What to use for Lilith's forest?

[kbdrand]

I like to bring my own objects for things like Rasputina's ice pillars and I am starting to play Lilith. Just wondering what other people use for the illusionary forest.

[tenabrae]

The store i play at happens to have a single tree on an almost perfect 3" base.

[Q'iq'el]

The store i play at happens to have a single tree on an almost perfect 3" base.

I recommend building something smaller (or making the tree removable).

Lilith's forest is really good when you actually can place models inside.

Granted, it's great to be able to hide her or her crew's member behind it.

It's also very good to cast it on yourself, to give you soft cover and to make opponent charges pay double for these 2 or 3" of movement.

But it's a real frustration for the opponent, if you cast it on his model - if you place it right, he'll have to either back out for 2" or so, or will lose 4"+ of his movement just to get out of the forest on the side he wants to be on.


I won some Treasure Hunts and Claims only thanks to the delay the forest caused to my opponent.


It's also worth remembering the forest is "obscuring" - its actual height isn't important (unless the rules change in the future).

[tenabrae]

I recommend building something smaller (or making the tree removable).

A single tree doesn't take up a whole base and amazingly, represents a forest in some way.

[Q'iq'el]

A single tree doesn't take up a whole base and amazingly, represents a forest in some way.

Sorry, the way you described I imagined sort of plastic GW tree perched on a 3" base, with not much space left and I thought it may be a bad advice to do so. Sorry, again, for jumping to conclusions.


Personally I've build a base with 4 small wire trees (of the kind used by railroad diorama makers) and a skeleton. I've left plenty of space to place the minis inside, but unfortunately it isn't as convenient as removable trees would be. Or perhaps it's too crowded and a single tree in the middle would work better - I just didn't feel it'd be "foresty" enough. My original project involved making a very dense forest of bamboo or similar plant, but then I realized I'll have to put my characters inside.

I'm thinking of returning to the problem once the current Illusionary Forest wears out a bit. Next time I'm going to build some magnetized trees that can be removed at will.


http://wyrd-games.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=87&pictureid=414

[tenabrae]

Sorry, the way you described I imagined sort of plastic GW tree perched on a 3" base, with not much space left and I thought it may be a bad advice to do so. Sorry, again, for jumping to conclusions.

No worries mate.

It's a single tree to one side, fairly tall with a bushy top.

When I make my own at some point in the not to distant future it'll probably be some sort of fiery deal (maybe a burning foliageless tree) to match my Lilith scheme.

[kbdrand]

I'm working on my own. I've got a 3 x 3 inch square base with two trees. It's enough space to place a tot or Lilith in, but it would not fit a mature. Here is the forest I created:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kbdrand/4646038612/

[tenabrae]

Looks nice... I kinda hate to suggest you read the errata on illusionary forest... it's a diameter now, not a square.

[kbdrand]

hmm. Well that sucks. Is it 3" diameter or did they change the dimensions? And honestly, a 3" diameter is actually more area than a 3 x 3 square, so I should be good. I mean, as long as it's less I'm ok. And I can always add a circular base beneath the square and build it up if need be.

Nevermind. I was thinking radius. 3" diameter circle is significantly smaller. Wow, I wonder why the nerf? Oh well, working on my circle version now. I can use the square for regular terrain. Will work well for my Waldgeist once I get it and get it painted.

[Orc]

And honestly, a 3" diameter is actually more area than a 3 x 3 square, so I should be good.WHAT?! o: How is this possible?

[Wodschow]

WHAT?! o: How is this possible?

If you go multidimensional.

A sphere with a 3" diameter have a much higher surface area than a 3"x3" square does. :D

But why stop in three dimensions?! :)

I suppose it's rather difficult to represent such a terrain piece though... hmm..

[Q'iq'el]

If you go multidimensional.

A sphere with a 3" diameter have a much higher surface area than a 3"x3" square does. :D

But why stop in three dimensions?! :)

I suppose it's rather difficult to represent such a terrain piece though... hmm..

You don't need to go higher than 3D. In three dimensional space a sphere 2" in diameter can be divided and assembled into sphere bigger than the Earth or Sun (while preserving the volume!). It's called Banach-Tarski paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox) and is one of the most fascinating problems in modern mathematics, new aspects of which are still being discovered.

[Wodschow]

You don't need to go higher than 3D. In three dimensional space a sphere 2" in diameter can be divided and assembled into sphere bigger than the Earth or Sun (while preserving the volume!). It's called Banach-Tarski paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox) and is one of the most fascinating problems in modern mathematics, new aspects of which are still being discovered.

Abusing the Axiom of Choice much, are we? :P

[kbdrand]

I edited my post to correct my mistake. I didn't read it fully and thought he said 3" radius, not 3" diameter.