>40k plagued by cardboard L shapes for years.>games look lame as hell>players actively put off playing because it looks like shit>GW introduces 11th rules to encourage more interesting terrain>picrel is the resultI am fucking tired of garbage like this anons. Show me some cool tables you have seen or a fun table you have played on.
>>98495412>picrel is the resultExcept picrel LITERALLY can't work because there's no adequate way to determine when a model has or hasn't gone to ground. The only time such a layout would be used is if the players were complete fucking newfags who either haven't gotten terrain or can't afford it, which is probably the case here given they're playing on what looks like a carpeted floor.
>>98495412>>GW introduces 11th rules to encourage more interesting terrainThey didn't do that becsuse they mandated not only the exact shape all area terrain must be, but also exactly what and where all things must be on each piece of area terrain and then where each piece of terrain must be placed via the chapter approved mission pack. >you can use whatever you want >except actually you have to use very specific types of things, in the same specified positions, on the same footprints every time Existing area terrain people have is incomparable with what they have established as the standard mode of play, so people will be using new area terrain footprints and will attempt to exactly match what terrain layouts ask for and they'll do it as cheaply as possible because they can expect the terrain footprints to change once a year so GW can sell a new pack of cardboard.The terrain rules themselves might have worked, but the mandatory nature of highly particular bits and pieces and the obviously impermanent nature of everything means youre going to get the absolute bare minimum.
>>98495678The footprints might change, but the same general shape of individual pieces in the footprints wil probably stay consistent through the editions, meaning worst case all you're doing is getting new footprints every few mission packs (which are being made free to print by GW so it seems like it'll be super accessible.)Hell- that's turning out to be true for A LOT of the old terrain pieces as well- I had pic related sitting in my closet since 9th and it turns out almost every piece matches the dimensions pretty solidly, so I've actually started taking it with me to the shop because it works so much better for a 10th edition board than all the flg terrain the shop has
>>98495848Yes if you have a bunch of disconnected ruin pieces and GW scatter then you have the things they tell you to put on the terrain footprints, that was clearly the idea. But existing area terrain pieces are basically unusable.
>>98495848>OP complains about L shaped ruins and boring boards>You respond with "but my official GW L shaped ruins work amazingly well here!"I don't think you understand anon. There are literally countless alternative board themes you could use other than ruined cityscape.
>>98495412If you added some of these you can even match the color coding of the terrain features.
Question. Do you consider theme or playability the most important part of of a gaming table? I recently played on pic related and while I think that it looks cool, the bridge cuts the board in half, creating a massive chokepoint for models on foot while flying models can easily bypass it altogether. On one hand that is both realistic and fluffy, on the other it risks just handing over the victory to whoever happened to bring an army that is suited for the board
>>98495412>>98495422>>98495678What pisses me off isn’t the footprints or the shapes or the symmetry for tournaments.It is that no paintjob or terrain making efforts are put in to “hide” the tournament intended designs.That is what gets my autism.Anybody else feel this way?
>>98496182>theme or playabilityThis are not exclude each other.>on the other it risks just handing over the victory to whoever happened to bring an army that is suited for the boardAh troonament mentality.You are suppose to build the army for the scenario in mind. Reason why old 40k had FoC and in my personal opinion it didn't push it hard enough.The army defending and the army attacking should have different goals and as such build their armies according to said goals, scenario and terrain.Generic list for generic mission is such a retarded concept for wargames that I'm still surprised people do it.It is like trying to use a sport car to transport heavy machinery. You could do it, but it is stupid and there are better vehicles for said task like a truck. In the wargame case super generic and repeatable scenario is a task for videogames.
Here's my dinky ww2 setup
>>98496204I think the highly specific requirements enable the lack of effort by providing a explicit standard. If they've put the footprints in the right places and put things in the specified places they've just done what GW told them to do.
>>98496239Unironically based>>98496182>Better questionShould all of the board be equally decorated or is a fuckhueg centerpiece enough of a spectacle?
>>98496339The only important consideration for the board should be that you see your fellow wargamer using it at a tournament and hope you get it next round.I remember one of the tournaments my friend hosted for 16 players. Custom scenarios and rules for every table, one of them gave battleline (well, troops) infinite respawn, one had acid rain everywhere, another was chill until someone rolled a sandstorm and then shooting was fucked for the whole round. Good times.
>>98496239This rules, actually
>>98495412OP the issue is that you've been assuming that GW and the rules were the issue, and that the playerbase were wanting to make high fidelity, thematic terrain layouts and tables to play on but were being held back by the rules.Wrong.The reality of the situation is that the majority of warhammer players are tasteless swine and view terrain merely as something they're required to buy to play "balanced" competitive matches. They do not care about visuals, they do not care about theme or making a scenario, they genuinely like soulless competitive play and will opt for the cheapest, most abstract looking terrain possible in order to get into the tourneyfaggging as soon as possible. The warhammer community has always been the problem, there was never anything truly stopping them from taking circle objectives or these new footprints and making thematic, diorama terrain pieces. They truly and simply do not want to, they view wargaming in the same way one views league of legends or dota. A new video on YouTube where some fag tells them how to win the game is infinitely more interesting to them than any terrain or painted models
>>98495412trying to work through painting a table of terrain. also working through all the needed minis. too much to paint, not enough time.
>>98496239nice, needs some hills tho.
>>98496739I still wonder how the fuck that happen. Even in my third world country we had proper terrain. For events too.
>>98498159It started once video games and youtube became the main entry to warhammer for beginners rather than roleplaying game players discovering it at hobby shops
>>98496182>whoever happened to bring units that are suited to the terrain Wow, just like real warfare, in a wargame?? PREPOSTEROUS
40k really is disgusting and pathetic in terms of terrain, but at least fantasy people put in some effort
>>98496302It definitely provides a judgement free excuse structure for a board looking like shit.
