"WWI Trenchline System Released" Topic

Asked the FLGS to order this a couple of days ago.
Looked great on the battle report they showed the other day.

Is it me or do these look ridiculous on the box?

I guess this is why I never do trenches – unless they are recessed they become walls and the illusion is broken. These are nice for what they are and I guess $17.50 USD per foot for finished is not a bad price.

I understand the need to strike a balance between the rules and a visual effect but they're so wide they remind me of extra large drained canals.

WWI trenches were designed in a crenelated shape so as to minimise casualties from artillery. These bear no relationship to real trenches in any way. You may as well have a mediaeval game where the terrain is a bouncy castle.

Look sort of similar to the layouts shown here (with some functional license taken) for the forward trenchline.
link

They are admittedly wide so the models stands can easily be placed/moved. I can live with this bouncy castle.

I totaly agree with Tin Soldier Man.

On top of that, they come in the wrong size!
Sorry, I'm all 28mm for WW1…

Their trenches have always looked ridiculous, going back to Ostfront and probably earlier. They look more like retaining walls.
It is another example of the figure scale to actual scale. You have to fit the regulation bases on th for one thing and they ate just too wide for any realistic looking trench.

These are build for flexibility and not as a permanent display board. All other companies even in 28mm scale do the same thing when it come to non-permanent ww1 trenches. Unless you want to cut into your table, personally I don't.

You don't want to buy them then don't buy them.

what, did everyone get out of the wrong side of bed or what?
As a piece of mass produced pre painted terrain they look great, but they could do with more shapes. Be great if they had pieces to allow a zig zag pattern.

They don't "look great". They are totally wrong! Trenches were designed in a specific way to serve a specific purpose, these are just plain and simple wrong.

Of course they are too wide, that's to fit with the FOW bases and whilst not ideal it is understandable. The fact that they are totally the wrong shape and configuration is a completely different matter and ruins them as a terrain piece.

ok, we get it. You don't like them……

Several on-line sources (including aerial photos) show them to reflect front line trenches but then their tanks also failed to have the ports for releasing homing pigeons. Whaddya gonna do?

Like the rest of their terrain lines, they are a good product for a decent price.

Haters gonna hate, nothing you can do about it.

I agree with those who dislike the 'look' of above ground trenches of any kind. I just thought of a modification. Lay a piece of thin plastic in between the trench lines so that it rests atop the edges of the trenches. The plastic sheet could have terrain affixed to it to simulate the no man's land. When you're finished, you just pull off the sheet and store it with the trenches. Anyone ever try something like this?

I like them a lot. Two boxes for me.

That's an interesting idea, DW. I've never seen that done but it sounds very cool.

Only drawbacks I see are possibly damaging the underlying pieces and also anchoring everything. One overzealous hand on the table and it all goes blooey.

I am not grokking on this vibe that we have to like something just because it is well made.

Simple, if you dont like it don't buy it. Why waste time bitching about it. Alot of people on here whine but dont make tjings better. Sad state of the hobby. All yhe TMP whiners and complainers killed companies like Warhammer Historical. Way to go. Now the main targets are Bolt Action and anything Fow. I like a set of rules I buy it or read it. If you dont like it make your own.

GGouvia

You are spot on, too many whiners. Why don't they go and produce what they want? I've been in the business and all these idiots want is something else.

For goodness sake it's only a game. These people are lucky that others put time and money into producing their toys.

I've ordered two boxes!

I have to agree with the "whiners" The trenches are historically inaccurate and far too wide. Here Battlefront was the prisoner of its decision to keep the big bases it uses in its WW II system.

Why would you want to the expense of retooling your existing bases just for one period and make yourself more overheads in the process? I'm with the thumbs up brigade on this one, people are spoilt rotten these days and they don't appreciate it.

Lovers gonna Love…

link

Char b1 those are nice Trenches I bought similar ones off ebay, perhaps when the company started. IIRC they also fit the FOW base. Same idea, they have to be angled to simulayecdepth into the ground in a flat plane. People wanted FOW to get into WW1, they dod. Its simply totally understandable that their trenches would be wide enough to cover their bases.

I could make better than that, there are all sorts at a diy shop, or scrap pieces more to scale. I have been reading all the new releases from FOW are your figures detachable from their bases?

So we're not allowed to criticize things or else we're haters? Puh-leeze.

You seriously think "whiners" killed Warhammer Historical?

I like FoW and play it often. I think Bolt Action is dull as dishwater and choose not to. Isn't sharing opinions a lot of what TMP is about?

Or do we now want to have a new rules "only positive happy thought s allowed. Feeling critical? Try an orange pill and wait 10 minutes…"

If you play 1914 you don't have to worry about whether the trench pieces look accurate or not. Not a hint or anything of the sort!

@ ExtraCrispy,

Xanax is pink, I hate the orange ones.

Better yet Char try the new pink and white swirl ones.

They would look better without the 'retaining wall' effect, that is, if the trench walls were a little lower and sloped more gradually away from the trenches.

I have 28mm Miniature World Maker trench sections that satisfy these requirements and they look pretty good. Of course, they don't look like accurate representations of the deep, sophisticated excavations of the western front, but as they're only intended to depict the hastily dug, shallow trenches of the Mexican Revolution they're ideal.

Any one got a picture of one of their mkIV's crossing one of their trenches? I agree with Extra Crispy, why are you a whiner if you want your historical scenery for your historical games to actually look historical? Char B1 bis has shown that other companies can do it…

All yhe TMP whiners and complainers killed companies like Warhammer Historical.

Warhammer Historical died due to mismanagement and some lousy products, not due to criticism, especially from those who contributed to some its decent publications. Yours is the argument of Rackham fanboys to explain the demise of their company, when in that case, it was not only mismanagement, but cluelessness of the customer base.

What lousy products are you referring to exactly? Im curious.

What lousy products are you referring to exactly? Im curious.

You have to ask?!?

Did you peruse any of its products, especially the ones that were actually Warhammer based?

I'm slightly puzzled as to whether I should respond, since you're adamant about "TMP whiners and complainers" ruining WH, whatever answer would result in an apology. I'll bite:

WAB 2.0 rulebook…

Even on sale, ~ $50 USD isn't something I would pay for something that would've been returned, due to shoddiness from a lack of QC. I was waiting for an heavily amended 2nd print run, but it never happened and might've picked up AoA 2.0, but the company folded and didn't feel I needed it, as the supplements weren't invalidated by the change.

Then there were one or two YMMV titles, such as Siege & Conquest, which I felt was somewhat of a scenario driven letdown with plenty of white space, better taken up with rules.

Many in the WAB community wanted publications on samurai and Successors, but instead what was released were side projects using LotR rules. Armies of Antiquity 2.0 does have Successors lists, but it's too little too late.

link

link

link

I hate to keep this going but Privateer4Hire doesn't your own side slice diagrams support that the trenches have a more tapered or rounded look? I'm all for people buying whatever they're into, but the angularity of the trench sides is all I see as a problem. The right angles are fine, though, I would prefer a forty five for a little variation.
I've got some abysmally large shanties, but hey I think they're fine.

I'm answering the overhead view comments and that they don't look like WW1 trenches at all. The BF trenches are not perfect and I never claimed they were. The things don't have step-ups and all the trench internal bits; and the communication trench sections are straight (when they were zig-zagged). I consider those accommodations for the way FoW figures are based.

I'm saying if you look at the trench from above, it gives a reasonable similarity to actual WW1 trenches. The cries that they are bouncy castle equivalents are just as patently wrong as saying they are 100% faithful replications of WW1 structures.

agreed.

AGREED here here Privacy and Char.