Terrain and games, double standards and dire rules - rant warning!

[FierceKitty]

Yellow Rose of Texas notwithstanding, my wife always wants to play the dam' Yankees.

[Orcs]

I would never call someone else's table crap.  Perhaps because I was taught "if you cant say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Personally I am Like Leman, I like a nice well presented table to move my figures over. I am fortunate that I have a the funds to buy good terrain and the space to store it. Mrs Orcs is also very accommodating. I recently took over the dining room for 6 weeks leaving the table set up between games with no complaints.

I have had many excellent games over the years on very basic tables. It is the game and the company that makes it enjoyable. Nice terrain is the icing on the cake  

I recently put on a Chain of command game at home,  and got several comments on how nice the terrain was, both from those playing and Mrs Orcs.  However the models and terrain probably cost  over £500  and would have only just fitted into the boot of a family car.

This is all very nice for those of us who have :-
1) The time and money to obtain such terrain (often over many years)
2) Somewhere to store it all

Going to a show and seeing most if not all the tables there set up  in a similar fashion must be very daunting to a new teenager to the hobby thinking that is the standard he has to achieve to be able to play an enjoyable war-game.  

I think we should ensure that shows have a reasonable number of games set up using far more basic terrain, to show newbies what can be achieved in the kitchen table with a basic felt cloth, a  couple of buildings, some lichen and a few trees.  Giving them the  feel good "fix of wargaming"  so they are hooked . Once hooked they will hopefully go on to put on fun games on pretty tables that we can be involved in.
 

   

[Terry37]

I appreciate a well set battlefield, but for my rules, some use just pieces of cut felt, and others go to great lengths to create awesome terrain pieces. I have the bits to make nice terrain, but so far have just gone the felt route since so many of the other players have such an abundance of terrain we seldom ever use any of mine. I did pick up some nice hills at last years Nashcon, and have picked up a great piece of greenish suede-felt like fabric to cover my board with, but am still seeking a good glue to use to adhere fabric to board and to be able to spread it evenly and allow the fabric to lay smoothly. Then I want to see if I can also use some of the fabric to cover the hills with. For HOTT the hills don't need to be high so usually run only about maybe a quarter of an inch high, and they are limited in their size by the rules.

I really like and support the idea of including some beginner/basic table set ups so newbies don't feel overwhelmed. We truly need the younger generations to follow our footsteps if the hobby is to continue.

Terry

[toxicpixie]

Cheers on the "map board" comments

Orcs hits a good point - some games at shows are stunning, but are prohibitive for most especially "new starters". Whilst inspiring they can be off putting. Whilst the "Silver Legions on book hills on bare table" isn't something I'd recommend in public, there's definitely a place for the "Blue Peter, made at home with a small aubergine" look with achievable numbers of acceptable figures. I tend to feel my own efforts look like that - see recent piccies from WMMS

The aim there is to get people playing, get them to have fun, and think "I could do that" and then go home and have a bash. As opposed to "I CANT do that, no way can I find space for 8ft by 6ft and a thousand lovingly exact 28mm figures per side with hand crafted down to every last bush terrain", and get discouraged.

I think Tin pants and Pointy Stick warfare suffers from the completion scene - very rigid terrain rules which encourage exact cut outs of specific size & shape that have to go across three dozen tables and be much more utilitarian than nice. That's not always the case, eg Tim of Maxman game with his recent lovely Samurai terrain BUT the bulk of "competition terrain" I've seen tends to be stark, as it were.

[Leman]

Agree about competition games - saw some really poor efforts in Manchester a couple of years back. They may as well have invested in a decent boardgame. Not so sure about the 6x8 table and thousands of figures. In my club we have put together a Ronin game to go on tour on a 4x4 with about 15 figures per side. There is a Tiny Wargames mat and some buildings and trees. It looks attractive without being over the top railway modeller standard. It is the type of participation which should inspire  the youngsters (and the not so young) to get into something historical. Talking of 8x6s though, I went to York a couple of years back, was drawn to a large demo game (I think it was WWI, but not too sure) around which were a good half dozen players, all of whom assiduously avoided eye contact, and some of whom made damn sure they kept their backs to me. I think that's more likely to put off potential wargamers far more than attractively modelled scenery.

Incidentally, we have taken to travelling with a spare player who can talk to interested parties while the others run the game.

[toxicpixie]

I agree completely on the small foot print game - some bemoan the disappearance of the grand sweep and the rise of the kitchen table game but it's acheivable for many who don't have space or opportunity dor the grand manner (which are often more like a static demo!). And it gives good practise for building up from there or joining in with friends and club mates etc if/when there's space and time for a big game.

I tend to be a bit hoarse by the time we finish a demo - I spend more time talking than dice rolling Its why I've encouraged clubmates to "go participation"recently  instead of "going large" with a single all day game; what's the point if everyone's hunched down avoiding talking to possible new recruits or re-firing the imagination of the jaded grognard?