I am not optimistic that we'll get it, but if I could wave a magic wand and have anything I wanted from FFG, they would give us 3D terrain.

I was reflecting with some buddies about the anxiety of the future of the game and why the pick up in players hasn't seemed to live up to the pre-release excitement. While we identified many possible factors including the disjointed rollout, stiff competition from other games at the time of release, including some of FFG's own titles, the value of an existing player base for other games and intellectual property settings, and player preference for models and game play, the one thing that stands out in a big way to me is the lack of 3D terrain.

Even if we might favor a great ruleset and game experience over the best possible look, quality, and quantity of miniatures, I think the one thing all miniatures gamers aspire to, is a great looking battle between great looking armies on a great and realistic looking battlefield. And in that regard, 3D punch out terrain just fails the test. It looks weird to onlookers who might otherwise be interested in the game. It worked in X-Wing, sort of, because the abstracted movement of starships in three planes just called for terrain that models could be partially on or not. But that's not an issue for RWMG, so the 2D terrain becomes a compromise with nothing relating to game play or battlefield look.

It's a weird situation. By giving us standardized terrain and a standardized terrain deck, FFG is actually providing players with a lot of value. But the standardization of terrain is also problematic. It implies that terrain must conform to the standard. And even though FFG states that you should use whatever representative terrain you want, or even create your own, in a competitive environment with a lot of theory crafting, having standardized terrain drives a lot of the conversation and even the meta game.

Yes, I can go make my own terrain that conforms to the footprint of the standardized cut outs. It's already a pain to make terrain though and making a standard foot print is an additional pain. Also, while I've managed to make some pretty good looking spikes and rock outcrops and a forest, some of the terrain requires skill and materials that I don't have or are hard to come by. The swamp, blighted ground, graveyard, Stone Terrace, Ruins, and Stronghold, Ransacked Manor, etc., all represent a new set of tools and skills I would have to acquire to build the terrain elements.

So what am I asking of FFG? I don't expect a line of terrain to be coming out anytime soon. But maybe y'all could do something like you did with the Army Builder folks when you created the painting tutorials? Can you partner with a hobby company that could show us some great tutorials using their materials? Maybe license some terrain kits to a business partner in the hobby world? That alone would be a tremendous help.

I wouldn't mind 3-D terrain, but it also isn't something I would want prioritized for the game overall. FFG definitely needs to hasten production on the remaining units for Uthuk (including the two they haven't announced yet), along with Darnanti Warriors, Wraiths, Scouts, and the unannounced Latari unit. If I could create anything after that, I'd like a heavy infantry option for all four factions, along with a two-pack of lesser heroes that opened up some new force multiplication options.

The fact that terrain is cardboard and 2-D is actually something I love about Runewars--it is inexpensive, and easy to transport/store. I can see why people like 3-D terrain though, and we bust it out locally for events.

Personally, I would kill for official neoprene terrain with a non slip bottom.

29 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Personally, I would kill for official neoprene terrain with a non slip bottom.

No slip bottoms!

You know, Games Workshop used to do some pretty cool hobby articles in the backs of their Codices, Rulebooks, and White Dwarf.

That, of course, halted the moment they decided to start manufacturing their own terrain sets and attaching special rules you could only use if you bought their specially branded hogwash.

Those painting guides you did with Army Painter were pretty cool, FFG. There's a gap in the market you could fill for the casual hobbyist, bringing back those "Here's how you work with foam"/"Here's an easy template to build an elevated terrace" articles.

Not as much money to be made there as just selling your own terrain kits, but it would go a long way toward swinging miniature gamer public opinion your way.

I'm working on 3D terrain which i hope to make available in resin in the new year.

I'm going to try cork and foam after painting two armies.

Is there any 3D designers out there that can make some? There are several of us who have the printer, but lack the talent to design the terrain.

6 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

You know, Games Workshop used to do some pretty cool hobby articles in the backs of their Codices, Rulebooks, and White Dwarf.

This would make me very happy. Even better if they can share how to find the materials and the techniques to work with it.

My concern about 3D terrain is will the number of trays that are listed on the terrain card still fit?

49 minutes ago, darkjawa103 said:

My concern about 3D terrain is will the number of trays that are listed on the terrain card still fit?

I've been working on building 3d terrain and you bring up a really important point. It's actually a tough design problem to make something look interesting, but also hold a big square block of units. Unfortunately, a lot of times I wind up with 3d details packed around the edges of a large flat spot.

5 hours ago, darkjawa103 said:

My concern about 3D terrain is will the number of trays that are listed on the terrain card still fit?

So far I think so. If you place your units on the terrain cards you can see how they would fit for the most part. For walls and forests, it's probably best to use removable trees and walls. The one I'm least sure of is graveyard as those elements would get pretty fiddly to remove and probably wouldn't look as good as fully mounted elements. But I think something can be figured out.

It can be done.

Takes a little imagination for some of these, but I find having raised areas for the trays to sit on lets you put more detail below without wobbling.

5 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

It can be done.

Takes a little imagination for some of these, but I find having raised areas for the trays to sit on lets you put more detail below without wobbling.

These look great!

What are you using for the bases? How about the tombstones?

On 12/15/2017 at 8:10 AM, darkjawa103 said:

My concern about 3D terrain is will the number of trays that are listed on the terrain card still fit?

81.2, first bullet-point: "If the unit cannot be placed on the terrain or would not fit entirely inside the physical piece of terrain, the unit is placed off of the play area and a single figure is removed from the unit and placed on the terrain to mark that the unit is occupying it."

So it doesn't matter if the unit can physically fit inside or not.

In addition, the tournament rules already support unofficial 3d terrain, even using a totally different footprint, if the TO desires. See page 6 of the tournament rules ( https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/ff/d2/ffd221c7-808e-4926-b09c-2268cfc4882c/rwm_tournament_regulations_v10.pdf ) under "Using Existing Terrain"

My local group uses these rules a lot, even when it's not a tournament; the store has so many nice pieces of terrain that it feels silly to use the cardboard.

Works for me...

While I have done a lot of terrain work before for WFB, I am still hoping for 3D files for some of the runes and the elevated tower.

3 hours ago, Harleigh said:

While I have done a lot of terrain work before for WFB, I am still hoping for 3D files for some of the runes and the elevated tower.

yeah, I have built a metric crap-ton of terrain for 40K myself, with ruined buildings (both GW kits and a template I found in an old rulebook), craters and tree kits. The GW 'Citadel Woods' would work for Runewars, since the trees are removable. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Citadel-Wood-AoS I may drag out my terrain and compare templates/footprints.

I’m looking at it from another perspective - would stores be willing to carry a less frequent selling product like terrain packs? They’re a somewhat larger item that would occupy probably the same shelf real estate that an infantry or siege pack would and I’d hate for the FLGS to have to choose between carrying a terrain pack or getting Scions, for example, because of space restrictions. I know GW doesn’t have this problem, because stores order so big for it, but I don’t even often see the extra dice packs for RW let alone the idea of something bigger like terrain.

Most FLGS carry terrain from different sources, because it's usable in different game systems. Anything FFG'd put out would be usable with, say DnD or Aos in addition to Runewars...

On 12/17/2017 at 4:40 PM, coldsteel said:

The GW 'Citadel Woods' would work for Runewars, since the trees are removable. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Citadel-Wood-AoS I may drag out my terrain and compare templates/footprints.

It's obviously not an exact footprint (so you can't use it at tournaments that require the cards) but it's definitely a 6-tray terrain element. Works great if you're using the tournament rules I mentioned above. We have like 4 or 5 of them that we use for our tournaments here.

On 12/19/2017 at 9:51 AM, Hawkman2000 said:

I’m looking at it from another perspective - would stores be willing to carry a less frequent selling product like terrain packs? They’re a somewhat larger item that would occupy probably the same shelf real estate that an infantry or siege pack would and I’d hate for the FLGS to have to choose between carrying a terrain pack or getting Scions, for example, because of space restrictions. I know GW doesn’t have this problem, because stores order so big for it, but I don’t even often see the extra dice packs for RW let alone the idea of something bigger like terrain.

I can't speak for every game store, but we keep all terrain together, regardless of brand, since most people don't care which game it was designed for. If you're looking for some ruins, it doesn't matter if it was designed for Age of Sigmar or Warmachine or Runewars... ruins are ruins.

I definitely agree on the need for 3D terrain. Aside from looking loads better, I've noticed it can sometimes cause an issue ingame, where it's not immediately obvious what they bit of terrain is. Anything where you tell from a glance what the terrain is, instead of having to stand up and squint at a flat template, would be useful.

I mean, you can make your own, but it's a pain in the *** just getting your army painted, let alone building and painting terrain on top of that!