I love the look of this bunker! Looks especially easy to paint too.
I am worried that this is going to be extremely difficult from some armies especially ones that rely on debuffs to remove. Been trying dusk and been having a difficult time removing the tower. Dice off 10 on the best shooting with limited shoots are going to bounce off this and not being able to charge will limit these to jacks making any real impact in melee.
Iâm wondering: is the fact PP doesnât have to make expensive molds and can effectively print on demand part of why weâre seeing these terrain pieces now? The barrier from concept to product is lower?
Theoretically, yes. Especially with something that has a simpler design like this.
Not specifically, no. With the exception of plastic items that were outsourced, we have always âproduced to demandâ.
Additive manufacturing (3D printing) isnât the simple turn-key solution that a lot of people seem to think it is. While we donât have to make molds, the models do have to be custom-supported and go through extensive testing to make sure theyâre printing correctly. And for a large chunk like the bunker, thatâs not a trivial process. There are some downstream advantages, though: once you have the model dialed in, you donât have to remake molds when they burn out, but that later in the process, not an up-front advantage.
The reason youâre seeing pieces like this is because it is a major goal of ours for MKIV that we create the means for a more interesting and dynamic battlefield. So, expect to see more buildings and terrain elements in the future as we build out this sandbox! We hope you enjoy them!
Gotcha. Oh, I do love hearing about all the behinds the scenes stuff. I figure Q&A and engineering is going to be a fairly significant cost regardless of manufacturing technique used. Same with labor. Iâve got friends who say, âI can print X for pennies!â and never think about how much their time is worth. Canât pay the bills with volunteer work!
I donât get these.
First, both this one and the tower come with articles praising how they âgive an IK feel to your gaming tablesâ but the models themselves⌠Just donât. They feel like very generic and uninspired terrain. Good thing is PP could sell them to non Warmachine players but theyâre not that pretty or cheap either compared to other terrain on the market.
Second, their rules donât feel very Warmachine either. Wordy confusing text, unclear interactions, lack of dynamism, etc. are the opposite of what I love in this game. Theyâre super strong and a huge advantage to ranged Armies who can get in. Are they supposed to be used in Steamroller/competitive play? Because that feels very wrong.
Also, the "double horseshoeâ configuration of the bunker would have no door 
I am also confused. Already had two bunkers in my shopping cart but them i realised that indeed it looks like the double horseshoe config has no doors, meaning that i cant enter or leave it. Is this just an issue of bad foto-angles? Or is it intended and the big bunker is just a visual thing then which we play like an impassable terrain?
I like the production of more terrain pieces from PP, but would not mind seeing more obstructions that have no other special rules, but have a Warmachine feel to them, e.g. a large Circle Obelisk / Layline Stone, broken head of a large Skorne statue, skeleton head of a dead dragon progeny etc.
I like really the Guard Tower (have two painted already) and the Bunker, but not every terrain piece needs to have extra rule (increasing game complexity) in order to find a place on game tables. Some just need to look cool.
The only door is on the back end, so unfortunately there doesnât appear to be another way in. Unless you count the hatch on the roof.
Just use a ladder. When the two are together one part has indents. Probably not intended but can be used as a ladder. A pretty easy solution
I also think because they are powerful terrain and are being used in steam roller as well I think PP should incorporate them into the steam roller scenarios so they are placed exactly where they are intended to be. I think these while fun can be oppressive without strict placement rules.
Reasonable for local play, but is not Rules as Written for events and such.
While we donât yet have specific rules for the double horse-shoe configuration, the easy button is just to make the wall space where the two pieces join, âthe ladderâ. On my table, thatâs where models access the elevated level. On subsequent turns, they can go below (via the hatches) if needed.
The thing about terrain/buildings is the there are infinite possibilities, which is part of the reason we havenât ever tackled it in the past. Itâs basically impossible to write rules that perfectly account for every interaction your models can have with every single possible terrain object available. This is why weâre creating specific terrain pieces with dedicated rules; not to say that you shouldnât use all the terrain options available, but because if we create something ourselves, we can make sure itâs constructed to accommodate the base sizes and we can make rules that work within the context of the game. So, while weâre looking forward to making more terrain pieces, we also encourage everyone to use and enjoy all the amazing terrain options that are available. But that means adapting the rules to whatever youâre using. Warmachine has terrain rules that cover âthe basicsâ. Beyond that, if itâs something we havenât specifically created rules forâŚand I realize this could be controversial, butâŚfigure it out. That is to say, if you have the mental wherewithal to play WARMACHINE, you have the means to decide how your terrain is going to interact with your battle. So, decide what works best. Got a horse-shoe bunker configuration that doesnât have rules? Just figure it out with your opponent ahead of the match to determine where models access or enter the building. We want to provide solid rules for all cases, but when we start getting into terrain interactions, things can get pretty crazy on the rules side. Really, the best course is to make the most awesome table you can and then discuss with the person/friend/opponent youâre playing with how models should interact with what you have on the table, and then youâre good to go. In other words, make it about the fun, and not about the rules. As long as all players are cool with how whatever terrain on the battlefield is interacted with, then itâs going to be a good time.
Thatâs good for games at the local store, but less good when trying to run an event, especially larger ones.
And, one of the great strengths of Warmachine has always been its universality across locations. I can go to a store almost anywhere that plays, and the opponent and I are on the same page.
I do think that the new terrain rules are cool(still need some fine tuning), and there are a number of things Iâd love to see returned (damaging terrain like back in MKI), and some new things (like adding flammable as a trait to set stuff on Fire).
Yep. Casting pieces this big and detailed would have been a pain with traditional two-part or flat pour molds.
The Guard Tower ladder would have been all but impossible to cast in place, for example.
To be fair, on several of these points: in my experience, different communities played things wildly differently!
For example, Iâve been in places where some templates had big, unwieldy styrofoam boulders modeled directly onto the piece. One store treated that like the boulders were decorations and it was just rough terrain. The other group assumed the boulders were obstacles that provided cover.
I could name many other examples all along that spectrum, including the occasional loud argument. 
The rule has always been âdiscuss and agree on the terrain before the game starts, going all the way back to MK I. Not everybody does that, but itâs been there, nonetheless. In an event setting, the EO needs to provide clarity at the start of the event.
Those arenât core rules those, but rather what people are calling a terrain piece. Whether they called it rough terrain or an obstacle, you knew what those terms where and how they played out.
Locally we would use the hazard rules and modifiers on things all the time. Flaming Rubble in a crater shape? Cool. We know what that does. Corrosive Cloud effect? Got it.
And talking things through with your opponent? 100% Always do that beforehand.
But, those are quite different from releasing a model, yes itâs terrain but it has official rules and stats like a model. A model should have clear, uniform rules and interpretations.
About " the best course is to make the most awesome table you can and then discuss with the person/friend/opponent youâre playing with how models should interact with what you have on the table", I have something to say.
Couple years ago I played another wargame, which its rules were not that precise and detailed like MK2/3 version. When some complicated rules interact and you canât find the guideline to solve it, âdiscuss with your opponentâ is the word they used in most of the time. I answered them: âIf I have to discuss with my opponent every time we got a problem and canât find a reasonable solution or agree with each other, instead of getting a clear answer from officials, then why do we need them to tell us how to play this game at all?â
In my opinion if youâre going to release something, then you must make sure its rules will not causing a lot of issues when interacting with others, since the whole MK4 idea is to SIMPLIFY this game isnât it? The release of guard tower and bunker failed to do so. If you are not able to spend your precious resources to refine it before its release, why not using those resources on debugging of the existing release? There are tons of known and reported issues waiting to be fix. Players in our meta keep mention them when thereâs an update and noticing their reported bugs are still there. Itâs really frustrating.
I missed the good old days I can use Warmachineâs rule as a standard of a good wargame, and I wish that day would comes in the near future, despite it seems less possible day by day.