I just wanted to repost this thread from the Specialist Forums, as it is near and dear to my heart:
"How do you go about with terrain for Warmaster?" He was asking about sizes and terrain templates/area terrain, basically.
"I play a lot of 6mm, and only Warmaster in 10mm. For me, it made no
sense to buy 10mm terrain, so i continue to invest heavily in 6mm
But the response I wanted to preserve for eternity was that of Gorrin of London:
"Returning to the OP, and to give the two-cents'-worth of input from a
(very) seasoned, middle-aged grand scale gamer (newbie to warmaster -
but experienced in 2mm, 6mm and 10mm in other rulesets)...well here
I would suggest for inspiration on some "diorama" type
boards you google images search for grand scale terrain master "Bruce
Weigle". His late 19th century boards are designed for the (small even
for 6mm) Heriocs and Ros range but are a great reference for any scale
up to 10-12mm. I believe he makes his buildings at around 60-70% of the
scale of the figures to give the grand scale impression. I think that's
about right. Scaling for 10mm I'd say that 6mm is about right, and that
10mm scenery is better suited to 15mm games. I agree with Kealios that
owning a lot of 6mm and then investing in another bunch of scenery in a
scale slightly larger (remember that most 6mm models are 6mm "foot to
eye" and that most WM models - especially the infantry - are on the
small side of 10mm) is fairly pointless. Total Battle Miniatures 6-7mm
Pike and Shotte range is very "oldhammer" in style and the large range
can be supplemented further with some of the Napoleonic range - the
Napoleon in Russia range fulfilling much of my Kislevite needs.
asked about the demise of Warhammer and "massed fantasy combat"
(writing for his regular column in Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy
magazine) Rick Priestley replied: "Massed combat? WFB is a 1:1 game with
a skewed groundscale! 120 dwarfs versus 150 orcs isn't massed
combat...it's a punch-up in a pub car-park!". I think that how we think
about scenery in WM game is a throwback to 1:1 games (WFB is what I'd
refer to as "large skirmish") where we are more comfortable with
buildings being roughly the same scale as the models, if you want to
think of your 30 WM orcs representing 30 orcs and 1 building
representing one building in WM then do so by all means...but I don't
understand why in those circumstances you wouldn't just play Warhammer
with a bit of command and control thrown in.
By its very nature
WM is a grand scale game representing massed combat with an emphasis on
command and control and which largely plays down the differences in
races emphasised in WFB. To play any game at grand scale requires you to
immediately get your head around the abstraction of what the
battlefield and the models represent. I think from Rick Priestley's
original introduction to the game he specifically references that a
3-base regiment represents around six-hundred troops with a five
frontage and 720 for those with six. Those of you with large armies,
represent this for spectacle sake on your table. It will take twenty
full regiments and sixty stands, two deep and thirty across to represent
a single regiment in a four-deep line formation in 1:1 scale. They will
take up a 1.2 metre frontage on your table. That is what your single
3-stand unit represents. Place a single 10mm scale cottage in front of
them, how many of those 600 troops are shielded by that cottage? The
regiment can no more claim a "cover" bonus or restricted LOS from that
building than you could take shelter from a musket volley by hiding
behind a tennis ball.
The truth is that in grand scale games,
most of your scenery is just that...scenery - and therefore just there
for show. It may sound counter-intuitive, but if you want to represent a
farm-house and a barn on a grand scale battlefield - it should not
really have any bearing on movement, shooting or LOS. A regiment would
not be able to shelter behind nor would they be able to hide behind
these buildings which compared to the footprint of the regiment would be
absolutely tiny. Likewise the regiment should be able to move through
the terrain feature without any penalty with the represented troops
affected by the building - maybe around five percent of them - simply
running to catch up with their comrades if they were slowed. Any set of
buildings whose real-to-scale size could not be imagined to be able to
fully obscure at least 200 troops (1 stand's worth) can be ignored. I
take a stand in line formation to be in real scale terms to be 4 ranks
deep so in dwarf terms that's 60 abreast (45 metres?), any obstruction
that I don't think is big enough to cover this size of frontage I ignore
as terrain feature.
What is important in grand scale games is
agreeing what terrain features ARE important and agreeing on them battle
to battle. In my experience the things you need to represent are:
up areas - an area containing more than two or three houses from a
large hamlet, to villages, towns and parts of cities. The outskirts of
the built up areas should be clearly delimited (say with brown cloth and
buildings placed on them. The buildings themselves are individually
irrelevant (unless specifically required to be relevant such as a temple
etc) and the entire built up area should be treated as dense woods.
Main roads can exist through the built up area if the players wish but
units, must traverse them in column formation only (think I've see rules
for these in WM somewhere - something like all sides of a column count
as flanks and/or rear).
Woods and forest - as above, but with trees instead of buildings of course (!)
Specific areas of difficult ground - marshes, muddy ploughed fields (such as at Agincourt)
defendable obstacles - walls, ridgelines, sunken roads, earthowrks etc.
In these instances I am taking about specific and important defendable
battlefield positions only. For example, the stone wall at
Fredricksberg, the walls of Hougamont at Waterloo, the sunken road at
Antietam, the Pratzen Heights at Austerlitz.
should have little if no effect, most hedges, gentle slopes (although
these may not provide a defendable bonus they may obstruct LOS), thin
treelines, small sections of wall, individual buildings or those deemed
not to represent "built up areas" as defined above.
the epic post! I've probably previously bored all concerned with my ACW
terrain but I will try to take some pictures with WM figures to give you
an idea - you'll just have to forgive the obviously ACW buildings as I
don't have any WM 6mm buildings painted up!!
So for me...I prefer
6mm for 10mm games. Not least because I ignore most buildings the
bigger they are the more they get in the way! And also...the 6mm range
is massive compared to the 10mm ranges. Irregular miniatures even do a
set of metal roofs, doors and windows with pegs you can just push into
balsa to make your own. Of course scratch building buildings at this
scale in very easy as well compared to 28mm.
2-cents worth...I've spewed out a fool's fortune!!"
Hope this was informative! I've posted these before, but some 10mm Dark Elves in my TBM 6mm village...