Are GW terrain kits a let down?

[lhg033]

I personally think the ruins are too busy.

I get that the imperium is known for being fancy and grandiose, but not every building in a hive is or needs to be like that.

 

This I get but actually, as someone on this board (I still cant remember who but you have my thanks!) pointed out - you dont have to paint all the details on terrain and in fact having it a bit more muted, not including all the details, basic level of highlights, actually works really well to let your models be the main focus. It also makes painting the terrain much more enjoyable as it's less critical and you can play with the odd technique without being too invested in the outcome.

 

I loved the old 2nd/3rd edition terrain for its ready to go nature. My main got to when I was (a lot) younger for games used to the the fort from GorkaMorka mashed it up with storm of vengeance and some other bits I had to allow for different board setups. I the 'new' terrain, particularly the modular stuff like walkways and ruins, keeps an element of the ready to go feel but there is more choice for (imperial) aesthetic and a few options for more fixed pieces to throw in.

[Antarius]

 

This I get but actually, as someone on this board (I still cant remember who but you have my thanks!) pointed out - you dont have to paint all the details on terrain and in fact having it a bit more muted, not including all the details, basic level of highlights, actually works really well to let your models be the main focus. It also makes painting the terrain much more enjoyable as it's less critical and you can play with the odd technique without being too invested in the outcome.

I don't know if it was me, but I certainly don't paint all the details, as I think it looks better if you don't pant terrain the same way you would a miniature. Plus, most industrial buildings, vehicles etc. usually have a coat of spray paint, meaning that not painting all the details is also more "realistic".

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I wonder how long people will actually pay for GW terrain.

 

200 pieces for $150

https://www.manticgames.com/games/terrain-crate/sci-fi-terrain-crate/battlezones-sci-fi-terrain-crate/military-compound/

 

Or

134 for $125

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Battle-Sanctum-2020

 

Even if you think their modern kits are better than their old stuff, no denying the modern kits aren’t really worth the cost.

 

The Mantic set has 49% more components. Great. But based on the best UK prices, it's also 41% more expensive than the Sanctum, so you're really showing me a "value" offering of less than 10% versus the GW product. It's hardly a compelling argument that GW kits "aren't really worth the cost" when the price difference between them and the thing you're offering as a superior deal is actually so little. Especially when the Mantic terrain looks like absolute hot garbage by comparison (obviously, this is my opinion and not a fact, but there's no way such a modest saving would convince me to buy this rather than GW terrain)

 

Another thing here is that most of my GW terrain comes from discounted sources like the Conquest or Imperium magazine or bundled in game launch boxes, and because these sources appear so frequently it's actually really easy to get the price paid per component even lower than the terrible Mantic kits you're using as a benchmark.

where are you getting 41% more expensive? $25 is not 41% of $125 it’s 20% so you get 49% more, for 20% more in price. Edited March 28, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Bryan Blaire]

Price per piece is not as meaningful anyway unless the pieces you are comparing are equivalent in the fashions that you consider important (Mantic is $0.75 per piece for the illustrated kit, while the GW one is $0.93 per piece).

 

Given the produced material quality of appearance (personal call, hard to make an objective numerical comparison about that and my only exposure to it is from the pieces that my FLGS has), and apparently the anecdotes about the durability of the material (I’ve personally never seen the Mantic stuff just fall apart from use and a lot of things will break when they are dropped), to me, there’s no comparison here - GW is going to win over Mantic every time.  I’d rather play with the old GW Imperial Firebase than the Mantic terrain - something is always off about it to me (it’s like flat with minimal detail, but strangely also rounded over?).  GW’s terrain, while priced higher than I would like, does “give me what I pay for” in that I don’t feel I can get that quality of terrain for cheaper in both time and monetary investment (there’s definitely no way I could scratch-build to that level of quality, I’m sure others can, but I know my limit there, my scratch-built stuff looks like actual painted junk).

 

The idea of incorporating GW terrain into scratch built to stretch everything but also provide some cohesiveness to all of it is gold though (I could definitely see doing that with some hills/terraces, etc.), as is not painting every single detail on the GW terrain.

[Schlitzaf]

Only ossue I have woth modern GW terrain I prefer old Cities Of Death ruins. And I feel the three story modern building are to grandier and can lead to bad gaming experience.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

 

I wonder how long people will actually pay for GW terrain.

 

200 pieces for $150

https://www.manticgames.com/games/terrain-crate/sci-fi-terrain-crate/battlezones-sci-fi-terrain-crate/military-compound/

 

Or

134 for $125

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Battle-Sanctum-2020

 

Even if you think their modern kits are better than their old stuff, no denying the modern kits aren’t really worth the cost.

The Mantic set has 49% more components. Great. But based on the best UK prices, it's also 41% more expensive than the Sanctum, so you're really showing me a "value" offering of less than 10% versus the GW product. It's hardly a compelling argument that GW kits "aren't really worth the cost" when the price difference between them and the thing you're offering as a superior deal is actually so little. Especially when the Mantic terrain looks like absolute hot garbage by comparison (obviously, this is my opinion and not a fact, but there's no way such a modest saving would convince me to buy this rather than GW terrain)

 

Another thing here is that most of my GW terrain comes from discounted sources like the Conquest or Imperium magazine or bundled in game launch boxes, and because these sources appear so frequently it's actually really easy to get the price paid per component even lower than the terrible Mantic kits you're using as a benchmark.

where are you getting 41% more expensive? $25 is not 41% of $125 it’s 20% so you get 49% more, for 20% more in price.

He's right. He just didn't show his workings. A quick Google shows I can get the sanctum for £52, and the compound for £80. That is a 41 percent difference.

 

But pure component numbers as an indicator of value is, IMO a poor metric.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

I wonder how long people will actually pay for GW terrain.

 

200 pieces for $150

https://www.manticgames.com/games/terrain-crate/sci-fi-terrain-crate/battlezones-sci-fi-terrain-crate/military-compound/

 

Or

134 for $125

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Battle-Sanctum-2020

 

Even if you think their modern kits are better than their old stuff, no denying the modern kits aren’t really worth the cost.

The Mantic set has 49% more components. Great. But based on the best UK prices, it's also 41% more expensive than the Sanctum, so you're really showing me a "value" offering of less than 10% versus the GW product. It's hardly a compelling argument that GW kits "aren't really worth the cost" when the price difference between them and the thing you're offering as a superior deal is actually so little. Especially when the Mantic terrain looks like absolute hot garbage by comparison (obviously, this is my opinion and not a fact, but there's no way such a modest saving would convince me to buy this rather than GW terrain)

 

Another thing here is that most of my GW terrain comes from discounted sources like the Conquest or Imperium magazine or bundled in game launch boxes, and because these sources appear so frequently it's actually really easy to get the price paid per component even lower than the terrible Mantic kits you're using as a benchmark.

where are you getting 41% more expensive? $25 is not 41% of $125 it’s 20% so you get 49% more, for 20% more in price.

He's right. He just didn't show his workings. A quick Google shows I can get the sanctum for £52, and the compound for £80. That is a 41 percent difference.

 

But pure component numbers as an indicator of value is, IMO a poor metric.

i agree component # is not the only indicator, but it is a major indicator imho, and having no first hand experience it was the only one I could use, and it’s also the only objective indicator we can use.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Also in regards to the people with the ‘you don’t have to paint every detail’ reply to my point about them being too busy, part of the cost is surely due to the level of detail on the kits, so for me it’s a let down to pay a premium for detail that 1. I don’t like 2. That I’m not even going to paint.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

 

 

 

SNIP

He's right. He just didn't show his workings. A quick Google shows I can get the sanctum for £52, and the compound for £80. That is a 41 percent difference.

 

But pure component numbers as an indicator of value is, IMO a poor metric.

i agree component # is not the only indicator, but it is a major indicator imho, and having no first hand experience it was the only one I could use, and it’s also the only objective indicator we can use.

I don't think it's even that objective a comparison, if we take that argument to an ad absurdum conclusion for the sake of that argument, the Titanicus Manufactorum terrain kit is unbelievable, 234 components for £36 before discounts.

 

The size of the components is a key factor as well.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Brother Adelard

[Halandaar]

 

 

But pure component numbers as an indicator of value is, IMO a poor metric.

 

i agree component # is not the only indicator, 

 

I don't think it's even that objective a comparison, 

 

Yeah, number of components on the kit is a nonsense measure of value, but it's the one I was presented so it's the one I debunked.

 

The basic gist is that Mantic is not actually that much cheaper than GW and frankly the fact that Mantic charge as much as they do in fact goes some way to justifying the price of GW's own terrain offerings, given they are so much better.

 

The other point that was dodged is that GW frequently bundles it's terrain kits in game launch boxes and expansion sets which means you can get it for much less than face value, and a lot of it available on the secondary market. I saw the entirety of the Mechanicus terrain kits from Nachmund going for as little at £35 on eBay last week and that was new on sprue. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

 

SNIP

He's right. He just didn't show his workings. A quick Google shows I can get the sanctum for £52, and the compound for £80. That is a 41 percent difference.

 

But pure component numbers as an indicator of value is, IMO a poor metric.

i agree component # is not the only indicator, but it is a major indicator imho, and having no first hand experience it was the only one I could use, and it’s also the only objective indicator we can use.

I don't think it's even that objective a comparison, if we take that argument to an ad nauseam conclusion for the sake of that argument, the Titanicus Manufactorum terrain kit is unbelievable, 234 components for £36 before discounts.

 

The size of the components is a key factor as well.

it is but in this case component size appear to be fairly comparable over all.

[MegaVolt87]

I also miss the old cities of death terrain. Also the terrain is too expensive, it should be something that is cheaper in the range, making its margins via volume of sales vs per unit. You can make complete un-damaged buildings, but it costs a fortune to do it. As others have said the discontinuation of things like that eldar forest with the ruins kills the variety. I would like to make an a-symetrical table for 40k to ensure an even game like some tourny's do- this way its up to player skill not a terrain advantage etc. Thats good for the game, but ultimately soulless. Forests, hills, a few small buildings with nearby barricades, fences, tank traps is the kind of table I would want from a nostalgic point of view and is hard to achieve when they discontinue appropriate terrain to do it. Its also a problem discontinuing kits on their own, like the old fortifications/ emplacements. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I also miss the old cities of death terrain. Also the terrain is too expensive, it should be something that is cheaper in the range, making its margins via volume of sales vs per unit. You can make complete un-damaged buildings, but it costs a fortune to do it. As others have said the discontinuation of things like that eldar forest with the ruins kills the variety. I would like to make an a-symetrical table for 40k to ensure an even game like some tourny's do- this way its up to player skill not a terrain advantage etc. Thats good for the game, but ultimately soulless. Forests, hills, a few small buildings with nearby barricades, fences, tank traps is the kind of table I would want from a nostalgic point of view and is hard to achieve when they discontinue appropriate terrain to do it. Its also a problem discontinuing kits on their own, like the old fortifications/ emplacements.

you can still have balanced even board set ups without soulless bland ruins as the only terrain.

 

I just keep seeing modern tables that’s 80-90% these kits, and they look so boring, with the exception of the builds that are like straight up covering an entire table and are 4+ levels tall.

 

It definitely feels like the game lost some of if not most of its soul when GW put their own profits before player enjoyment

Edited March 29, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[MegaVolt87]

The building kits with the a-symetrical table layouts is the community response to rules imbalance with terrain, LOS, first turn advantage etc and high prices. You get a relatively balanced table for an efficient use of limited budget in a hobby with an ever increasing pricing model. Something has to give, the wider community has spoken and thats via terrain- for the moment. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The building kits with the a-symetrical table layouts is the community response to rules imbalance with terrain, LOS, first turn advantage etc and high prices. You get a relatively balanced table for an efficient use of limited budget in a hobby with an ever increasing pricing model. Something has to give, the wider community has spoken and thats via terrain- for the moment.

the community could set up their tables however they wanted, so it’s the community’s fault if they were playing on tables that gave one side an advantage

[MegaVolt87]

 

The building kits with the a-symetrical table layouts is the community response to rules imbalance with terrain, LOS, first turn advantage etc and high prices. You get a relatively balanced table for an efficient use of limited budget in a hobby with an ever increasing pricing model. Something has to give, the wider community has spoken and thats via terrain- for the moment.

the community could set up their tables however they wanted, so it’s the community’s fault if they were playing on tables that gave one side an advantage

 

 

Sure, they could but they don't need GW kits to make a balanced/ imbalanced table. Cost is also a factor, which is why you see so many tables with DIY terrain these days. Its made somewhat of a revival because GW has priced itself out of table terrain for many people at this point. Also discontinuation of fan fave GW terrain also isn't helping the situation. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

I also miss the old cities of death terrain. Also the terrain is too expensive, it should be something that is cheaper in the range, making its margins via volume of sales vs per unit. You can make complete un-damaged buildings, but it costs a fortune to do it. As others have said the discontinuation of things like that eldar forest with the ruins kills the variety. I would like to make an a-symetrical table for 40k to ensure an even game like some tourny's do- this way its up to player skill not a terrain advantage etc. Thats good for the game, but ultimately soulless. Forests, hills, a few small buildings with nearby barricades, fences, tank traps is the kind of table I would want from a nostalgic point of view and is hard to achieve when they discontinue appropriate terrain to do it. Its also a problem discontinuing kits on their own, like the old fortifications/ emplacements.

you can still have balanced even board set ups without soulless bland ruins as the only terrain.

 

I just keep seeing modern tables that’s 80-90% these kits, and they look so boring, with the exception of the builds that are like straight up covering an entire table and are 4+ levels tall.

 

It definitely feels like the game lost some of if not most of its soul when GW put their own profits before player enjoyment

 

 

I don't know if you can have balanced matchups without a lot of ruins. Obscuring terrain is so important with how lethal everything is. So, while I agree those terrain layouts are super boring looking, I feel like its a necessary evil, and to be honest there isn't anything stopping GW from making more terrain relevant. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

I also miss the old cities of death terrain. Also the terrain is too expensive, it should be something that is cheaper in the range, making its margins via volume of sales vs per unit. You can make complete un-damaged buildings, but it costs a fortune to do it. As others have said the discontinuation of things like that eldar forest with the ruins kills the variety. I would like to make an a-symetrical table for 40k to ensure an even game like some tourny's do- this way its up to player skill not a terrain advantage etc. Thats good for the game, but ultimately soulless. Forests, hills, a few small buildings with nearby barricades, fences, tank traps is the kind of table I would want from a nostalgic point of view and is hard to achieve when they discontinue appropriate terrain to do it. Its also a problem discontinuing kits on their own, like the old fortifications/ emplacements.

you can still have balanced even board set ups without soulless bland ruins as the only terrain.

 

I just keep seeing modern tables that’s 80-90% these kits, and they look so boring, with the exception of the builds that are like straight up covering an entire table and are 4+ levels tall.

 

It definitely feels like the game lost some of if not most of its soul when GW put their own profits before player enjoyment

I don't know if you can have balanced matchups without a lot of ruins. Obscuring terrain is so important with how lethal everything is. So, while I agree those terrain layouts are super boring looking, I feel like its a necessary evil, and to be honest there isn't anything stopping GW from making more terrain relevant.

GW could have written terrain rules to make more things obscuring terrain, without making boring ass ruins every where a necessity.

And what about some overgrown ruins with vines modeled on that would look good on a more grassy/green mat?

 

They just chose to push their overpriced ruins to get them more profit.

I like the forests and the remote outpost style tables, but I don’t really want to make trees myself (I like trying my hand at larger more interesting pieces) so instead of buying a GW offering of trees I buy generic brand trees from hobby lobby, because other than like 2 overpriced over designed nurgle kits they have no trees to offer.

They really should have a few different tiers of terrain offerings. Lower detail, like the card boxes offered in those 9th Ed starter kits, middle detail like the 3rd Ed starter box, and the higher level stuff like the kits they predominately make now.

 

Just my humble opinion

Edited March 29, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[BluejayJunior]

I mean, people can assign whatever traits they want to the terrain on the table. Even the lists in the Core Rulebook are just suggestions. But that means that both players have to discuss it and agree on what everything is. And may need an impartial 3rd party to resolve any disputes. So it's easiest just to go with what is printed in the book and use lots of ruins to have consistency among lots of players and tables. 

[Antarius]

I'm not sure there ever was a time where you could get terrain kits that you could set up an entire table with, but that didn't result in similar tables when everyone used them. I don't mean to tell people what to think or why they think what they think, but I can't help but feel that there's a little bit of a rose-tinted view of the past going on here.

 

I mean, most tables I've played at in the past have been a combination of less than stellar home made terrain, some kits (often unpainted) and (sadly) random stuff like books, boxes and pieces of cardboard to represent hills, forests etc.

Now, I've amassed a huge collection of terrain (ranging from home made pieces, GW pieces and pieces from other manufacturers) and I've painted most of it, which, to be honest, has meant investing a lot of time and effort that my armies could have benefitted from. But I don't believe that is - or has ever been - the norm. This is anecdotal of course, but I seem to be much more interested and invested in the terrain side of things than anybody I've ever played with.
Most people seem to be much more interested in buying/assembling/painting minis than terrain, which is probably quite natural. Still, terrain is much more easily and, on balance, cheaply available now than it has ever been AFAICT.
In fact, we've had threads complaining about how much terrain people have amassed just by buying the different starter-type boxes they've bought for the rules/models they wanted.

As an aside, the "don't paint every detail" style of terrain painting absolutely does not mean that all the details you don't paint are lost or don't add anything to the overall impression of the piece. They're still there and they're still visible, because they are part of the physical shape of the piece, just like you can easily see them on an unpainted piece of terrain. Rather, the point of the "don't paint every detail as you would on a mini"-style is that painting a lot of the little details in the same colour as the overall piece (with a bit of natural looking shading) is quite easy and actually looks better and more "natural" to my eyes than painting e.g. every little piece of wire a different colour with two highlights, which does look somewhat busy and slightly "out of scale" to my eyes.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Antarius

[Karhedron]

Ruins also provide more tactical scope than some other types of terrain with the ability to move between different levels.

 

Blocking LOS is also important since GW have removed the abstraction from a lot of terrain. In order to be LOS blocking, terrain must be at least 5" how now so a lot of home made forests aren't eligible to block LOS unless friends house-rule it otherwise.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Ruins also provide more tactical scope than some other types of terrain with the ability to move between different levels.

 

Blocking LOS is also important since GW have removed the abstraction from a lot of terrain. In order to be LOS blocking, terrain must be at least 5" how now so a lot of home made forests aren't eligible to block LOS unless friends house-rule it otherwise.

Yeah that stupid rule was just to help them sell their terrain kits im sure.

[Cleon]

Now, I've amassed a huge collection of terrain (ranging from home made pieces, GW pieces and pieces from other manufacturers) and I've painted most of it, which, to be honest, has meant investing a lot of time and effort that my armies could have benefitted from. But I don't believe that is - or has ever been - the norm. This is anecdotal of course, but I seem to be much more interested and invested in the terrain side of things than anybody I've ever played with.

 

On a similar note - What I've found (in a number of games), is that my drive for terrain starts once I have a painted army, Decent painted terrain just makes those painted armies pop and the whole game so much more immersive and fun and to be honest a fair few of my painted terrain pieces have seen more games than any individual mini - my armies have more 'swaps' than my table.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

Now, I've amassed a huge collection of terrain (ranging from home made pieces, GW pieces and pieces from other manufacturers) and I've painted most of it, which, to be honest, has meant investing a lot of time and effort that my armies could have benefitted from. But I don't believe that is - or has ever been - the norm. This is anecdotal of course, but I seem to be much more interested and invested in the terrain side of things than anybody I've ever played with.

On a similar note - What I've found (in a number of games), is that my drive for terrain starts once I have a painted army, Decent painted terrain just makes those painted armies pop and the whole game so much more immersive and fun and to be honest a fair few of my painted terrain pieces have seen more games than any individual mini - my armies have more 'swaps' than my table.

yep.

I won’t play with a model that’s not painted now, and terrain makes a game soooo much more enjoyable now.

[Marshal Rohr]

New terracing is truly incredible