I keep seeing threads lately about making fun of bad looking warhammer tables and terrain layouts, but what exactly makes for a good one? Are there tricks and tips for making tables that both look good and are fun to play on?
Does it need to essentially be a diorama to look good?

>>96157985 (OP)
You cant play on a diorama, theres no room to move units. I would say you need to at least paint the thing, your scatter terrain should match the paint job, and you should have at least a slight elevation change somewhere

Thats also why AOS can never look good, mandatory incompatible terrain pieces

>>96157985 (OP)
It's really simple actually, the secret ingredient is thought and effort. That's it. Don't just slap random shit down on the table. Look at pic related. Why are those buildings placed like that? Why would someone build a bunch of buildings facing random directions, why are there no roads, where would the roads even go? Where are the other halves of all the buildings? Were they destroyed, then why is there no rubble? It makes no sense because they just slapped shit on the table, not once did anyone stop and think "why would this be placed here? Where would this item actually be placed?"
As for effort. Just paint your shit and try to make it look good or cool.

>>96158234
Haha, that's "Layout 1" iirc from the "Games Workshop Tournament Companion (10th edition)". I've played on it many times, it's fine from a gameplay perspective, but oh-so-boring.
Sad that modern 40k needs such particular layouts to have a semblance of balance. The whole game system really needs to be re-evaluated from the ground up.

OP - pick something that looks like an actual place in the world, like a city, mountainous valley, field with rolling hills, etc. Or copy the slop.

>>96158234
This anon is correct. Also, generally you should keep the whole table sticking to the same theme. Don't put ice rocks on a lava battlemat. Don't put Egyptian ruins on a grassy European countryside. This sounds extremely self explanatory, but somehow the majority of Warhammer players can't grasp this concept.

>>96158234
Weirdest part about the L-shape ruin trend to me is that the shape is clearly supposed to be aiming for you to combine 3-4 of the pieces together in a square shape to form the remains of a properly sized city building that just got blasted by artillery, even better with a textured terrain base for the piece. Yet everyone seems to just slap singular ruin corners around everywhere on the board and call it a day.
Check out pic related, still is L-shaped ruins but arrayed in a manner to where it looks like actual buildings, this looks more like a ruined section of a city block to me

>>96158277
Yep. Look at pic related. It's ruins but they put a tiny amount of though into it to think about where actual roads would be and how actual buildings would be orientated. A world of difference. It's genuinely not that complicated, I really think 40k players by and large just all suffer from brain rot

>>96158277
Because 40k has had one of the worst takes on LOS since 5e.

>>96157985 (OP)
What do you mean?

>>96158277
This, you can do the L-shaped ruin thing, just... also include the rest of that building. Put the L on the corner of a base that would be the entire intact building and then include the rest of it as rubble and other ruin sections. Instant improvement.

>>96158345
LoS is one part of the problem. It is what helps make the full cover of L-shape ruins as popular as they are, aside from ease of transport and storage at scale. But one of the bigger issues is how they go about solving the issue of terrain favorability.

To have a balanced board, you want terrain in the middle to be neutral to both armies, and you want the terrain closest to their deployment zones to favor them.

The issue seen in Layout 1 in >>96158234 is because the basic layouts that have been devised only uses the principle of "Outside of L faces unfavored, Inside of L faces favored". Because of this extending slightly beyond deployment zones to the nearest capture point, it's really only the centermost line that can fully get neutral terrain (in this instance the Ts on either side)

And since within the bounds of that philosophy, the "completed" buildings of >>96158277 and >>96158288 are all neutral-type terrain, they can only go on that center line in this mindset.

To get better boards, therefore, you need more space defined as "Player Neutral". Whether through adjustment to terrain rules or what have you.

I think many of the best tables I see have roads and rivers. Even if roads have no mechanical function in your game, it gives it a nice structure and flow to place things around. Suddenly things have context.

>balance
>LoS
>neutral terrain
When I used to play 40k as a teen and young adult with my brothers and mates, not a single one of us thought about any of these things.
FIRST we build a kick ass thematic board, and THEN we rolled off to see who gets to pick their side first. If one guy gets the "better side" that was just part of the fun, no real battle is perfectly even and it was always fun to adapt your strategy to whatever setup you found yourself in.
A lot of fake grogs pretend 40k has always been like it is today, with tourneyfag balance queens, but really I think that's very untrue. It really was different back then, some call is "sovl," and really I think new post-8th/COVID players genuinely don't get it

>>96158926
I mean, there's kinda a key thing in what you said, with your brothers and mates. You all knew each other pretty well and all agreed on that from the start, and you can even do that style now.

Balanced maps are still strongly needed specifically for when you are going to be playing against strangers. Tournaments are most common for this, but it could potentially be a pickup game at an LGS. Similarly, a standardized map allows people to see what they are doing wrong due to inexperience better. Adaptation is a skill, but a consistency of map does make the variables you need to deal with to figure out how you fucked up your last game and can improve your next one easier to figure out.

That last bit makes them useful for people to learn the game, thus that is the type of terrain they want to get ahold of first, and thus that's the type of maps they most commonly play - especially if they have a hard time scheduling time to play with friends and commonly try to engage in random games at a store or online via tabletop sim.

>>96158926
>A lot of fake grogs pretend 40k has always been like it is today, with tourneyfag balance queens, but really I think that's very untrue. It really was different back then, some call is "sovl," and really I think new post-8th/COVID players genuinely don't get it
No, they have always existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw5NfJlRrcQ

>>96157985 (OP)
Here's my list:
-Modularity. The table shouldn't be a diorama, it should be able to be broken down and stored and set up in different positions. This could mean a diorama-style board broken down into tiles, or a flat board with moveable terrain pieces.
-Gameplay. Think about the requirements for your game- you can't play WHF on a dense table and you can't play 40K on an open one. Skirmish games should be *very* terrain-dense in places with some long sightlines and elevated positions for ranged play.
-Elevation. Provide it with books under a cloth (out of fashion these days but very effective), crafted hills, risers and multi-level ruins, sometimes one atop the other. Vital for proper tactics, vital for making the board look good.
-Verisimilitude. As >>96158234 says, don't just scatter terrain: build the edge of a village, a particular Hive City zone, a section of countryside, but make it feel like a lived-in place that is now being fought over. How long have the buildings been ruined? Who's been living or surviving in them? Where's the main road, how are the settlement's water or power supplies met, where's the storage, signage, or civilian vehicles? What have the local population left behind when they fled, and how decayed is it? Just a few bits of specialised scatter terrain really make a difference here. Look at pictures, look at your local environment.
Finally, -Texture. You don't need detailed terrain paintjobs, but you do need concrete that kinda looks like concrete from a distance, stone like stone, grass like grass, metal like painted or rusted metal. This reason and this reason only is why MDF terrain looks shit out of the box; it needs texture.
Obviously I can't live up to all this, but at least knowing what you're aiming for makes a huge difference. Find your balance of practicality, gameplay and aesthetics. Have fun!

>>96157985 (OP)
Think 'historial', a board ought to be logical in its buildings and terrain features, like >>96158234
said really. The scenario you're playing can also affect terrain placement; an attacker/defender table would look different from an all out assault table. You and your opponent should discuss things beforehand.

>>96159266
And that's just 40k. Which never even came within a mile of the hostility the average WHFB player had towards any table that might make actually deal with the flank part of rank instead of just being able to push rectangles towards the other army.

I'll endorse the 'build a location' mentioned from other anons, and the "build something fun, other person picks their setup" approach, but also two other points I've seen before.
Firstly, and especially if you're in a more 'shooting' environment, such as 20th century onwards (IE post-linear warfare) or arguably any skirmish game, take a walk round the table at model height. If you can draw a straight, unbroken line of sight from one edge to the other, reconsider your setup.
Secondly - simply go outside. Take a look around. Consider how much you CAN'T see. Even if you're on the steppe or the prarie, there should be enough contours in the terrain to create something interesting. Doesn't have to be dramatic, but also feeding back into the first point. Think how Battletech uses height levels, for instance.
Just to head off some autism, obviously these can be broken if the scenario requires. The "Guns of Navarone", for instance, should probably have great LOS themselves where they're meant to shoot, but the commandos should also have some good approaches. And naturally if all else fails some weather/nighttime rules can cover up a number of 'sins'. But yes, it may well mean breaking that competition mindset.
One last point - dont forget you can let professionals do the work for you, and cheerfully rip off something cool off the TV, or an actual historical battle, even if it does mean changing the period.

I'd say it's the modularity and not just for storage purposes but for variation and depth. Especially in games where you can destroy the enviroment like in 40k 2nd ed it makes the game amazing when you can just melt rocks and poison forests to deny cover for enemy and make way for charges. When you reach point where you got multiple boxes of terrain to use its important that they can be used together, so having a single fughueg terrain will always be that same piece no matter how you place it on table.

Same goes for interactivity and accessability, you need to be able to move your models inside the terrain piece like multistory ruined building. I don't like fidgety stuff like actual doors that can be opened, simple removeable door or hatch is superior. Models shouldn't fall off from heights or tip over on hills so that's also something to consider.

They also should be durable enough to be handled and cheap enough to not be a major financial loss if its broken. Oh yeah, and preferably as non-toxic as possible, no need to cause yourself any more damage.

Even if I don't make dioramas, the terrain making is a hobby of its own and should be considered as such when making it. You need tools and materials for it and should always be on lookout for such things, like broken toys and scraps from construction yard.

>>96158234
>>96159419
These anons have right idea

Terrain, done well, makes the game.

post more good shit.....i can't.