How do modular boards work? Are they like the ones that GW has in their stores? If so, is there any way to integrate buildings and scenery so they blend in with the board? I hate the way that you can see the base that the scenery is on.
First, to confirm and define some definitions. In my opinion, gaming tables fall in 3 categories: Static, Modular and Wide-Open (for lack of a better name).
A Static table has almost all the terrain features permenantly integrated into the table including sculpted terrain (hills, ravines, cliffs, rivers, etc.).
Pros: best visual continuity, materials are available to make the table a near photographic level (i.e. similar to model train boards). Most LotR tables in the White Dwarf appear to be like this.
Cons: the board never changes and can become boring or predictable after prolonged game play. Depending on the depth (height) of your terrain or buildings, can be difficult to store when not in use.
A Wide-Open table is merely a flat play space (table or board) that may be painted, textured, and or flocked. All terrain; hills, forests, bunkers, ruins, etc., is loose and seperate and can be placed anywhere on the table.
Pros: Easy creation and storage of play space. Near infinite variable table layouts with any amount of terrain including theme and density. Easier storage of terrain and scenery features.
Cons: not as visually smooth or blended as a Static table.
A Modular table, in my mind is kind a mix of the two above. The basic purpose of modular terrain is to combine the Pros of a Static table with the Pros of the Wide-Open table. 2' square modules seems to be the popular size. You can choose to build each module in the Static style with integrated terrain features along with any buildings, bunkers, and forests. Rotating and/or swapping module positions will give you a certain level of variable game environments.
Cons: depending on how you build it you are stuck with the "seams" between each module which can be an issue if you're focus is on the visual blending of the table.
On the other hand, you can also build the modules in such a way that only sculpted terrain features including roads and rivers are present but no buildings or bunkers. This is obviously closer to the Wide-Open method but incorporates the visual benefits of intergrated terrain features.
On the GW website, under their Cities of Death Masterclass they have a very complex, detailed and visually stunning Static table. Due to its complexity it may take many, many games to get too bored with it, but I would expect it would happen eventually. We can just ignore how that is going to be stored when not in use.
Whereas, in other portions of the GW website, including most of the photos in the Cities of Death expansion, the majority of the buildings are built on a thin board (probably masonite, aka hardboard) that barely sticks out past the wall perimeter. No sidewalks in sight. Though for those on a budget I can see foamcore or the 1x1 floor tiles SkyBry mentioned above as the bases for your buildings. The material should be easy to cut to size (always be carefull with sharp knives!) and even provide some built-in subtle texturing depending on what tile pattern you buy.
Several months before CoD was released there was an article in the White Dwarf where each 'terrain design team' built a 9x18 piece of terrain on one edge of a 12x24 piece of masonite. I loved that idea. Now that the CoD buildings are out I want try to combine those ideas.
I've started with buying 24x24 squares of 1/8" hardboard and cutting it down to 12x12 squares. Following the concept of the previous WD article I decided to build 9x9 buildings with the 3" border on 2 sides to function as "roads" when the different 12x12 squares were assembled on the play board.
As I began my first CoD building I realized that I didn't want every building on the board to have the same 9x9 footprint, so I think I am going to abandon that direction.
My new thought is to focus on fun and different bulidings with a variety of sizes and shapes of foot print and attaching it to custom sized hardboard bases with minimal edge sticking out. With this minimal edge painted and textured the same as my table surface I feel it will allow each terrain piece to better blend with the table.
So, IbramGaunt, to properly answer your question, I think you first need to prioritize what is important to you: visual blending of scenery and table, variable play environments, storage and transport considerations, budget, etc.
Frankly, game boards as you and SalmonThief have illustrated make me cringe. The static nature scares me. Clearly my priority and focus is tilted much more in favor of variable play environments and storage. As I mentioned a couple paragraphs up, I believe I have a plan to minimize and hide the transition between my scenery pieces and the table surface.
In terms of terrain density, the Cities of Death book is pretty clear as it describes 2-3, 4-5, and 6-8 (or something like that) for the various game levels. Otherwise, standard 40k suggests 25% terrain for your table size. So as a 4x6 table represents 24 square feet; this calculates out to 6 square feet of terrain.
The game tables in my local GW store (Concord, California) are what I called Wide-Open. This gives them ultimate flexibility to set up a game with any particular theme of terrain: desert, forest, city, chaos etc. for both 40K and Fantasy games. I suspect that most GW stores would be of this type because of the flexibility.
My work day is over and I have head home but I will check in on this thread later this evening and see where this discussion goes.
Until then,
Jon