Scatter Terrain - To Base or Not To Base?

[Mr. White]

For scatter terrain that’s free standing, like a car or a hut, do you put it on a base?


I can see pros and cons to both. Like, for example, a base allows you to add debris and vegetation around it to help the feature blend in with the table, but does a base around the feature prevent models from standing close to it?

Thoughts?

[Dr DeAth]

I base my scatter terrain most of the time - the odd crate and barrel may be loose.   

The advantage of a base (assuming you don't mind the abstraction) is that it's easier to determine who's in cover (on the base) and who's not (off the base).  Likewise, if Line Of Sight crosses the base, it's blocked.  Saves all that bending down and  seeing who you can see and how much of them you can see, unless you like that sort of play.

[Elbows]

Cars or huts?  No, unless you plan on stacking a lot of stuff on/around them.  Is the car a hulk that's been overgrown with bushes and detritus heaped upon it?  Then perhaps.  Otherwise, no.

I do tend to base my scatter cover though for stuff like Old West games.  After having a hundred boxes/barrels laying around...I combined them onto bases in small stacks for ease of use.

[robh]

Always. I think it looks better and as Dr D' says it makes line of sight much simpler. Whole figure base behind the terrain base no LOS, no target,  partial figure base behind the terrain base obstructed LOS, cover.

[has.been]

What has already been said, plus
a) I will base if the vehicle has say weak wheel/axel assemblies.
    as that will protect it when I move it around.
b) If I want the height of the vehicle to be in proportion to the
    infantry, who ARE on bases.
c) To enable (fairly) rapid set up & take down of scenery. Buildings
     with clutter already in place is quicker to deploy than similar
     with individual boxes, barrels etc.

[Major_Gilbear]

I do base nearly all my terrain - even scatter pieces. However, I do try and keep all the bases tight to the scatter pieces, and usually a dark and neutral colour. Exceptions are things that would always look weird on a base and which are generally not contentious for gameplay - so things like shipping containers for example.

Also, for anything that might conceivably be "area" terrain, I prefer to have a base with loose elements arranged on it. Not only does this mean I can (re)move a terrain element for model placement if needed, but I can vary the size of the base and number of elements on it to suit different games/requirements.

So in your case, a car or hut? Yes for the hut, and yes for a car if it's an individual terrain element (although "no" for the car if it's an element of "area" terrain).

As much as I like an attractive board to play on, terrain that gets in the way or which makes playing hard is something I try hard to avoid. LOS and physical model placement are therefore two of the most important considerations for me when I make and place anything scenery-related.

[zemjw]

I made some objectives recently using sacks, crates and barrels, so they had to be based to keep them together.

I'm about to paint up some treasure chests and I'll probably base them as well. Apart from anything else, it should give them a bit of protection when they're moved around.

Vehicles I'm always in two minds about. Small cars, yes, HMMV and above, probably not. However, if it's a plastic kit, such as Tamiya, then yes to larger vehicles. Again, protecting the model is the aim.

[BZ]

Generally I base my terrain where vegetation is around (trees, ruins, whatever), but dont base my city/sci-fi terrain (buildings, barrels). I feel like the first ones need to blend in the board a bit, but the second ones dont need that.