"Figures or terrain? Which comes first?" Topic

I see a number of posts about people adding miniatures to a board game or other similar set up. One chap here is putting figures on printed maps which are under plexi, gamers paint figures for Commands and Colors, or paint the plastic figures in the "War of the Ring" game.

But it seems you rarely see it go the other way – putting counters on a nicely set up table. I've thought of using the CnC blocks for ancients gaming, or the red and blue Lord of the Rings plastic tokens for a fantasy battle. I often play test rules with terrain and a set of rectangular bases I have which are painted red and blue (shades of Tactics II).

For me this hobby is about the terrain more then the figures, at least from a visual perspective. The terrain is 90% of what you see, and nice terrain is relatively easy and cheap. So I am always baffled to see lovingly painted figures thrown down on a green sheet with masking tape roads and felt cut-out hills.

I've played Napoleonics using wooden painted blocks on terrain, Blue for French, Red for British etc …worked really well

I almost always make terrain first. I have a bunch of Quar buildings and trees etc. but no painted Quar.

I do a bit of both. I have gotten to the point where I buy terrain that can be used for several periods and scale. Stone walls for 28mm can work for 20 and 40mm.

But I have to admit that I do not like painting terrain. I like the figures as for me, they bring life to the table. The terrain may look great, but it is static. Figures bring in the animation to the game.

Matthew

I seem to remember a Game at Fall-In/Cold Wars where on very detailed terrain they used Blue and Grey push pins for the troops.

For everything but WWI I do the figures first, then the terrain. I do have a lot of terrain that is multipurpose though.

I prefer them both, at about the same time, though if pressed will admit to having acquired the minis, and then working on terrain.

I still remember the first Tractics games played on a sheet of plywood, with plain metal screen hills for cover. Some had a bit of plaster applied, as filler, to make them look a bit more realistic.

No paint, trees, or other terrain to speak of, other than a few penciled in roadways.

Good fun!

Of course, the real question is minis, terrain, or rules, first?

As a member of a wargames club figures first,
Terrain is a joint effort, as it is club property it needs to be hard wearing, it is use for meny periods and some times scales (15mm and 28mm).

Dose it not depend on the scale of the game?
In a skirmish game the terrain is as inportant as the figurers.
In a large scale game to much detailed terrain can spoil the playing of the game.

I prefer making terrain to painting figures. That said, though, I always paint the figs before making any terrain as you can usually "make " do with the terrain you already have.

Depends

I think with most people it's figures first and they remain that way and will use any old terrain. After 50 years of gaming the terrain and accessories has moved into first place simply because I'm a modeler. Right now my two big projects that engage my enthusiasm are 1) A Coach for the Ruler of my Imagi-Nation, Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein, complete with interior, windows etc., four horses (I really wanted six, but it won't fit on the stand. It's for a "Headquarters Stand" of my game and it's an actual playing piece on a little diorama stand with the coach, the horses, The Princess and two generals on horses, while before her a courtier bows low, a small guard stands at attention, and a little blackmoor boy in Turkish dress holds the horse reins.

The other thing is that in my terrain for the forest I use hexagonal "boxes" with "lids" to cover them so troops can actually be hidden in the forest. The "lid" is held up by a flange going around the hexagonal box to allow small twigs and lichen to represent the few trees at the edge of the woods, while the walls of the box are decorated with decopages of pictures of real woods, 18th century paintings of sylvian scenes etc. What I am doing now is painting the figures to to create on these narrow 1" flanges, little dioramas around the hex (which is 14" point to point, 12" between parallel sides of the hex. These include things like a lady and her lover in a gazebo en-flagrante Delicto on one face, on the preceeding face the ladies maid is dashing ahead to warn her, while in the face before that there is a crowd of beaters and ghillies running toward the gazeebo. Behind them the old gouty fat lord is being pulled in a milk cart toward his cuckolding wife.

In another there is a black sheep in a small fenced area as if it is sticking out of the woods, with a mediaeval Lord and Lady, and a small path winding around the outside to a small house with a little girl standing in front of it. There is a small bag at the feet of each. The others are all going to have scenes of picnickers, but mostly from fairy tales and nursery rhymes.

These days figures are ho-hum. It's the terrain that really interests me.

Only when I have enough figures to play a game do I worry about the terrain. Though I now have enough terrain for any springtime engagement in the country in 6-28mm. I'm working on fleshing out a city for modern 28mm.

I'd rather be painting figures over making terrain any day! I'm happy now to buy terrain slowly rather than make it so I can concentrate on painting figures.

Although – I would describe myself as a 'terrain junkie' I admit that figures (miniatures) and terrain must come together – hand-in-hand.

For me it usually starts with figures and then quite quickly moves on to terrain (usually scratch-built terrain).

Tony

I guess I'm greedy. I've got to have both. Although it does start with the figures first.

With me I guess its almost always been terrain first. After thirty plus years though I've got so much terrain I don't actually have to worry about not having terrain for a game or period.

It was all about the Figures for me.
Endless hordes of Warhammer figures but just a a green cloth draped over a table with books for hills, and a few trees.
Then I moved on to Napoleonics and the same pattern occurred.

Its only now that I'm finally getting around to making terrain that looks as good as the units. Quite enjoying it, but I don't seem to have the same level of patience as when I paint figures.

I'm more into figures than terrain. But I started with AD&D, where we drew the dungeon and placed our miniatures on the map.

One of my 'other' names is Terrainiac so that should give you an idea of where I sit – or stand.

To push the topic down a different angle:

While I always collect figures first, I absolutely believe it is the terrain that makes the game. I know some people say terrain should be movable to get it out of the way of the playability of the game. I understand the intent but disagree with the specifics. In battle terrain defines the tactics. And that includes ancient battles. Even the so called "plain, flat battlefields" rarely, if ever, were that. So, for me, there is always terrain in the game and it shouldn't be movable. I address the playability by making players understand those pieces they think they should move represent impassable portions of terrain. Even a light wood can contain an impenetrable thicket.

IMO it's logical to have the figures completed before the terrain.

Like Steve I have played napoleonics using wooden blocks. In my case because I wanted to try out a set of rules and a new period.

Figures (in which term I include counters or blocks bearing depictions of troops) because you can't fight a battle between two hills, a farmhouse and a dozen trees.
Simples! (as those meerkats say)