Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You like one pagers? Very cool. Sending you a PM.

3D all the way. Others have already covered how it's superior for wargaming particularly in allowing rooms over rooms and models over models - so I'll note a different benefit.

The spectacle is how the game is sold to new people. Most new players to 40K come into it after seeing how awesome it looks when two nice looking armies are fighting across a well done battlefield.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Warmachine's sales entered a near vertical decline as soon as their community adopted 2D terrain as standard.

There is room for hybridization of the two ways.

I see a difference between "games" and "tabletop wargames". Most of my 2-D experience comes from Heroclix back in the day, and yes, portability and easy of setup is wonderful.

With games like 40k, it's not just the game, it's a full on hobby. Seeing the full 3D environment is part of the experience. That being said, it's still a game not a diorama. You need to accept some lack of realism or the game doesn't quite work right.

That's why I would prefer some kind of game mat with ground level stuff being 2D, and major objects being 3D. I feel no need for rivers, lakes, or roads to be 3D at all. Knee high rubble can also be 2D. An abandoned car, building, or large wall should be 3D. Something like a patch of woods could be a hybrid system itself, with the outline of the woods in 2D and a couple trees in 3D. With a hybrid system like that you could have a mat and 6-9 physical terrain pieces make a convincing 6x4 board.

tneva82 wrote:
3d models only make sense with 3d terrain.

I mean... BattleTech.

3D terrain. A good board can be downright majestic.

Please spoiler that pic.. some of us are on mobiles....

On topic, 3d all the way as a preference. That said, I have used and will continue to use 2d terrain (newcromunda etc) at times with the corridor outlines on the board etc and whilst perfectly functional and serviceable, I much prefer the spectacle. Same reason I paint all my figures.

Deadnight wrote:
Please spoiler that pic.. some of us are on mobiles....

Fair call. Done


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
3d models only make sense with 3d terrain.

I mean... BattleTech.

Honestly I played Battletech only once on a hex map and then quickly started making terrain using model railroad supplies and random junk about the house.

3D for me, with one exception - dungeons.

I'll just use a combination, typically a 2D board with 3D terrain on it.

Main reason is storage and disinterest in crafting. Even with just generic fantasy, you're looking at 3x3 boards for grassy areas, forests, caverns, dungeons, towns, coasts, etc. I have a hard enough time painting and storing miniatures and terrain. It's easier to put on a shelf some 2D map books, than to find storage for 90 or so 3D boards that need to be kept from damage. Doesn't mean I won't get around to doing it, though!

Here's a 2D Loke Battlemaps "Book of Wilderness" board with some moss and Archon's "Elven Woods" campsite, with some Tiny Furniture "Harvest of War" corpses.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
3d models only make sense with 3d terrain.

I mean... BattleTech.

Word up mah bro!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There is room for hybridization of the two ways.

I see a difference between "games" and "tabletop wargames". Most of my 2-D experience comes from Heroclix back in the day, and yes, portability and easy of setup is wonderful.

With games like 40k, it's not just the game, it's a full on hobby. Seeing the full 3D environment is part of the experience. That being said, it's still a game not a diorama. You need to accept some lack of realism or the game doesn't quite work right.

That's why I would prefer some kind of game mat with ground level stuff being 2D, and major objects being 3D. I feel no need for rivers, lakes, or roads to be 3D at all. Knee high rubble can also be 2D. An abandoned car, building, or large wall should be 3D. Something like a patch of woods could be a hybrid system itself, with the outline of the woods in 2D and a couple trees in 3D. With a hybrid system like that you could have a mat and 6-9 physical terrain pieces make a convincing 6x4 board.

And that's a good compromise. Its not my compromise, for me, the figs are generally 3d (I seldom play with tokens but will do so in a pinch, as when out of town) and the terrain is generally 2d, but yes, rivers are roads don't need to be three d. When I've seen this done, they are generally made out of plaster, which cracks easily and degrades quickly thereafter, even if glued back together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3D terrain. A good board can be downright majestic.

Spoiler:

Beautiful stuff, and no question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ced1106 wrote:
I'll just use a combination, typically a 2D board with 3D terrain on it.

Main reason is storage and disinterest in crafting. Even with just generic fantasy, you're looking at 3x3 boards for grassy areas, forests, caverns, dungeons, towns, coasts, etc. I have a hard enough time painting and storing miniatures and terrain. It's easier to put on a shelf some 2D map books, than to find storage for 90 or so 3D boards that need to be kept from damage. Doesn't mean I won't get around to doing it, though!

Here's a 2D Loke Battlemaps "Book of Wilderness" board with some moss and Archon's "Elven Woods" campsite, with some Tiny Furniture "Harvest of War" corpses.

Spoiler:

Very nice indeed. Everybody has to make some compromises in this hobby, and this ^^ certainly works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cool thing I've done with 2D terrain is put down a bunch of tiles or maps, then put a table cloth over it, put down more tiles/maps, a cloth over that, and then a final layer of maps/tiles.

As we moved through each part of the adventure (this was for the 40k RPGs), I could just remove the tiles/cloth from one layer, and instantly have the second set ready to go. Made things very quick.

Can't do that with 3D terrain.

How'd I miss this? I really LOVE that idea, sir. STOLEN!!!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Honestly I played Battletech only once on a hex map and then quickly started making terrain using model railroad supplies and random junk about the house.

That works for some Btech. But there's some very cool maps (printed by the company!) that you simply are NOT building or storing in 3d. Unless you chose that to be your general table - and then that'd be pretty inconvenient for most other minis games.

In all honesty, I love BTech's maps because of how they change the game, removing any amount of ambiguity over movement, range, line of sight and so on. The fact that the newer maps are great looking is just a bonus.

Now do tiered hills count as 3D or flat? The store I go to has rounded hills and it can be a bear to leave models on them, especially pewter models in a ranked unit.

2d with removable 3d elements works great for games that really benefit from 2d terrain - can't imagine playing A Song of Ice and Fire or Warmachine on fully 3d terrain.

Well, I can imagine, actually, as I used to occasionally play WFB 6-7ed over 3d terrain and it was always a pain. And 3d hills (or forests with non-removable trees for that matter) can just go to hell, I have never played a game in which they worked.

Kill Team on the other hand works nicely with 3d terrain, interactions are quite well defined and relatively easy to implement due to well designed and written rules. Can't see a point in playing this game on 2d terrain.

Hills, etc just have to be modeled in a way that functions well with the minis your using. Often that means more plateaus than true hills in rank and flank games, but that's not hard to do.

I will say that in our KOW campaign we used allot of terrain but. very few hills . We also use allot of trees, but they're removable and placed on bases that delineate the actual forested area.

I originally ignored this thread thinking it was poster suicide on a wargames forum, but a nice discussion has come out of it with pros and cons.

I had completely forgot that I once tried X-wing with 3D asteroids, and they were gone by midgame in favor of the 2D tiles. Just easier. Battletech? 2D. Car Wars? Still designing a car, but eventually 2D while taking 4 hours to do 30 seconds of drive time.

But little toy soldiers? I want 3D. Look at that eye-level photo Insectum7 posted. “Majestic” is right. HBMC posted a number of 3D boards earlier in the thread. Also wonderful, immersive things that transport you to another world. These kinds of set ups call to you from across the room in a way 2D set ups don’t.

I’ve played both ASL and 40k/WHFB. I like both. They all transport me to a different place and time. I’m not even sure what my point is. I think it’s that I expected to say, “of course 3D is better in all respects,” but I’m leaving with, “I appreciate and love both.”

(But feth sloping 3D hills.)

battletech works because they actually have written the rules specifically for the hex grid maps and for play on a free table - the maps work and provide a smaller gaming surface for the same game - the mechs are basically two large for the hexes with terrain in 3d. the same maps grow at least 50% each way to have terrain, which can look vastly better, or vastly worse

the key though was the designers realising it and creating rules that work with and without the hex grid

I don't think Battletech really fits the discussion here. While it has rules to adapt the game for 3d terrain, it is -and has always been- primarily a board game.

Alpha strike is a bit of a different case in that while it is essentially a 3d version of the board-game Battleforce (withgroup-representing chits swaped out for single unit miniatures), it has always been presented as a 3d terrain game and played as such.

Lol, meanwhile in the News & Rumors forum...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810306.page
3d terrain for Battletech

 Fugazi wrote:
Lol, meanwhile in the News & Rumors forum...
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810306.page
3d terrain for Battletech

Yeah, there's been 3d terrain for BT for decades. Seems like these folks are really thinking about what players need, sizing the buildings to fit the hex maps. That's something that was not always done right back in the day.

 Just Tony wrote:
Now do tiered hills count as 3D or flat? The store I go to has rounded hills and it can be a bear to leave models on them, especially pewter models in a ranked unit.

Well, to me, 3d is 3d. If it has more thickness to its third dimension than a sheet of cardboard, that's 3d.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
2d with removable 3d elements works great for games that really benefit from 2d terrain - can't imagine playing A Song of Ice and Fire or Warmachine on fully 3d terrain.

Well, I can imagine, actually, as I used to occasionally play WFB 6-7ed over 3d terrain and it was always a pain. And 3d hills (or forests with non-removable trees for that matter) can just go to hell, I have never played a game in which they worked.

Which brings me back (not to whip my own dead horse, but I'm about to) to my example of the orcs sneaking out of the woods to ambush the princess and her cavalier guard as they come up the forested road. How, exactly, do you accomplish that with 3d terrain when its all a solid piece? Again, I've seen a lot that is really beautiful in its own right, but just isn't feasible for gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
We also use allot of trees, but they're removable and placed on bases that delineate the actual forested area.

Which is the best way to do it, if you have to go 3d.

If I were to argue AGAINST my example of the palace coup being only workable in 2d, I'd do it by pointing out that while a fully constructed palace might not work, stand-alone-walls, doors, banquet tables, etc., might do pretty well. Even here, you are going to run into problems with solid things trying to push each other out of the way, which doesn't happen with drawn or painted rooms on a flat surface, but it would be easier, certainly, in some not quite so intricate siruations.

Depends entirely on the style of game being played, and how the models interact with the terrain.

Games that involve inertia and limited maneuverability like X-Wing, Armada, and the like are better with 2-d terrain. Or at least the capability of being 2-D, where swanky 3D models (asteroids, dust clouds, etc) can be removed from a standard flat template for when the models interact with them.


Any other game, where models can move however they feel? 3D all the way, accept no substitute. I know lots of people play standard Battletech on the paper maps alone, but man, it's so much better on a board with "real" terrain items, even if you are still using hexes.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Depends entirely on the style of game being played, and how the models interact with the terrain.

Games that involve inertia and limited maneuverability like X-Wing, Armada, and the like are better with 2-d terrain. Or at least the capability of being 2-D, where swanky 3D models (asteroids, dust clouds, etc) can be removed from a standard flat template for when the models interact with them.


Any other game, where models can move however they feel? 3D all the way, accept no substitute. I know lots of people play standard Battletech on the paper maps alone, but man, it's so much better on a board with "real" terrain items, even if you are still using hexes.

And the terrain on hexes/squares thing vs. the measuring stick then rears its head, but I've always been one to avoid that battle whenever I could.

"You're Chasseurs of the Guards are CLEARLY 1/64 of an inch within my lancers zone of control!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

...etc...

Somebody please hand me a pistol and I'll just shoot myself now.