or use club terrain - this means something industrial, okay fair go. But what could you put together with even a fraction of the proceeds? It looks like they've got some half-decent mats there, but I have no way of knowing if they had them already or bought them, so let's just lump that in with the costs we don't know about.
So without knowing the residuals for terrain and assuming you have the mats, I'll just throw out some figures: What could you actually buy in terms of mass cheap premade stuff if you had, say, £10 per table? What about £20? £50?
-
Go to a nearby stream and pick out a bunch of big rocks spend the money on a mallet to smash them up to nice chunks. lol
-
I've seen and played on equally ugly tables, yet not at a public event. To be fair, though, there were other tables with much better terrain (i.e. recognisable as such).
Also, LAF is perhaps the wrong place to discuss tournament gamers' attitude to wargaming. There seems to be little – if any – overlap and thus for the organisers understandably little reason to provide 'immersive' terrain to players who simply don't care anyway (cf. top right):
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/33/1034-200518105854.jpeg)
We just shouldn't bother.
-
A bunch of things from TTcombat would suffice
https://ttcombat.com/collections/sci-fi-gothic
Fairly cheap as far as MDF terrain goes and all they need is some spray to be half decent (which is 200 times more decent than that... at least)
-
I’m with Mad Doc Morris on this one. A quick glance at twitter also suggests there are unhappy attendees, apologetic organisers and... painted terrain under the tables.*
*That the players can choose to use but might not satisfy the tournament rules or something. Who knows. But it looks like an acknowledged fuck up.
-
So without knowing the residuals for terrain and assuming you have the mats, I'll just throw out some figures: What could you actually buy in terms of mass cheap premade stuff if you had, say, £10 per table? What about £20? £50?
While the budget looking at your estimated calculation doesn't look high, I might imagine the cost of scenery spread over multiple events. I don't know much about tournaments but guess these are held several times per year. So your scenery budget of £10 comes (say four events per year) at £40 per year and as scenery is kept, you can add more and more each year. Just a thought though.
-
Well, normally I don't have much time for the self-appointed hanging judges of the hobby, those with the annoying tendency to say "If you don't do the hobby how I do the hobby then you are doing the hobby wrong!", because if people are having fun that's all that matters.
But even I think that is a bit sad.
You can have it both ways. That is a shit-looking event setup, but the "judges" are still an excrescence of narrow-minded, puffed-up cock cheese.
Is there a mirror in that photo, or do those tables really stretch out to infinity?
Adieu mes braves, FB and blogs serve me better these days.
-
from the same event Necromunda Table
-
I can't really speak to conventions, I gave up on them a long time ago, after being bashed just one too many times by a heavy backpack being worn by a bad smell.
I think it is important that public shows show off the best of the hobby, but tournaments are an unknown world to me. I think those are probably more for the players, and if they are happy that's all that matters.
Personally speaking, I'm perfectly happy to play on a lovingly-handcrafted table with miniature works of art (such as some of the ones done by LAFers that I have been privileged to get a game on), but then again I'm equally fine with playing with my best mate who cares nothing for aesthetics and often fields unpainted figures fighting on an old dining table cloth. I like spending time with my friends and I'm not going to snub them because their idea of what gaming is about differs to mine. Having fun is what matters to me.
-
Each table is symmetrical with 5 identical pieces per side in mirror positions.
Each table is identical to the first one
and there are a lot of tables.
So perhaps this thread is being overly harsh (I don't know).
I have no idea whether there is a 'historical' significance to the set-up, but clearly there has been a need to produce the terrain on a sort of industrial scale, ensuring measurements and look etc for each table are exactly the same. If one divides effort by time, then even what we see will have taken an age to build, room to store and an effort transport (both ways?).
I think the end result here alone must have been an exacting job, making a more detailed or exciting or aesthetic lay-out would clearly have had build implications.
I would think that once people get set up and get into the game and those of a competitive streak having other concerns to think about, the terrain probably becomes a less of an issue.
I know nothing of tournaments or of this game system or of the administrative burdens to get something like this up and running, to be able to know whether to call these bad tables, but am left wondering whether this thread is unduly harsh, not that I care, my own tables are not works of art.
-
We've got some partial information: £40 per person per event is £80 per table and maybe... I don't know... let's say 3 events throughout the day? So £240 per table per day. No idea if they ran the event for multiple days, which would add more to the take. Could be more, could be less, but at a minimum (2 events) they'd have taken in £160 per table.
It's £10 to get in to the tournament, then £40 per event. Most of the events involve at least five games spread over two days, so it's not quite as lucrative as you're suggesting. But you'd still think they could afford some decent scenery at that price.
The price of some of the seminars is just ridiculous, £30 for a one hour class on airbrushing, just you and 19 other people. https://www.lgtpresents.co.uk/lillegend (https://www.lgtpresents.co.uk/lillegend)
-
Oh the Horror,the Horror: this takes me back at least 30years-No never again you can't make me play on such a table!!! >:(
-
You can have it both ways. That is a shit-looking event setup, but the "judges" are still an excrescence of narrow-minded, puffed-up cock cheese.
Adieu mes braves, FB and blogs serve me better these days.
Not sure I understand this...
So you too think it looks shit - but all the other people who previously said they think it looks shit, are ‘an excrescence of narrow minded, puffed up cock cheese’?
Is your farewell to LAF final then? (Don’t forget to drop a PM to the admins if you would like your account deleted).
-
If they'd just painted the white polystyrene grey or brown it would look much better.
If they spent a few minutes using a hotwire to take the harsh edges off first it'd look better again.
This wouldn't have cost much time or money.
-
Paying to go to THAT!?...40k players have no self respect
-
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/when-someone-tries-to-hurt-your-feelings-but-youve-been-2245783.png)
-
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/when-someone-tries-to-hurt-your-feelings-but-youve-been-2245783.png)
I’d say you took a pretty good stab at it.
That picture of the table doesn’t even shock me anymore; I was in West Edmonton Mall yesterday and the yogurt stand next door was bigger than what was a flagship GW store.
Unpainted, unsquared, loose foam and paying a high price to play? All sounds right to me. lol
-
Well I spent £5 and had an afternoon looking at some absolutely brilliant tables and chatting with loads of interesting people at Partizan on Sunday. Bargain!
-
I think the best part of Partizan was the palpable sense of being overwhelmed that Grubby Tanks had over their coming to realise what they'd taken on with acquiring Redoubt... :D
I've made huge quantities of terrain out of polystyrene in a hurry and on a budget in the past, but I bothered to at least paint the stuff....
-
Although the tables look naff I think people are missing the point. This is a 40k tournament, I doubt whether the attendees would actually want more complexity of terrain, the layouts are all near perfectly symmetrical and mirrored to have absolutely the minimum complaint about any table being 'imbalanced'. The blocking terrain has to be tall enough that there is no getting down to eye level to have a 10 minute argument about whether being able to see exactly one mm of a figure counts for Line of Sight.
I imagine for organisers and competitors matters are too 'serious' for aesthetic concerns like pretty terrain or a natural looking table, it is a matter of mathematics (and also of preventing some of the more abysmally over-competitive from having the judges over for every single line call).
-
Although the tables look naff I think people are missing the point. This is a 40k tournament, I doubt whether the attendees would actually want more complexity of terrain, the layouts are all near perfectly symmetrical and mirrored to have absolutely the minimum complaint about any table being 'imbalanced'. The blocking terrain has to be tall enough that there is no getting down to eye level to have a 10 minute argument about whether being able to see exactly one mm of a figure counts for Line of Sight.
I imagine for organisers and competitors matters are too 'serious' for aesthetic concerns like pretty terrain or a natural looking table, it is a matter of mathematics (and also of preventing some of the more abysmally over-competitive from having the judges over for every single line call).
I think the title of this thread sums it up: it's not wrong from a rules point of view, it's just very sad
It's sad that it's been boiled down to such a clinical system. May as well use cardboard cut outs (Standard sized of course) and a hex grid.
-
Each table is symmetrical with 5 identical pieces per side in mirror positions.
Each table is identical to the first one
and there are a lot of tables.
So perhaps this thread is being overly harsh (I don't know).
I have no idea whether there is a 'historical' significance to the set-up, but clearly there has been a need to produce the terrain on a sort of industrial scale, ensuring measurements and look etc for each table are exactly the same. If one divides effort by time, then even what we see will have taken an age to build, room to store and an effort transport (both ways?).
I think the end result here alone must have been an exacting job, making a more detailed or exciting or aesthetic lay-out would clearly have had build implications.
I would think that once people get set up and get into the game and those of a competitive streak having other concerns to think about, the terrain probably becomes a less of an issue.
I know nothing of tournaments or of this game system or of the administrative burdens to get something like this up and running, to be able to know whether to call these bad tables, but am left wondering whether this thread is unduly harsh, not that I care, my own tables are not works of art.
I think that’s about right. It may not suit us but - different strokes for different folks, eh? Let’s have a cliché-fest and throw in “live and let live” as well.
Doug
-
Well, they've made their bed and they've got to lie in it.
-
Well, they've made their bed and they've got to lie in it.
Not really made a bed, more of a blanket on the floor.
-
It's twaddle ,
This is nothing more than lack of foresight and imagination.
An event for people that have bought into the whole GW model.
And nobody thought hang on this company does a shed load of terrain to go with their games. What a great promotional opportunity.
May be just may be you could have identical table set ups using mass produced identical pieces of terrain . The company gives away free school starter sets to promote the hobby After all.
If it was just purely about the game why all the different game mats ? Why not just paper table cloths they cost next to nothing and most venues keep them in stock.
-
Another day, another dollar.
-
I think the title of this thread sums it up: it's not wrong from a rules point of view, it's just very sad
It's sad that it's been boiled down to such a clinical system. May as well use cardboard cut outs (Standard sized of course) and a hex grid.
Are we having a go at hexed tables now? perhaps we need some kind of guide so we know which is 'the right way' to wargame.
-
Are we having a go at hexed tables now? perhaps we need some kind of guide so we know which is 'the right way' to wargame.
Not at all, nothing wrong with hexes, we play Check your six regularly :D
I meant if you have removed the need to make a judgement about the terrain in pursuit of clarity then hexes would mean there is no need for pesky range measurement and remove another potential route for disagreement ;) (ie it was a joke)
-
Many a true word spoken in jest.
-
Are you now a platitude bot, Cubs? lol
-
Thank you Rich H.
(https://commanders.simdif.com/images/publish/simdif_0x1518a0720.jpg?1526574163)
(https://commanders.simdif.com/images/publish/simdif_0x13dea2ed0.jpg?1526574163)
(https://commanders.simdif.com/images/publish/simdif_0x167abb40.jpg?1526574163)
-
Are we having a go at hexed tables now? perhaps we need some kind of guide so we know which is 'the right way' to wargame.
I thought he was just having a go at any sort of table with a plain grid.
EDIT: Ah, I see this has already been covered. Pesky new pages.
-
It's not so much about the wrong way to wargame: I've played games where we've made terrain from books and bare polystyrene and toilet-roll tubes and anything else to hand. But that was at home and we weren't charging people to play on it. What consenting gamers get up to in the privacy of their homes is no-one else's business - but at a public event with an admission fee, those tables are pretty shocking.
To me that's the big difference. At an event where you're charging people to turn up and play I'd expect at minimum that the scenery would be painted and held together properly. It's impossible to be absolutely certain but it looks like some of those foam ziggurats are just balanced rather than firmly stuck down.
I don't care about the fact that they're all the same layout and that layout is mirrored - wargames are somewhat abstract and arbitrary anyway, I don't have a problem with the organisers saying 'what we need is some stepped terrain and some LOS-blockers and some terrain to impede troops and some to impede tanks' - or whatever the criteria are that they're going for, that's fair enough I think. So what if that means one player can't exploit advantages another player might not have? Different armies work differently anyway, some are shooty, some are hitty, some are fast and some are durable, some are troop-heavy, some are vehicle-heavy or have a few 'big hitter' models - so players should be exploiting those terrain elements differently anyway.
-
Are you now a platitude bot, Cubs? lol
If the cap fits, wear it.
-
Sad? Probably not from the gamers' perspective. They are looking for practical, fair and non-random tournament tables and they come to an event with a certain mindset. It's about the optimal game experience in the hardcore sense. Having played Warmachine competitively for years I know that these types of tables are great for competitive play where it's all about playing the best game. It's playing wargames as a "sport" and not just as a hobby to sit around the table, chat and have some general fun. If you're deep into the game you don't care about the aesthetics of scenery. You want it to be practical and you want to be 100% sure how it works. So different mindset, different way of enjoying a game. Is it wrong? No, it's just different. To each his own. As long as everybody has a good time, enjoys their free time the way they want to, then hooray!
So sad? No. Not sad.
-
There are two extremes to the wargaming hobby. Those for whom the aesthetics and narrative of a fun and beautiful looking game are primary; and those for whom the rules / a competitive game are the be all and end all. Almost two different hobbies to be honest. That's why we're always going to get these kinds of discussions.
There are of course, also a lot of people somewhere along the continuum in between these two poles.
I do think it's worth pointing out that the history of LAF is rooted very firmly in the aesthetic 'adventure' end of the spectrum (hence the name), not at the competitive - sometimes including unpainted figures on vestigial scenery - end.
Perhaps newer members who aren't so fussed about the look of things, could overlook the occasional outburst from more longstanding members like me, who fondly remember when LAF was largely about great looking figures, models and terrain in games which were fun and cinematic in feel.
Of course, nothing ever stays the same :)
But it's really not about telling people how to enjoy their hobby or dictating a right way or a wrong way. It's just not what some of us are used to, or what this forum was about in its first few years. But yes, LAF is now a broader church. So be it.
I'm sure it's a discussion that will come round again and again...
I'll spare you a complete re-run of my treatise on why it's nonsensical to claim 'it doesn't matter what it looks like' when it comes to an inherently visual form like miniatures wargaming. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't bother playing with toy soldiers at all, we'd just use chits and maps. But that's a whole other thread. Or ten... :D
-
... or perhaps, we'd sit on opposite sides of a table shouting numbers at each other until one player holds up his/her hands saying 'you win, you have better numbers than me'.
-
... or perhaps, we'd sit on opposite sides of a table shouting numbers at each other until one player holds up his/her hands saying 'you win, you have better numbers than me'.
That's Numberwang... ;)
-
Perhaps newer members who aren't so fussed about the look of things, could overlook the occasional outburst from more longstanding members like me, who fondly remember when LAF was largely about great looking figures, models and terrain in games which were fun and cinematic in feel.
But you seem to forget another key part of the LAF ethos in the early days, that all are welcome, no matter how rubbish they are at this kind of thing. If I had been told my tables were "sad" and my painting was shit (which it was) by Alex when I first came here, I probably wouldn't have stuck around to try and get better.
Never mind that some people don't have the time, inclination or storage capacity to make gorgeous new boards for every game - some people don't even like those kind of tables. Myself I find the unsightly gaps one finds where the boards join to be just as much an aesthetic turn-off as some people do a cloth mat "golf course" battlefield. Not to mention that on many such boards half of your time is spent trying to reposition figures so they won't keep falling over on the lovingly-detailed (but hard to stand up straight on) groundwork. So it isn't always just a battle between "Excellence at all costs!" and "I just can't be bothered." Strangely enough, not everyone shares the same aesthetic preferences as the custom board-building set.
The Michelangelo sculptures vs. chits and counters thing again? It's a false dichotomy. There are a world of options in between. Shame on you, Richard! lol I could just as easily say if appearance is so important why spoil it by making it into a game? Surely it would look better as a diorama? You wouldn't have all those pesky individual bases breaking the illusion by making it look unrealistic for one thing.
It seems we have to drag this old chestnut out every few years to pick it to death, but never mind. Captain Blood says his lines and I say mine, neither changes the other's mind and so we go on. As long as it remains a healthy discussion between friends and doesn't descend into petty name-calling then it's all good, I suppose. Shall we do it again in another two years? Is May 2020 good for you, Richard? :)
-
I would suspect that the key issue wasn't funding for terrain but time to prepare it. That seems like a lot of tables to create terrain for and a pretty spectacular screw-up even if you are just going to do basic terrain for each table. Why plan on 50+ tables if you can't build
I would never try to do terrain for an event like this because no matter what you do there is always some group that complains about how this building or that hill screwed up a table and lost them a game. Can't really satisfy that crowd.
Also, whoever brought the multi-car pileup of a basilisk platoon to a game really needs to be smacked
-
That's Numberwang... ;)
lol
-
... or perhaps, we'd sit on opposite sides of a table shouting numbers at each other until one player holds up his/her hands saying 'you win, you have better numbers than me'.
...I thought that was 40k...but replace shouting with rolling.
Highest numbers and most dice win.
-
Captain Blood says his lines and I say mine, neither changes the other's mind and so we go on. As long as it remains a healthy discussion between friends and doesn't descend into petty name-calling then it's all good, I suppose. Shall we do it again in another two years? Is May 2020 good for you, Richard? :)
Oh sooner, surely... :D
(I didn't start it this time).
But you seem to forget another key part of the LAF ethos in the early days, that all are welcome, no matter how rubbish they are at this kind of thing.
True, that was what Alex always said - but that wasn't actually reflected in the majority of what was shared on the forum. Unless my glasses have become excessively rose-tinted (I'm sure you think they have!) I think most projects / games / figures shown on the forum back then had a degree of care and attention spent on making, painting and presenting them, which is not the case with some of what we see on here these days. Just my impression.
The Michelangelo sculptures vs. chits and counters thing again? It's a false dichotomy. There are a world of options in between.
I did say that Dylan :)
Completely accept there are many shades of grey along the road between the 'dioramic' wargame and the 'unpainted figures with no attempt at scenery' wargame.
But the chits and counters thing is a simple point. Some wargamers say 'it doesn't matter what it looks like'. I don't think most of the people who say this truly believe that. I think they prefer to maintain that fiction rather than admit they don't have the time, money, aptitude etc to make their games look better. Although I do think there are a few at the really competitive 'it's all about the rules' end who genuinely don't care what it looks like. But them not caring is not the same as claiming 'it doesn't matter'.
Like any visual medium or art form in which people are creating things to represent or look like other things, plainly it DOES matter what it looks like, or we wouldn't bother attempting to visually represent those things at all.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
We shall no doubt remain mutually unconvinced! ;)
-
The event in question is the London Grand Tournament (https://www.lgtpresents.co.uk) and its an independent event and not run by GW. Not that this suddenly makes the terrain any better...
And someone was caught cheating (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/05/40k-cheater-caught-on-camera-at-london-gt.html) at the event.
-
It’s a bit odd that this has become about some supposed decline in the aesthetic values of LAF members, when the original post is about something entirely unconnected to LAF that we were asked to pass judgement on. lol
-
My fault, no doubt :)
Whenever someone posts something saying ‘isn’t this terrible’, we inevitably descend into this cycle of ‘don’t judge’ vs ‘yes, it’s terrible’.
I brought it back to LAF, as explained above, because wargaming toys and layouts and games that look great always seemed to me to be central to the (admittedly) unwritten ethos of this forum. Therefore don’t be surprised that there are some people here who are more critical of these things than the average bear.
Plynkes takes a different view, hence we have this regular discussion.
We’re all a bit odd here, aren’t we? ;)
-
We’re all a bit odd here, aren’t we? ;)
Absolutely and that is one of its best parts, all different, but still mostly civil about it. :)
Its almost certainly a compulsory requirement surely?
And yes its poor scenery, but hey - They pays their money and if its good enough for them that do, fair enough.
But its still what it is.
-
Wargaming is a broad church. In fact, it's probably better described as a chapel these days. As it has very much merged into the catch--all 'tabletop'.
Wargaming has never been purely about 'appearances' - it's about the 'game'. Original games were played with 'toy' soldiers, not always painted.
I never think talking about the origins of a forum and holding them up as a set of rules is a good thing. I have been there, done that, produced t-shirts and run games - literally.
In more cases than not, forums start off the way they do because of who is involved in starting them. It's not always an intention that the forum is going to advance and progress to be like that in the future, but more a shared interest that brought those founders together to get something started.
If LAF was only ever intended to be about beautiful painted miniatures and terrain I wouldn't have bothered joining or sticking about. There are places like CMON for that.
We also have to remember we all started once. None of us were born with the ability to just paint brilliant miniatures. We had to hone the level of ability we had and learn and develop.
I know I have had several folk give me tips and advice over the years. I'm not the best painter but I am happy enough with the level of painting I have achieved for tabletop painting.
I'm not interested in brilliant display pieces, because they are display pieces.
I want to encourage more people into this hobby - not surround it with an air of elitism and snobbery that would put them off.
-
Perhaps newer members who aren't so fussed about the look of things, could overlook the occasional outburst from more longstanding members like me, who fondly remember when LAF was largely about great looking figures, models and terrain in games which were fun and cinematic in feel.
It isn't anymore? That would be news to me...
-
I've seen and played on equally ugly tables, yet not at a public event. To be fair, though, there were other tables with much better terrain (i.e. recognisable as such).
Also, LAF is perhaps the wrong place to discuss tournament gamers' attitude to wargaming. There seems to be little – if any – overlap and thus for the organisers understandably little reason to provide 'immersive' terrain to players who simply don't care anyway (cf. top right):
(http://leadadventureforum.com/gallery/33/1034-200518105854.jpeg)
We just shouldn't bother.
bloody hell what's with the basilisk car park in top corner of that photo :o lol.
if that's an actual game it might be short lived...
-
Still twaddle.
-
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
-
I've been cornered by many an anorak throwing this argument my way.
(normally when I've just got the bar and just put my first pint to my lips)
And this is what I reply.
If as you say miniatures and terrain don't matter and it's all about the tactics and the game play.
Then there is quite well established and international wargame that doesnt rely on terrain or painted figures already out there.
Its quite popular You may of heard of it. It's called Chess.
-
I've been cornered by many an anorak throwing this argument my way.
(normally when I've just got the bar and just put my first pint to my lips)
And this is what I reply.
If as you say miniatures and terrain don't matter and it's all about the tactics and the game play.
Then there is quite well established and international wargame that doesnt rely on terrain or painted figures already out there.
Its quite popular You may of heard of it. It's called Chess.
Ah but Chess lacks armylists no ones going to let you play with your new all Rook army or let you exploit that loop hole in the rules to field 4 queens.... ;)
-
We shall no doubt remain mutually unconvinced! ;)
Hmmm. I think what we may have is actually a communication problem. You seem to be assaulting a position that I'm not actually defending. I don't think I ever said appearances don't matter,. All I am advocating is a little bit more Live and let Live and a little less In my Day, Lad...
I'm sure there is misunderstanding on my part, too. I'm sure, as you say, that you aren't saying "If you don't do the hobby like me then you're doing it wrong", but unfortunately that is how you tend to come across when you wheel out the same old comments whenever seeing the purity of LAF marred by yet another green felt tablecloth sends you over the edge. ;)
Oh well. I think perhaps it is time for me to stop banging my head against this particular wall, at least for the time being, as we don't seem to be getting through to each other in the slightest. Some things just never change. lol
-
I do enjoy these little moments and it's been a while :-)
I'm firmly in the 'make it look as good as you can' category, but having kids with 10 minute attention spans has put that under some stress over the last few years. Standards have dropped in an effort to strike while the interest is there (at least at home).
-
Hmmm. I think what we may have is actually a communication problem. You seem to be assaulting a position that I'm not actually defending. I don't think I ever said appearances don't matter,. All I am advocating is a little bit more Live and let Live and a little less In my Day, Lad...
Then we agree - happy days :)
Appearances do matter, and there are many levels of accomplishment, all of which are fine with me. I’ve never said every table should look like a diorama. All I’ve maintained is that appearances do matter. So the only time you get an ‘in my day, lad’ from me, is when presented with outright shite like the picture at the head of this thread. Where someone obviously doesn’t think appearances matter.
As for the weary, sneery old accusation of ‘elitism and snobbery’ (which is made sooner or later every time we have one of these threads), well, if liking great looking figures and terrain is elitism, I can only say I’ve never yet met a wargamer who isn’t drawn to ‘eye candy’ like a moth to a flame. Ditto lavish display games and wargames rules books stuffed with gorgeous colour photos. So I guess there are a lot of elitists in this hobby ::)
-
It's not simply a case of saying that liking great looking figures and terrain is elitism though is it? Making judgements about the level of care and attention people take on their wargaming based on a few photos on a forum is pretty skewed anyway. I'm not going to disagree on the premise that we all probably aspire to have better this or better that but to make sweeping comments on the effort and care (note not skill) is in my opinion harsh.
I've seen a table where I know that the individual involved spent countless hours on the figures and terrain. Personally, I didn't think it was that great but the care and effort were there. Had they posted on the LAF maybe some individuals would have lumped them in with the 'couldn't care less' mob.
I think its safe to say that this cycle of comments won't change anyone's minds as the points being made seem to be lost.
Back to the main topic though. I appreciate that there is a move to make everything standardised in certain branches of competitive play but I'd be hacked off if I paid that sum to play on those tables. I wouldn't as I don't have any inclination towards competitive play (arguments over interpretations or measurements instead of good humorous banter with chums?.. Count me out.). That said, its amazing what some rattle cans and a couple of hours with an airbrush can do with even the most basic of terrain materials. Some of the Infinity terrain stuff Ive seen online is fantastic with nothing more than some cardboard, polystyrene, and a plan. What was it William Regal said about the six Ps?
Thats proper planning prevents piss poor performance :)
-
OK , I have read the whole thread because I thought I had better do that before I commented...I started to form a comment after the first 2 pages. I thought that the point of the post was that the pic was EMPTY. Like DEVOID of players, and everyone was missing the point by talking about the simplistic terrain. But then I thought what are we actually seeing? This may be a shot taken before they opened the doors. Maybe the punters didn't care, put their hugely expensive armies out and had a wonderful time . So it's all relative.
-
Maybe the punters didn't care, put their hugely expensive armies out and had a wonderful time . So it's all relative.
Based on the feedback online it seems like quite a lot of them did care :)
-
As for the weary, sneery old accusation of ‘elitism and snobbery’ (which is made sooner or later every time we have one of these threads), well, if liking great looking figures and terrain is elitism, I can only say I’ve never yet met a wargamer who isn’t drawn to ‘eye candy’ like a moth to a flame. Ditto lavish display games and wargames rules books stuffed with gorgeous colour photos. So I guess there are a lot of elitists in this hobby ::)
Not sneery at all.
I was reflecting that if people are to only share models and terrain of a certain standard who decides? You very much described you longed for the days when LAF was smaller, but had more of a focus on brilliantly painted miniatures and terrain. And ideally would like it to return to such a place.
Who sets the 'bar' - who decides what is and what isn't good enough? By merely suggesting that you are placing yourself in a position where you believe your opinion and judgement is of a level that is in some way better than others.
I'll make it clear here - I like the idea that everyone can paint to Golden Demon level, hell, I'd love to be able to myself. But it's just not reality. I would rather a large and diverse community than a small and focused one. Many of my friends have unpainted armies, some of them prefer the process of model making and gaming to painting. Sometimes this is even because they see how people online respond to painting they deem to be of a poor standard.
So yes, I am happy to see pictures of games with unpainted terrain, books under cloths for hills, unpainted miniatures - because it is about sharing the experience of the hobby and welcoming all.
The original topic of this thread was rather different. It was about paying £40+ for a tournament to see terrain of a level most people could achieve in about five minutes with packing polystyrene from white goods.
At home that's fine. I've played games on large sheets of card with wooded areas and walls drawn onto it before now. Because spending time with a good friend is way more important to me than how well he has painted his miniatures, or how great his table looks. I extend that mentality to online as well.
-
Games Workshop ruins everything.
close the topic now :-[
-
Thanks Shaun. I agree.
For the record though...
You very much described you longed for the days when LAF was smaller, but had more of a focus on brilliantly painted miniatures and terrain. And ideally would like it to return to such a place.
I didn't say that. What I said was: please understand that some of us remember that in its early days LAF had a strong emphasis on the visual aspects of the miniatures hobby. And that history colours our judgement of what looks good or not.
I didn't say I liked it better when it was smaller, nor did I say LAF should return to such a place.
Who sets the 'bar' - who decides what is and what isn't good enough? By merely suggesting that you are placing yourself in a position where you believe your opinion and judgement is of a level that is in some way better than others.
In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine. And you're entitled to express that, but somehow I'm not? It's a pointless and reductive argument.
The fact is nobody decides. We all set our own bar. If you think something looks great, you're free to say it looks great. Equally, if something looks terrible to you and you can explain why, why wouldn't you be free to say so? We're all entitled to our opinions. We all set the bar at different levels.
We find it very easy to say 'that looks great', but we rightly have a strong aversion to saying 'that looks terrible' - even when it does. That's because we don't like to offend, or belittle the efforts of others, or think we have any right to 'judge'. I'm the same, 99% of the time. But every now and then, you see something which is plainly poor, in which case I don't think we should be afraid to say so.
Most people who have contributed to this thread so far, agree that the level of presentation in the pic at the head of this thread is poor. Which it plainly is. It's refreshing that so many people have been willing to say so.
-
I didn't say that. What I said was: please understand that some of us remember that in its early days LAF had a strong emphasis on the visual aspects of the miniatures hobby. And that history colours our judgement of what looks good or not.
I didn't say I liked it better when it was smaller, nor did I say LAF should return to such a place.
I do think it's worth pointing out that the history of LAF is rooted very firmly in the aesthetic 'adventure' end of the spectrum (hence the name), not at the competitive - sometimes including unpainted figures on vestigial scenery - end.
Perhaps newer members who aren't so fussed about the look of things, could overlook the occasional outburst from more longstanding members like me, who fondly remember when LAF was largely about great looking figures, models and terrain in games which were fun and cinematic in feel.
True, that was what Alex always said - but that wasn't actually reflected in the majority of what was shared on the forum. Unless my glasses have become excessively rose-tinted (I'm sure you think they have!) I think most projects / games / figures shown on the forum back then had a degree of care and attention spent on making, painting and presenting them, which is not the case with some of what we see on here these days. Just my impression.
In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine. And you're entitled to express that, but somehow I'm not? It's a pointless and reductive argument.
The fact is nobody decides. We all set our own bar. If you think something looks great, you're free to say it looks great. Equally, if something looks terrible to you and you can explain why, why wouldn't you be free to say so? We're all entitled to our opinions. We all set the bar at different levels.
I try to set my bar to "be as welcoming and inclusive as possible" - if someone comes here and enjoys converting things and makes good conversions, but doesn't enjoy painting so much so either doesn't paint them or spends little time on painting them - I respect that.
If people come here to show off their painted minis that they have spent hours slaving over - I respect that too.
If people want to share pictures and reports of their games too, including the above and various stages in between - I will totally welcome that as well.
Honestly, when it comes to ANY hobby - there quite simply is a right and a wrong. You either submit to the hobby and accept it in all of it's wonderful colours or you are really opting out of it.
We find it very easy to say 'that looks great', but we rightly have a strong aversion to saying 'that looks terrible' - even when it does. That's because we don't like to offend, or belittle the efforts of others, or think we have any right to 'judge'. I'm the same, 99% of the time. But every now and then, you see something which is plainly poor, in which case I don't think we should be afraid to say so.
Most people who have contributed to this thread so far, agree that the level of presentation in the pic at the head of this thread is poor. Which it plainly is. It's refreshing that so many people have been willing to say so.
No, people are not simply stating that table is poor. They are taking in the context, the fact that it was a tournament requiring purchasing of a place to attend. That the tables all had to have the same scenery. And have been looking elsewhere for more information to shed more light on it to see what reasons there were for them to look like this.
Several people have expressed they would be disappointed if this is what they had paid and seen as a result. In a different context - say a school club - people may comment differently because the context is different.
It may also be that the internet is saturated with sites, forums and social media where you get endless criticism and negativity and that there remain to be some places you can come to and feel safe about posting in without some high and mighty gamer telling you how crap your models are and how more people should feel free to tell you that as well. Perhaps these models represent some of the first 20 you have ever painted. That surely helps confidence doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be far better to say "You are not far off having a solid looking table/miniature there, am I ok to share some feedback and pointers with you?"
I mean, it is a forum, it is a community, and I thought for the most part LAF was quite inclusive. I am seeing another side to it more recently if I'm honest.
-
In saying which, you are doing precisely the same thing. By merely suggesting that you're right and I'm wrong, you're saying your opinion and judgement is better than mine.
He isn't and he didn't. This is false equivalence.
Mcfonz asserted that having a standard (the position you appear to be advocati g or at least casually rose-tintedly nostalgic for) for is problematic because defining a standard is subjective.
That's a simple and obvious statement that is entirely disconnected from right or wrong. Neither does that statement infringe on your right to criticise anything. What it does do is make it morally problematic to decide to exclude content which *is* your implication.
-
I like trains
-
I like trains
Choo choo!
-
I like trains
Train elitist.
-
People may empty their rubbish bins upon their gaming tables as it pleases them but I hope LAF will remain a bastion of artful wargaming.
-
Train elitist.
Before this thread is derailed even further - lockity lock!