Flat terrain!

[Sangennaru]

I'd be curious to know if your beef with lasercut is folks not painting it properly or just the material itself. 

I'm not a fan of the jigsaw look of Lasercut joins, but it's nothing that a touch of putty and some paint can't solve.

I actually really appreciate the laser cut approach for some kind of structures, and to define volumes. But it's something that imho shouldn't be used for things that are not extremely blocky. And the jigsaw for me is an absolutely unacceptable thing, but it's true that it could be filled.
Honestly, any fantasy building or "vehicle" in lasercut is nothing more than an exercise of style, to me. i simply cannot take it seriously.
At that point i rather prefere paper terrain, or even flat tokens. But it's just me, i'm a scenery  sculptor afterall.

[Cory]

The laser cut thing spills into reality - last week I got back drawings from an architect for a small house that he had taken it upon himself to "modernize" despite instructions. Pitched roof replaced with a flat roof functioning as a deck, stucco sides redesigned to be large plates of corrugated steel that look exactly like a laser cut mdf building, complete with the jigsaw corner that he said "mimicked the interlocking stone corner of the original design".

I fired him.

[eilif]

I actually really appreciate the laser cut approach for some kind of structures, and to define volumes. But it's something that imho shouldn't be used for things that are not extremely blocky. And the jigsaw for me is an absolutely unacceptable thing, but it's true that it could be filled.
Honestly, any fantasy building or "vehicle" in lasercut is nothing more than an exercise of style, to me. i simply cannot take it seriously.
At that point i rather prefere paper terrain, or even flat tokens. But it's just me, i'm a scenery  sculptor afterall.

I see.  I suppose that's mostly where I stand as well.  I did see a train engine done in lasercut recently that wasn't bad, but it's definitely not my preferred method.  I've seen a fair number of fantasy buildings that looked quite good in lasercut, but they were mostly tudor style structures that could have benefited from a non-lasercut roof.

A crappy lasercut building is preferable to me than printed paper terrain, but I actually like "paper" terrain if it's of the laser-cut variety like what lasercutcard is putting out. It looks more realistic to me than many of the lasercut MDF buildings I've seen.

I'll take the worst lasercut building over the kind of flat  terrain that some WM players use anyday.

[Conquistador]

I use "flat terrain" (maps) for my 1/600th scale aircraft because anything else seems too tall in scale.

[Major_Gilbear]

I confess that I actually enjoy modelling more than painting (and sometimes more than gaming), and scenery is a large proportion of that enjoyment... Sadly I don't make as much as I'd like to for my own tables due purely to space/storage constraints.

This in turn has led me try and compromise on making scenery that can be stored compactly, and is still attractive and playable.

The funny thing is that as I've worked on these projects, I've discovered that there is still too much variation in what I build to allow precise model movement over it, and that most rulesets are still waaaay to vague in describing models' interaction with terrain that isn't an impassible box-building or a a copse of trees. Even hills (which you'd think are pretty common) are often so badly-ruled that we often just play without any now to save on rules conundrums.

Terrain should matter in a wargame, it should be clear what happens when a model is in/on it, and it should be fairly intuitive. I also think it should have a measure of generosity to allow for the physical consideration of placing models and the difficulty of precise measurements.

With games like Warmachine, the terrain types are very limited and most of the more elaborate scenic elements break down into the established subcategories. There is no real reason (besides cost/effort/space) that Warmachine terrain cannot be fully 3D and still remain accurate, but it does have to be made specifically with the rules in mind. I can therefore understand the appeal of simplicity of 2D terrain for tournament formats (where speed and clarity are both more "important" than painted models or game aesthetics).

Another benefit of 2D terrain is that it's easy and light to take with you in a bag if you arrange a last-minute game, or if the person at whose house you're playing doesn't have much scenery. Afterall, not everyone games in clubs or stores with loads of pre-built scenery, and not all of us (can) have dedicated gaming spaces either.

Finally, there are plenty of occasions where building highly-specific terrain is often not necessarily the most practical endeavour (such as interior terrain like bunker complexes, mines, caves, etc) and a 2D representation can be just as attractive as well as easier to get your hands in to move figures. Even a lot of the dungeon-crawler style terrain I've seen modelled still opts for a 2D approach.

I therefore honestly think that terrain that's fully "finished" along with models that are fully painted is attractive, regardless of the 2D or 3D nature of the terrain. I understand that people will have a preference for one or the other, but citing the "big spectacle of fully-modelled 3D terrain" is pretty rude and unfair to those who still made a proper effort.

[Major_Gilbear]

When I saw the "all felt madness" of a Warmachine tournament I came on here a few years ago asking about it.  People responded "it's done that way because of the strictness of the rules, etc.".  My response is the same now as then --- then that's a game I have zero interest in playing.  If your miniature wargame is such that it is confounded by 3d terrain or the level of competition is so high that millimeters count in every instance, it's not at all a game I have any interest in trying.

(To be fair, I tried Warmachine when it came out back in...2002-ish? ---- played halfway through a turn, quit and sold my stuff on ebay).

Snobby or not, playing a 3d wargame on flat felt?  I'd find something more enjoyable to do with my time.

So... In the very specific and highly-competitive environment for a very competitive game with timed turns - the felt terrain is what put you off the whole game? I would also note that such Warmachine tournaments are solely about gameplay and nothing else - even painting your models is not required.
However, that's just one tournament format, and there are other Warmachine tournament formats where having fully-painted models is required (and sometimes scored), and they do normally use more traditional 3D terrain.

Like any Wargame, you don't have to play it millimetre-perfect, or with timed turns, or in a tournament, or with unpainted models, or with 2D terrain. You can do the exact opposite (like my friends and I do) and find it still plays well, and is both a fun and dynamic game with very clear rules.

Of course, if you're not really interested anyway and are just looking for an excuse to avoid the game, then fair enough.

[Redmao]

I really like 3D paper terrain.
It's fun to create and customize. Of course working being a graphic designer in a print shop helps.
The plus is that you can design it as a little box that folds flat when it's open which takes less space.

[Elbows]

So... In the very specific and highly-competitive environment for a very competitive game with timed turns - the felt terrain is what put you off the whole game? I would also note that such Warmachine tournaments are solely about gameplay and nothing else - even painting your models is not required.
However, that's just one tournament format, and there are other Warmachine tournament formats where having fully-painted models is required (and sometimes scored), and they do normally use more traditional 3D terrain.

Like any Wargame, you don't have to play it millimetre-perfect, or with timed turns, or in a tournament, or with unpainted models, or with 2D terrain. You can do the exact opposite (like my friends and I do) and find it still plays well, and is both a fun and dynamic game with very clear rules.

Of course, if you're not really interested anyway and are just looking for an excuse to avoid the game, then fair enough.

In short, yes.  Same reason I don't play modern 40K.  Short of having a group of friends interested in a game, if the majority of players I'm likely to run into are tournament based, I won't bother with a game.  While Warmahordes and 40K are probably some of the easiest games with which to find opponents - the majority I see are not playing a wargame in the fashion I'd like to, so I don't bother with it.  No big deal.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

So... In the very specific and highly-competitive environment for a very competitive game with timed turns - the felt terrain is what put you off the whole game?

The felt terrain is a very telling symptom of the types of games the players prefer and the way in which they play. It's the canary in the coal mine. It says to me that the types of people I'll likely be facing across the table are more interested in the mechanics of the competition, and the most efficient way to win rather than the theme or aesthetics of the game, or the narrative or almost co-operative side of miniatures wargaming. There's nothing wrong with either approach. Some people are looking for a purely mechanical competition with their peers and others are looking for a bit of narrative and escapism, but in my experience when those two groups clash it just leaves both sides feeling unsatisfied.

[eilif]

The felt terrain is a very telling symptom of the types of games the players prefer and the way in which they play. It's the canary in the coal mine. It says to me that the types of people I'll likely be facing across the table are more interested in the mechanics of the competition, and the most efficient way to win rather than the theme or aesthetics of the game, or the narrative or almost co-operative side of miniatures wargaming. There's nothing wrong with either approach. Some people are looking for a purely mechanical competition with their peers and others are looking for a bit of narrative and escapism, but in my experience when those two groups clash it just leaves both sides feeling unsatisfied.

I think there are definitely exceptions and variations to this, but I feel similarly.

When I see felt terrain I do suspect that even if they aren't necessarily focused on the competitive, these gamers are at least more interested in the game itself than the visual aspect.  And that's not a game that I will likely enjoy.

I feel roughly the same about facing an army of grey minis. 

[Norm]

My approach to terrain is driven by two considerations. Firstly history, many battles were fought in locations in which both sides needed open land to operate their armies, this is certainly true trough to early gunpowder - however, undulations and rough ground still abound in what would otherwise be described as flat or open terrain.

Secondly, I have a small playing area, so for my later gaming, especially WWII, I need a lot of terrain to make weapon ranges seems sensible and put a brake on movement.

Visually, lots of terrain, or perhaps textures, looks good.

Those who have been in the hobby a long time will know that in the early days, terrain was very basic and the media in its various forms has over time raised all of our standards and expectations in terrain layout.

It is the case that wargaming is a global hobby and that what a person does with their hobby directly relates to how much disposable income they have (if any), how much gaming space and how much time they have - a different place for all of us, so it is difficult to be prescriptive as to exactly how a table 'should' look.

Many years ago, when first gaming as a teenager, my trees were made of match sticks with dyed cotton wool glued on top and my hills were discs of foam rubber stacked on top of each other with some darning thread holding them in place and my roads were small stone chippings (from the rail model shop) - this basic terrain scape did not diminish my pleasure of gaming and in some ways there was a certain simplistic charm and naivety in those days that seems to be sadly missing today.

Typing this reminds me that I did a blog post some time ago on recalling an old game that had cotton wool trees. I redid the game and for fun, a cotton wool tree made a guest appearance. Link here - http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/remembering-old-wargame.html

[Arlequín]

It is the case that wargaming is a global hobby and that what a person does with their hobby directly relates to how much disposable income they have (if any), how much gaming space and how much time they have - a different place for all of us, so it is difficult to be prescriptive as to exactly how a table 'should' look.

This.

To which I'll add that this thread is one of a number of recent threads, which while the original intents may have been different, have sort of turned into 'How you should be doing things' threads to a greater or lesser extent.

Surely the important thing is that people are gaming, however they do it and on whatever playing surface they settle for?

 

[shandy]

Surely the important thing is that people are gaming, however they do it and on whatever playing surface they settle for?

This.

I have also noticed the "how one should do things" threads and wondered if there is something going on that I'm missing?

[carlos marighela]

It's all the fault of the Duke of Wellington. Every schoolboy knows that Waterloo was fought on the playing fields of Eton.

It has always struck me as odd that we don't see more white lines painted on to tables or cricket pitches placed as objective markers.

[Conquistador]

It's all the fault of the Duke of Wellington. Every schoolboy knows that Waterloo was fought on the playing fields of Eton.

It has always struck me as odd that we don't see more white lines painted on to tables or cricket pitches placed as objective markers.

LOL!  Fortunately I was not eating lunch when I read this.