Looking for Ideas for M & SU table.

[Torhment]

Looking for ideas for M & SU table as far as how much terrain I need.  I need to know how many hills and buildings are too many.  So far I am looking at two or three large hills and two or three buildings plus some scatter terrain in the form of piles of railroad ties and some scratch made ore carts.  I will post some pictures when I can but having computer and camera issues today.  Looking for suggestions

 

Edited November 28, 2015 by Torhment
Having photo issues.

[ArcticPangolin]

Hills can be tricky to get to work with Malifaux mechanics (do they provide soft or hard cover, how tall are they, are slopes severe terrain etc) but just so long as all players are clear as to how they're working before a game begins there shouldn't be a problem.

There's the guideline that 25% to 50% of the table should be covered by terrain, and erring up towards the 50% mark is better in my view. A mix of terrain types (like open water features along with things like woods, buildings, mesas) means you can fill up more of the table without terribly hampering ranged crews. Just squish it all up into a corner to get an idea of how much you're up to.

Sounds like you're on the right track though, can't wait to see piccies!

[Torhment]

I found a train set at Wal-Mart and have started turning it into scenery for the table.  The set was under $10.  I may pick up a couple more as I have some ideas for some more pieces using more cars then are in one set.

 

RL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tawg]

I like the rail ties behind that.. is that convict gunner from 1st Ed I think?

One suggestion that may help, considering that terrain bonus for soft // hard cover are based on being within 1" of the object in question, perhaps if that plastic base under the ties (Or you could put bases under the train cars with this idea in mind) extended exactly 1" from the ties then everyone would know if they are or are not in cover.  With the train cars, which may not need the bases to support them, it simply would help define the features for play ease.  Forest and Water effects would require this less since they present benefit // hindrance in a different way, most often their entire base (Of the terrain piece).  Hazardous and Impassable terrain likewise is often considered exactly the object's size rather than a larger base around it  (Like a theoretical Ht ∞ pillar, or a pool of lava).

Beyond that, hills are nice, but often provide the most serious issue with physical play, since it's hard to make gradient slopes that keep models from falling without being over the top.  Not sure I have a working idea for that.  Some times I see hills with rather steep edges working with the assumption of making it easier to keep models standing, and to provide the most stark contrast between height change, since on a gradient slope it may beg the question of if the model is at Ht 3 when it's halfway up a slope, or still counts as the original Ht 0 board.

[lusciousmccabe]

Yeah, hills are a nuisance both in practical terms and defining what they actually do in game. If you do build hills I would recommend making them stepped so models can more easily stand on them and what provides cover is clear. It might seem weird aesthetically, but you can probably make it fit as earthworks or a tiered mine or something.