Terrain

[tadaka]

On another post this pic was posted. Now I am just curious how every one else feals about how much terrain is on the board. Its not a bash that they used to much or to little I am just currious what the board thinks about the amount of terrain.

Lalochezia thanks for the pic

QUOTE]

[nerdelemental]

So little that I'd consider it unplayable.

I'd put at least one to two more of those crafty foam buildings and at least double the trees as terrain elements and it'd probably feel about right.

[Q'iq'el]

This is on the lower end of how Malifaux Board should look like, at least according to the book.

Granted, it is very subjective, because it all depends on the pieces you use. For example, if your houses had floors, balconies, terraces and climbable roofs with chimneys, the terrain would suddenly become quite more enjoyable. A cart or two parked here and there, and possibly movable via (1) or (2)Interact would make the board a little bit more interesting too.

Do the trees in the corner count as a forest? If no, there's a distinctive lack of area terrain and movement-hindering terrain of any sort. A duck pond, a river, some wet ground perhaps - an obstacle, area terrain and something for the aquatic models too.

The fence behind the brown house is somewhat wasted. The house is already providing a hiding place and you'd get more cover from spreading the walls to the left and right, on the sides of the house.

Finally depending on which corner is chosen for deployment, the board offers little cover for melée oriented crews or barely enough cover. Remember things like walls give cover only if you are within 1" of them, so for the most parts the central square of the map is completely uncovered and there's only basic cover to go in the corners too.

The layout of the table is actually quite neat. It could use more clutter - some tools stacks, piles of rocks dug up from the fields, cut down logs prepared for some building work perhaps? Wood for fireplaces... more crates and bags of stuff. Especially in the center - you could make some sort of platform with different supplies stored on it. The point is not only to provide areas where models can hide completely, but also all these ht1 and ht2 "covering" pieces with soft/hard characteristics. Your village, effectively, has only 2 walls for that (near the forest), as the two behind the brown house are of very situational utility.

Either way it is a good picture for reference I feel. It has 17 pieces of terrain - less if the trees in the corner count as a forest (1 area terrain). I believe the manual suggests +/- 18 as your minimum, so that is how Malifaux' "minimum" looks like. Twice as many pieces of terrain (with 2~3 area terrain pieces - forest or two, lake or marsh, perhaps a pumpkin patch etc.) and you'd be near the maximum.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Q'iq'el

[Justin]

So little that I'd consider it unplayable.

I'd put at least one to two more of those crafty foam buildings and at least double the trees as terrain elements and it'd probably feel about right.

I agree with this.

There are a number of factors that effect the terrain in that pic that are fairly unique to my situation:

1) I only have room for one tub of terrain, and that is my kitchen table

2) Pretty much every single game played on that terrain was played between sommer and Lilith before the first errata came out. So, at the time, Lilith totally ignored terrain. And nephilim flew over it. And Lilith pretty well slaughtered Sommer every game and the more terrain, the bigger the disadvantage to the already encumbered gremlins. So there was not much incentive to add more.

So, with Lilith the way she was, that terrain was pretty much purely aesthetic.

[tadaka]

Very intresting. Personaly I never liked the example pic in the book. Mainly just because the one huge forrest accounted for so much of the terrain. This is probably a little under what I normaly see so sounds like my local playgroup is playing with a pritty good amount.

I think more forest would help. I like the idea they effect both movement and los but other models interact with them well. Things like hunter and waldgeist.

[Ratty]

We normally have lots of ruined buildings on the board, at least one per square foot. We don't have much area slowing terrain. But to be honest with all the walls on the board it slows things enough and I would feel really guilty if we had huge forests as I play spirits.

[chaosobscuros]

Although the number of terrain pieces may be a little low, I feel that an exception must be made on the principle that those little foam houses are absolutely adorable.

In all due seriousness, Q'iq'el makes some good points. Some small covering terrain pieces would fit in nicely if you have access to them.

I can definitely understand not having enough terrain or space. My first games of 40K were played with a 4x6 piece of green felt spread out over school books!

[Deuce]

Simple pieces of cloth to form an outline can account for a lot of area terrain and take almost no storage space. Not as aesthetically pleasing, but you don't need actual tree models or water effects to create a wooded area, pond or marsh. They're generally easier to play with, as well. I've always that, with maybe a few small, freestanding, single trees for aesthetics (that I move around to allow model movement) and left solid terrain pieces for actual blocking obstacles.

[poulpox]

I think there is enough houses on your board. We use about twice more small pieces of terrain ranging from Ht 1 to 3 to provide potential cover all over (bushes and trees, fences, carts...) and also a couple of area terrain such as woods. All in all a tad more crowded than your field (I love the colors of these ginger bread houses!! )

[Justin]

This one with an actual ginger bread house is much more seasonal:

Heh, I need to start doing battle reports again. That was fun.

[tadaka]

That one is about what our boards look like Well minus gingerbread houses. I think they sell those at like wall mart I might grab a couple

[poulpox]

I use WWG houses they're neat (until terraclip points its nose!)

[jmp_mydog]

There's not enough terrain on that board. Ranged lists will have a huge advantage, and slow or melee orientated crews will be at a serious disadvantage with that set up.

You need lots more terrain. Even some CD's covered with flock to represent a forest would help.

[The Green Git]

I'll chime in with the "too little terrain" choir. In our games we typically have twice that number of buildings, along with low clutter like walls, fences and scatter. If we play forest or bayou games we have at least four areas of forest in the 3x6 size, a few ruins, and at least a shack or three.

While we are on the subject, how many of you play trees as single elements versus areas of trees with an outline or base and just two or three movable trees to represent?

Edited December 8, 2010 by The Green Git
Cleaning up

[Justin]

I'll chime in with the "too little terrain" choir. In our games we typically have twice that number of buildings, along with low clutter like walls, fences and scatter. If we play forest or bayou games we have at least four areas of forest in the 3x6 size, a few ruins, and at least a shack or three. While we are on the subject, how many of you play trees as single elements versus areas of trees with an outline or base and just two or three movable trees to represent?

I like trees as single elements where the entire base of the tree blocks LoS.

Allows my models to duck in between them as opposed to just hide in a giant forest.

[Deuce]

No reason you can't have a forested area terrain piece with individual trees on them being fixed, blocking cover.

I generally use smaller trees to represent and larger trees, rotted trunks, boulders and the like for actual cover.

[poulpox]

We use both wood area and single trees like those in the pic, although we do put the trees on bases and count the tree as cover + obscuring, ie you can see through it but gives you cover if within 1"

[The Green Git]

No reason you can't have a forested area terrain piece with individual trees on them being fixed, blocking cover.

I generally use smaller trees to represent and larger trees, rotted trunks, boulders and the like for actual cover.

We use both wood area and single trees like those in the pic, although we do put the trees on bases and count the tree as cover + obscuring, ie you can see through it but gives you cover if within 1"

Outstanding ideas. So the outline of the "forest" gives you soft cover but still allows LOS and the bases of the tree elements provide a definition for hard cover. Excellent.