Page 1 of 1

T9A terrain

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:03 am
by Furion
Dear Captains,

We as Chairmen believe that:

1. Delivery of 3d pieces in high quality is a difficult task. They have to be:
a) playable
b) cheap
c) nicely done
d) durable
e) transportable
f) consistently sized

Some of those requirements are - practically - mutually exclusive.

2. We believe that the attempts from previous years to deliver quality 3d terrain have been a failure or a moderate success at best. This is not to say that it was the organizers fault. We believe the organisers worked to their full capacity to solve this, it is just often the case, that the task was too great.

3. Putting lots of money into terrain and then transporting it has been proven to be not an optimal solution.


Given all of the above, our analysis of the situation is as follows:

We believe that in case of T9A, switching to 2d terrain will actually be a powerful upgrade to the quality of the terrain and to the event as a whole.

2d terrain will be playable, cheap, nicely done, durable, transportable and of same size.

Below we post the pictures of proper 2d terrain. This topic will stand here for discussion for the next 2 weeks.

Image
obrazek w html

If the support to this idea is not unanymous, we will start a vote to decide.

We strongly believe that 2d terrain will be an upgrade to the ETC T9A experience and we would like to ask for your support.

cheers,
Frederick, Furion, Chris, Babnik, Hector

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:24 pm
by kiri
If the support to this idea is not unanymous, we will start a vote to decide.


Then you can start the vote :)

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:02 pm
by Chosen of Sigmar
To be honest I liked the tables at the Herford WTC where 2D scenery was used in combination with 3D terrain. The 2D clearly defined the boundaries where things like some trees, ruïn pieces, buildings,... could easily be taken of the 2D part when moving a unit on the scenery.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:24 am
by Bogi Obradovic
So if the vote for 2d terrain passes I will be also bringing 2d models.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:21 am
by Furion
And you'll get a 2d chair to sit on ;)

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:05 pm
by Shino
Bogi Obradovic wrote:So if the vote for 2d terrain passes I will be also bringing 2d models.

And if someone will have books in electronic format rather than printed, then they can also have models on they tablets instead of physical ones

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:38 pm
by Bogi Obradovic
Shino wrote:
Bogi Obradovic wrote:So if the vote for 2d terrain passes I will be also bringing 2d models.

And if someone will have books in electronic format rather than printed, then they can also have models on they tablets instead of physical ones


Exactly where we don't want to get to. Any step in the direction away from the hobby and towards a virtual board is possibly not a good one. It really detracts from the feel of wargaming and what wargaming should be about. It will be getting more virtual and until, as you say, it will be all played on tablets and we won't even have to make travel plans. I appreciate UB but really the premier t9a event needs to promote the t9a hobby, an aspect which makes it special over all computer games.

I realise that the effort that goes into making good and playable terrain can be substantial, but it is not as hard as it seems. Three of my friends and me made good quality terrain, which is all perfectly playable with elevations such that models can be safe, in perfect square dimensions, and we did it for 30 tables in 3 days. ETC will need roughly 5 times this number. Not undoable and is definitely worth it for a proper promotion of the hobby.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:57 am
by Razon
Errr if I get this right, there is a vote about switching to 2d terrain. Except for buildings and impassible terrain.
What?
How did this came to be?
And, most importantly, who in their right mind is acttually voting 'yes' for this and why?

If the vote stated 2d terrain along with all the 3d terrain, ok, I can see merit in that. One could remove the 3d terrain so his figures don't fall of or something, later put it back. But to, from now on, REMOVE from the hobby all the 3d forests, walls, ruins, lakes... what's wrong you you people?

Sadly, team Croatia has no right to vote, so we can only sit back and watch this happen.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:06 am
by Razon
Ps. I might be wrong but will assume there is a major breach in protocol here.
Such a change in torunament rules is not up to chairman to impose. Their jurisdiction does not cover this.
A public thread where 10 captains back up the idea is the only way such change should be proposed in a vote. I don't see such thread, is there one?

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:55 am
by Furion
Razon wrote:Errr if I get this right, there is a vote about switching to 2d terrain. Except for buildings and impassible terrain.
What?
How did this came to be?
And, most importantly, who in their right mind is acttually voting 'yes' for this and why?

If the vote stated 2d terrain along with all the 3d terrain, ok, I can see merit in that. One could remove the 3d terrain so his figures don't fall of or something, later put it back. But to, from now on, REMOVE from the hobby all the 3d forests, walls, ruins, lakes... what's wrong you you people?

Sadly, team Croatia has no right to vote, so we can only sit back and watch this happen.


You already play on 2d terrain, you just don't realise it.

Forests, Plains, Lakes have been almost flat for long time. Some attempts to make them bumpy only resulted in the terrain looking like garbage. And the side effect was that it is unplayable.

Ruins - same history. Good, playable ruins have to be aestheticaly pleasing and flat. Thie solution is to print a beautiful design on gaming mat, aka 2d terrains.

As to hills and houses - there are merits to having 2nd terrain. For example, it is easier to have it consistently sized. For my experience and from what I gathered at other major tournament that used 2d + 3d terrain, it was just tossed to the side. No one played on them. But still, I can see that someone would preffer hills and houses to be 3d. Hence this is precisely what we ask. If people want it and if the budget will allow for it, we will act accordingly to the outcome of the vote.


Razon wrote:Such a change in torunament rules is not up to chairman to impose.


You are correct - we felt that such a change can't be introduced without asking community for acceptance.

Besides, it's an organizational thing, not a tournament rule.

Hence the vote.

A public thread where 10 captains back up the idea is the only way such change should be proposed in a vote. I don't see such thread, is there one?

The charter is in the sticky place.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:17 pm
by SmithF
I will echo the previous posters in saying that this is utter BS.

We're playing a miniatures tabletop game, and part of the immersion (yes, even in the "top" levels) comes from seeing amazingly painted miniatures clash in an amazing, three-dimensional battlefield. As the Serbian captain posted in the relevant vote thread, part of the initial Zagreb bid was to provide high quality, standard size three-dimensional terrain. This was mentioned as opposed to the Salamanca debacle where we had to play on 2d terrain printed on cheap A4 paper, set on top of cheap unpainted MDF tabletops.

What I also find offensive is the fact that while the dichotomy: two-dimensional or three-dimensional in the vote is BINDING, the second question about the desire for nice, 3d terrain that can be removed if needed is just a way of the chairmen to "test the waters" and is NON-BINDING.

If we have to play again on the same cheap crap terrain as last year in Salamanca I will literally ask for my money back. This is very bad PR for the T9A project, too.

Regards,

Smith

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:27 am
by Chris Legg
SmithF wrote:I will echo the previous posters in saying that this is utter BS.

We're playing a miniatures tabletop game, and part of the immersion (yes, even in the "top" levels) comes from seeing amazingly painted miniatures clash in an amazing, three-dimensional battlefield. As the Serbian captain posted in the relevant vote thread, part of the initial Zagreb bid was to provide high quality, standard size three-dimensional terrain. This was mentioned as opposed to the Salamanca debacle where we had to play on 2d terrain printed on cheap A4 paper, set on top of cheap unpainted MDF tabletops.

What I also find offensive is the fact that while the dichotomy: two-dimensional or three-dimensional in the vote is BINDING, the second question about the desire for nice, 3d terrain that can be removed if needed is just a way of the chairmen to "test the waters" and is NON-BINDING.

If we have to play again on the same cheap crap terrain as last year in Salamanca I will literally ask for my money back. This is very bad PR for the T9A project, too.

Regards,

Smith


Hi,

To go through some of your points-

1. The ETC is nothing to do with the T9A project.

2. You mention that the terrain in Salamanca was 'Cheap Crap'. This years event it became apparent that the orga for the event decided that they would ship and use this terrain in for the event, commissioning the same person from last year to provide the additional scenery required for the increase in players. The only way that we (The Chairmen) can have any influence on what is provided is to provide it ourselves, which given where we are all at, as well as the budget, is not feasible to do on a large scale.

Thus, we genuinely consider that 2D terrain (which would be printed onto neoprene) is the way forwards as we can at least provide some form of control over what players can expect - like you we consider it unacceptable to turn up and be faced with white paper as terrain and this will allow us to stop it.

As Furion has already mentioned, we already play woods, fields, ruins and water in this way in any event - removing the tops of them to place models. The only real practical change would be to buildings and hills, both of which can easily have a suitable piece on top of.

The feedback from the recent WTC, where 2d mats with 3d elements was very positive, with most reports suggesting the 3d elements were soon discarded.

As such, we think it is a postive change that the chairmen can make outside of the reliance on the orga. If your team (you haven't written it in your signature) disagrees, they are of course able to vote against the proposal.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:29 am
by Chris Legg
Razon wrote:Errr if I get this right, there is a vote about switching to 2d terrain. Except for buildings and impassible terrain.
What?
How did this came to be?
And, most importantly, who in their right mind is acttually voting 'yes' for this and why?

If the vote stated 2d terrain along with all the 3d terrain, ok, I can see merit in that. One could remove the 3d terrain so his figures don't fall of or something, later put it back. But to, from now on, REMOVE from the hobby all the 3d forests, walls, ruins, lakes... what's wrong you you people?

Sadly, team Croatia has no right to vote, so we can only sit back and watch this happen.


I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to question the mental state of other teams that disagree with you, that is their own free choice. What your definition of 'hobby' could be different to theirs, and each is equally right.

Re: T9A terrain

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:48 pm
by Razon
Chris Legg wrote:
Razon wrote:stuff


I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to question the mental state of other teams that disagree with you, that is their own free choice. What your definition of 'hobby' could be different to theirs, and each is equally right.


I am questioning the motivation of all the teams (and persons) that wish to change the terrain they play upon, from 3d to 2d. None of us came to this hobby recently, we have all been here for a while. We all have been playing on 3d terrain. Why the change?

As for the definition of the hobby, at least that part is very clear. We all are playing massive 3d tabletop wargames. With 3d hand painted miniatures. With 3d hand painted terrain. Using 3d dice, 3d measuring tape and other accessories. In person, traveling to various countries to do so. We have been doing this for years and what it looked like so far is the exact, indisputable definition of our hobby, not my personal preference. Or did I miss something?

If anyone wanted to play a 2d game, well, there is Universal Battle for that. So why pay all the money and invest all the time, when parts of the hobby some seem to not enjoy (and terrain building, 3d terrain, is as much a part of our hobby as other aspects)? What is next, unpainted miniatures? 2d miniatures? Apps for rolling dice?

You did mention that 2d terrain is probably only way for chairmen to guarantee any terrain for the ETC. Well now, that sounds like a big problem. Hope the organizer says something to clear things up.
But why no mention of any of this, prior to the vote?
I agree that playing on 2d neoprene terrain is much better then playing on pieces of paper. Has it come to that?