Slitherine

There is a long thread on terrain tweaks. But I want to put out a radical suggestion -- scrap the terrain system and come up with a completely new one.

The problem I am trying to avoid is the syndrome I see all too often in ancients -- beautiful figures fighting over pieces of felt. Why are their pieces of felt? Because the terrain system may result in many different types of terrain on the table, and a travelling player cant possibly bring valid terrain for all possible picks.

Hence, I propose a possible new system. Players pick their terrain: Each army list has terrain types (agricultural, etc.), and players pick the terrain type. With that choice of terrain type, players pick a certain number of defined terrain pieces. This will result in each player bringing their army and say 4 or 5 terrain pieces to the game. Each player veto's a piece of the opponents, and the rest are placed. For instance, a Gallic player may pick 4 woods and a marsh for their army. They know that only one would be vetoed, say the marsh. But the gallic player only has 5 pieces of terrain to bring, and could even purchase 5 terrain items such as the battlefield in a box from that other company. I have written up my attempt at codifying this at http://fogscenarios.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... rrain.html -- but this is just a skeleton to start the discussion. As to placement, you could stick with the current system. However, I find using a scatter die simpler.

Another suggestion I will make is that tournaments should move to having pre-placed trerrain rather than the current system. But that is another discussion....

That is not going to change the terrain on tables.

I think the only way there is any chance of getting better terrain in tournaments is for it to be preset at the start of a tournament.

If players have to carry their terrain with them then bits of cloth and a few trees or rocks on bases are about all you are going to get.

I agree 100% that the quality of terrain on tournament tables is poor. It is better than it was for DBM but that is starting from a very low point.

What makes people look at Flames of War comps and go wow is not the miniatures, it is the terrain. The same could be possible for FoG but not if players have to cart a load with them to every game.

Also back to my other post, if you look at what we know of ancient battlefields most of them had very little terrain anyway.

Tournament organisers not providing cloths for tables might get better terrain as people would quickly baulk at playing on bare wood but some would still do that anyway so even that does not work.

NickBowler wrote: The problem I am trying to avoid is the syndrome I see all too often in ancients -- beautiful figures fighting over pieces of felt. Why are their pieces of felt? Because the terrain system may result in many different types of terrain on the table, and a travelling player cant possibly bring valid terrain for all possible picks.

I think there is a fallacy in that statement - there is no need to be able to carry terrain for all possible picks as you will only ever use a sub-set even in an open competition.

Now, tastes will differ as to what is acceptably good terrain, however, IMO it is perfectly possible to carry a good enough selection of the Miniature World Maker terrain (which I think is good) around to cover your options in an open competition.

hammy wrote: If players have to carry their terrain with them then bits of cloth and a few trees or rocks on bases are about all you are going to get.

I think that is rubbish as mentioned above - I think it just provides an easy excuse for not bothering on the whole.

I tend to agree with Hammy. If players have to bring terrain then most people will bring the terrain that takes up least space.

The other problem with taking terrain for the current system is that you not only need a selection of terrain for all types but also a range of sizes.
I usually carry 4 sizes of terrain. Double sized, maximum single piece, minimum single piece and long thin pieces, plus rivers and roads of course. All those sizes are required for a variety of terrain types, thats quite a lot of pieces of felt, let alone proper terrain.

Peter

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: If players have to carry their terrain with them then bits of cloth and a few trees or rocks on bases are about all you are going to get.

I think that is rubbish as mentioned above - I think it just provides an easy excuse for not bothering on the whole.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Some people make a bit of effort for terrain, some spend money and buy the better terrain, most still use the same old stuff they did in DBM.

I don't see that fixing the terrain each army can place before a comp is going to change the terrain people bring. Well, not much anyway. You might get some nice terrain for one army but then the next army wants different terrain and so does the next which means you end up with lots of terrain to accumulate. It just means a little less to carry.

I am not a tournament person, but as far as I have read in some forums, people say that they prefer clothing or paper because it makes clear when you are in the terrain or not. Some people even get the terrain out when miniatures are deployed. So, sometimes it is players' preferences, which makes me wonder if somehow Ancients and Medieval wargaming is for some people something more connected to chess tournaments than to the hobby itself.

hammy wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: If players have to carry their terrain with them then bits of cloth and a few trees or rocks on bases are about all you are going to get.

I think that is rubbish as mentioned above - I think it just provides an easy excuse for not bothering on the whole.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Some people make a bit of effort for terrain, some spend money and buy the better terrain, most still use the same old stuff they did in DBM.

I don't see that fixing the terrain each army can place before a comp is going to change the terrain people bring. Well, not much anyway. You might get some nice terrain for one army but then the next army wants different terrain and so does the next which means you end up with lots of terrain to accumulate. It just means a little less to carry.

I think you would have more success simply by urging competition organisers to demand nice-looking terrain from players and enforcing its removal (or replacement by the opponent) if it is not up to standard, and encouraging a zero-tolerance culture amongst players so that they will get it enforced. I don't think trying to deal with it in basic game rules is the right approach.

I would like some pretty terrain but the manufactured stuff is very expensive. Making your own is cheaper but takes time (which I havent got) and also tends to be bulky, so transport is an issue. Maybe when I have bought and painted all the armies I want I will have time and money to look at terrian. Meanwhile I will use felt.

MatthewP wrote:.....Maybe when I have bought and painted all the armies I want I will have time and money to look at terrian. ...

Never then

No the end is in sight. i just have to finish the French TYW, then something biblical, then something chinese, then there's the dark ages. Then I'll be finished... Oh no hang on then there's South America and I havent any arab armies and what about India and Japan. Oh bugger!

lawrenceg wrote:I think you would have more success simply by urging competition organisers to demand nice-looking terrain from players and enforcing its removal (or replacement by the opponent) if it is not up to standard, and encouraging a zero-tolerance culture amongst players so that they will get it enforced. I don't think trying to deal with it in basic game rules is the right approach.

I suspect that you would find people deliberately 'gaming' that 'rule'. Imagine someone who does not want terrain on the table so rather than open spaces they pick all the difficult or rough options they can and put really tatty terrain on the table expecting it to be removed.....

Believe me if it is to someone's advantage they will do it and think they are clever by doing so.

hammy wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I think you would have more success simply by urging competition organisers to demand nice-looking terrain from players and enforcing its removal (or replacement by the opponent) if it is not up to standard, and encouraging a zero-tolerance culture amongst players so that they will get it enforced. I don't think trying to deal with it in basic game rules is the right approach.

I suspect that you would find people deliberately 'gaming' that 'rule'. Imagine someone who does not want terrain on the table so rather than open spaces they pick all the difficult or rough options they can and put really tatty terrain on the table expecting it to be removed.....

Believe me if it is to someone's advantage they will do it and think they are clever by doing so.

Ah, but you could then allow the opponent to provide a replacement. So if you want lots of terrain you bring some nicely modelled maximum sized pieces, and hope the opponents small pieces are disallowed for not being up to standard.
Acually, it does bring up the question - what would happen if a player turns up to a tournament with no terrain ?

Anyway, I don't think this would really be a good idea. Why not use the carrot rather than the stick approach - some tournaments give prizes for best painted army, so there could also be a prize for best terrain.

MatthewP wrote:I would like some pretty terrain but the manufactured stuff is very expensive. Making your own is cheaper but takes time (which I havent got) and also tends to be bulky, so transport is an issue. Maybe when I have bought and painted all the armies I want I will have time and money to look at terrian. Meanwhile I will use felt.

It doesn't take that long and you get a much better return on your time than painting figures. Cut a piece of hardboard to size with a jigsaw, paint it with textured paint, paint it brown, maybe dry-brush lighter brown, then flock. This can then be a piece of broken ground, brush (with a few rocks or lichen added), woods (with a few trees added), etc.
After all, why bother painting figures and having them look good if the surface they are on spoils the effect ?

Crosses my mind that one thing that could encourage people away from bits of felt, etc. is if the base cloth were more than just a cheap green material - something textured in some way perhaps? That would really show up the tatty stuff. Not sure what would be suitable.

Of course that would involve comp organisers investing, and that would cost - which would probably mean raising entry fees - but perhaps if the BHGS or similar were to set an example?

nikgaukroger wrote:Crosses my mind that one thing that could encourage people away from bits of felt, etc. is if the base cloth were more than just a cheap green material - something textured in some way perhaps? That would really show up the tatty stuff. Not sure what would be suitable.

Of course that would involve comp organisers investing, and that would cost - which would probably mean raising entry fees - but perhaps if the BHGS or similar were to set an example?

True but there would be considerable expense involved in getting loads of nice base cloths. Not saying that is a bad thing, just that it could cost a small fortune.

It would be nice if the cloths looked more natural, the GW battlemats are OK but they are all one colour. I think that some king of varigated effect is needed. I know John Mumford did some nice cloths for not too much money to use for FoW terrain. I will contact him nad find out what he did and how much it cost. If more cloths are needed for Britcon 2011 it might be a good opportunity to get some nicer ones.

You cannot legislate aesthetics for terrain.

Because of the scale, Ancients under any rules does not work with GW style terrain.

You cannot use WYSIWYG terrain (as in WH40K) because the scale abstracts that detail.

Things like hills are always difficult because the nicer looking hills tend to cause figure slop, where stands cannot stay together across the slope.

Finally, competition players need to travel, so terrain pieces need to be portable.

Even with these limits, many of us try our best to use terrain that looks prettier than mere felt pieces. For instance, I try to bring along some bases with trees, brush and rocks that I can put on the felt to clarify what the terrain is and make it look a bit better.

Hills are just hard to deal with. I still end up using stacked felt or other flat material to designate a hill. It is not as pretty as GW or FoW hills, but what can you do.

In sum, you will solve nothing with "scrapping the terrain system." Frankly, I think Fog's current terrain system is vastly better than any of the variants in That Other Ruleset(tm). There are some areas for fine tuning, but nothing that will address your cosmetic objections.

Polkovnik wrote:

hammy wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I think you would have more success simply by urging competition organisers to demand nice-looking terrain from players and enforcing its removal (or replacement by the opponent) if it is not up to standard, and encouraging a zero-tolerance culture amongst players so that they will get it enforced. I don't think trying to deal with it in basic game rules is the right approach.

I suspect that you would find people deliberately 'gaming' that 'rule'. Imagine someone who does not want terrain on the table so rather than open spaces they pick all the difficult or rough options they can and put really tatty terrain on the table expecting it to be removed.....

Believe me if it is to someone's advantage they will do it and think they are clever by doing so.

Ah, but you could then allow the opponent to provide a replacement. So if you want lots of terrain you bring some nicely modelled maximum sized pieces, and hope the opponents small pieces are disallowed for not being up to standard.

Indeed, which is why I included the bit in brackets that Hammy seems to have missed.

Acually, it does bring up the question - what would happen if a player turns up to a tournament with no terrain ?

The same as happens now?

Anyway, I don't think this would really be a good idea. Why not use the carrot rather than the stick approach - some tournaments give prizes for best painted army, so there could also be a prize for best terrain.

They used to have such a prize at BRITCON, but abandoned it in the Ancients category when nobody brought terrain worthy of winning it.

lawrenceg wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:Actually, it does bring up the question - what would happen if a player turns up to a tournament with no terrain ?

The same as happens now?

That's what I'm asking - what does happen now ?

Polkovnik wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:Actually, it does bring up the question - what would happen if a player turns up to a tournament with no terrain ?

The same as happens now?

That's what I'm asking - what does happen now ?

Exactly Lawrence's point...