Jump to content

Iron Terrain Builder - discussion


Hinton

Recommended Posts

Ok, so the idea of an Iron Terrain Builder, done much in the manner of Iron Painter, has been brought up and there seems to be some interest. I'm not saying that it's something that will happen, but instead of clogging the IP threads, I thought we could move the discussion here.

So, let's discuss this.

Is there enough interest to actually put on an all-out Iron contest or should it fall more into a "regular" competition?

Should minis be allowed on terrain entries or should the piece be judged solely on the terrain itself?

Should there be a limit on the size?

Let's hear what you all think and see where this might go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like I said in the other thread... My gut reaction is that a terrain competition would benefit from a more regular format with different categories. You'd have to have a lot of restrictions and regulations if you were to use the IP format, or else I think it would become very difficult to judge the entries properly. How would you compare a mini with a slightly bigger and more involved base with, for example, a full gaming board? How would you compare a building with a set of rocks?

I think a regular competition with different categories would be easier to administrate. You could still have a tight deadline and put themes to the categories and include theme in the scoring.

I am not sure I'd be interested in taking part. Definitely not in an IP-style competition. I'm not that accomplished a terrain builder, having only done bases, more or less. I might enter a regular competition if there were some easier, or smaller rather..., categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think you'll get more participation if its just a regular competition and not the IRON format. Coming up with nice looking terrain generally intimidates even some of the best painters, and to have to do it for several rounds would probably turn away a good portion of people. However, I think some people might be more willing to do a single piece that they gave their best shot at.

I'm assume there would be a theme along with it instead of just "terrain?"

I would personally invoke a set of guidelines about the use of certain materials. I noticed a couple of entries in this past round of IP featured some Hirst Arts stuff. While I really like the stuff, and am toying around with it myself, I would either say that it needs a full ban in a terrain competition, or at least a partial ban. The idea of Hirst stuff is to allow people who aren't good at making terrain an easy way to create and assembled nice stuff - which in my mind it not what the heart of this competition is about. I think this competition would need to feature stuff built completely from scratch, or if allowed, on a small portion of things like Hirst Arts.

As for minis - I'm still up in the air about this one. I was going to say that initially I thought, why not?....People get to use terrain to enhance their IP entries....but then I realized that IP doesn't stand for "iron MINIATURE," it stands for "iron PAINTER." IP could be just as much about painting the base as it is the miniature, so it isn't a very good argument. Therefore, I'm sorta thinking that Iron Terrainist should only focus on the terrain itself, hence the name. I could probably be convinced otherwise since I'm not 100% sure right now though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will be awesome...a great way to add some more terrain to my gaming table. Some clear boundaries, things like a maximum size will be a wise thing or else you're comparing apples to oranges.

Considering themes, the contest organizer should really consider usability of terrain pieces. In the end terrain pieces are meant to be gamed with so that should remain a top priority. But if it isbeing done count me in! \m/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did mention that I liked the idea of smaller pieces in the IP thread.

The thing that draws me to the the IP format is the 2week time restriction and theme. That in and of itself is a huge limiter. I wouldn't expect to see many gaming tables produced in as short a time as that.

However a few simple guidelines are probably necessary after hearing the arguments for them. Probably restricting the entries to no focal gaming figures is a good idea. Scenic figures should certainly be allowed though. Things like frogs next to a pond for example or lizards in a jungle setting.

Another limiter could be base size. Say minimum of X dimension in any direction and maximum of y dimension in any direction. An elevation limiter could be applied as well for a Z dimension as well.

The important thing is to keep it as open as possible though because too many guidelines would stifle creativity.

I don't know about all of the rest of you but I can compare a building against a pile of rocks quite easily following the 3 categories used in the IP. Execution is very easy to compare. Theme as well. Over all is a bit more subjective but if you think about a piece in a similar vein as an IP entry you will get similar results.

For example, how do you compare Peterdita's entry against say Bexly's? One is in a sewer and has something like 6 figures in it. It's easily 5 to 6 times the size. It's in a sewer, not set in a desert. Still, with all those differences, the judges didn't seem to have a major problem scoring both entires.

I would like to see a forest entry placed against a building entry. If you judge against the three IP chriteria you will still get meaningful results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end terrain pieces are meant to be gamed with so that should remain a top priority.

What's to say that? Some people thinks miniatures are meant to be gamed with, as well... There's lots of reasons to make terrain. For some, it's about the ability to depict a piece of natural environment in a miniature scale. Some make terrain models for film projects (Lord Of The Rings, anyone?). Some make terrain pieces to use for dioramas. And, yes, some make terrain to game on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of Category by type (Fantasy, Sci-fi, etc.), maybe categories by size. Like a 30-50mm base sizes, 50-300 mm, and 300+ for the big pieces. Then break down each size category by type (urban, landscapes, abstract, whatever). This way you wouldn't have to compare, say, a cleverly done base sized for a single mini and something the size of a gameboard. Maybe even a seperate "Hirst Artistry" category for those into making pieces with that.

Just my thoughts on it.....

*EDIT* Sheesh, three more posts popped in here since I began writing this one, I see BK had the same idea as me, and a bit faster to write it :)*

Edited by Duende
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, maybe we're discussing semantics but in the hobby I assume the majority use terrain pieces for gaming in contrast to dioramas which are used to display miniatures in a terrain setting or purely the terrain itself. But even that doesn't really matter at all. Point is that any possible themes should consider gaming options, so gamers who want to enhance their terrain collection are not hindered. I would love to join this contest but I would be annoyed if the theme would make it hard to make a piece that is gameable.

Sure I think most themes would be fine and I'm sure things will work out fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think to do that Duende, we would have to gauge the actual expected number of entrants. The number of categories should be low enough that there is a decent number of entrants per category.

It's not much of a contest (And is in fact no fun) if there is only two or three entries per category. It's a lot more fun if you have a good pool of entries.

I still don't see the issue of comparing different genres against each other. I can see the size argument to some degree but again, I think the defining factor should be craftsmanship and execution, not what genre you happen to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to join this contest but I would be annoyed if the theme would make it hard to make a piece that is gameable.

Pretty much as I would be annoyed if I HAD to take gaming posibilities into consideration when doing an entry. That is something I'm not interested in at all and would definitely mean I wouldn't bother...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Thinking on this .. I believe it is possible in an IP style...

However the restrictions ar needed as said.. One of the cool things about IP is the themes. one of the things this actually does is also restrict people from using previously done works.. The problem with a lot of terrain features is the more time spent the more detail added and the better it generally looks(Can be said about most of the hobby)

and the themes lowers the chance of sneaky underhandedness.. not that anyone here would do that...

I think thre is a littleconfusion here on what Terrain is.... Terrain is for gaming it's for making your table look good and adding intresting objectives and the likes.. Settings dioramas vignettes and bases for minis are not terrain... We have prizes in the other competitions for best base best dio etc..That is a seperate element in itself.That doesn't mean that this kind of thing can't be done ....it's just that there is a difference.

personally I would like to see the comp made achievableand a way to just get people involved in the craft so keeping it simple to start with and giving people a good bit of fun small pieces being the focus...

Start with say a 50mmbase objective marker.. Any category just make it mean something...

move up to say cd sized base...

then so on for around 4-5 rounds... This would also give people a chance to join in and make some simple terrain for themselves.... Theme the set over the comp..

Bonus points for wips and step by steps as I think it's just such a valuable resource..

Pre made scenery such as say hirst arts founain allowed but declared so judges can decide on wether the work isinvolved...

whatever happens it should be kept light and fun and ultimately provide some benefit for the eople involved... I personally have no room for tons of terrain at home but can always stand a few small pieces ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of Category by type (Fantasy, Sci-fi, etc.), maybe categories by size. Like a 30-50mm base sizes, 50-300 mm, and 300+ for the big pieces. Then break down each size category by type (urban, landscapes, abstract, whatever). This way you wouldn't have to compare, say, a cleverly done base sized for a single mini and something the size of a gameboard. Maybe even a seperate "Hirst Artistry" category for those into making pieces with that.

Just my thoughts on it.....

That's the idea IMO. It should be gaming terrain or scenery as Rob said, not a miniature diorama.

Edited by Moavoamoatu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

like I say .... so examples would be..

up to 50mm base.... Themes could be Natural obstacle...... Or man made obstacle..dead and dying ,, you sunk my battleship ,,,, etc...

cd base ... (I think cds are a good kindof size and are standard throughout so easy to judge...... ..themes... duck and cover ,,,,, after the battle ,,, take a break,,,,, everyday life.....

up to A4 ......... build em up knock em down , The art of destruction , int the wild .. etc....

small fun simple and useful.... a bit like my missus........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, with that definition I'm not interested. I like doing "terrain", but, obviously not Terrain! :P:

:tongue2: back at ya.... you know I as much if not more than anyone love making my model bases but there is a difference even if it's "T"

There's nothing to stop an objective marker or any other terrain piece being used as a mini setting for display after te fact but the overriding element is it's ploked on a table and played on or around....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing to stop an objective marker or any other terrain piece being used as a mini setting for display after te fact but the overriding element is it's ploked on a table and played on or around....

I realize that, but I think simply the fact that I have to be able to place the thing on a gaming table (something I will never, ever do) will take away some of the fun for me. I will likely, at some point, have to scrap ideas due to this limitation, and settle for something I'm not as inspired to do, and I would never be able to present the things the way I would want to due to the limitations of the competition. Thus, it's better for me to stay out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that, but I think simply the fact that I have to be able to place the thing on a gaming table (something I will never, ever do) will take away some of the fun for me.

Ritual, I think I need to introduce you to a little friend of mine called "Malifaux" ;) . You might change your mind about that statement then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As DH says, there is nothing stopping you from making a Dio and not putting the figures on it for the comp. Just be sure that the edges blend into the ground level and you won't go wrong. Once the comp is done, add you figures and away you go.

I've seen some of your work and the dio's you do would pass a "T"errain for a comp such as this.

I personally don't like the 50mm restriction... But that seems really reasonable in a lot of ways. Besides you can do some really wacked out stuff with a tiny base anyway. (Thinking of self deploying radar dishes that unfold at the flip of a switch at the moment!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I for one do not want people to drop out because they feel limited by the contest, that was my whole point! So if Ritual wants to make a cool big scenic base for his entry, I encourage it! After all, the whole point of the contests is to encourage people to hobby more...not less. So please drop the "terrain = gaming" thing and make it just as accessible for painters or diorama builders. The more the merrier!

Make terrain, not war...! :hippie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@thetang22

Well, I am simply not a gamer, never have been, never will be. Even if I wanted to get into gaming I would not have time for it (not without having to cut into my painting time) and I have noone to game with. That's the deal! Even "fast" games don't appeal to me as an hour spent gaming is an hour less of painting. Painting trumps gaming every time, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information