PDA

View Full Version : Table size and the New Editions



Banville
28-11-2013, 14:29
I've already posted this on the Fantasy Forum.

I'm just curious as to people's attitude to table size, especially considering the change in the general meta where greater points sizes and larger units/models are being placed on said tables. I went through the BRB and I can't find any reference to table size at all. Bearing this in mind, I called a friend and we played a regular game (2400 pts) on an 8'x6' board in my garage. The difference to the game mechanics was massive. High Movement, Vanguard and Scout all came in to their own and there was much more room for manouver and feinting.

We then played a game of 40K and the results were even better. Weapons range became a real factor as did the mobility of skimmers, Flyers and Bikes. It's also worth noting that all set-up measurements in the 40K BRB are explicitly taken from the table's centre point, which I read as an implicit invitation to make your table as big as possible.

Anyone else find that the game becomes a hell of a lot better on a larger playing surface?

Bubble Ghost
28-11-2013, 14:33
Anyone else find that the game becomes a hell of a lot better on a larger playing surface?

Yes. Always. Even an extra 2 feet of width makes all the difference. I'm sure the only reason the implied default was ever changed was accessibility - if you have the extra space, you're missing out if you're not using it.

Beppo1234
28-11-2013, 14:46
the larger the playing surface, the better. But I think the 6x4 convention will remain, simply because its a convenient size... outside of gaming. Things generally get difficult to put away, once they've gotten longer than 6 feet (ie. closet size, storage room). But yes, the bigger the better.

Amendera
28-11-2013, 16:55
Bigger is better this edition only because Gunlines are the norm now.

For my Ork Horde, bigger isn't better.. half the time there isn't any point playing a game when you have more than 4' width ways. My army often gets destroyed before reaching combat.. and considering the only long range i have is a SAG.. he dies almost immediately.

Archon of Death
28-11-2013, 17:06
I'm all for bigger playing surfaces. 72" range on a Battle Cannon.

baransiege
28-11-2013, 17:10
In older editions the recommended was 8' x 4'. When they changed it to 6' x 4' we just stuck with the old size as 6' looks way too cramped in my opinion, like you say it doesn't allow nearly as much interesting movement.

MusingWarboss
28-11-2013, 17:10
When I started out many many years ago the default table size was 8'x4'. I don't think it was ever really a written rule that the board be this size it just seemed to be the size used by GW at the time. I even remember a guide to making your own table which said that was a good size. Ive always had that in my mind as the 'ideal' because of that era. Bare in mind though back then most models moved 4" and there were less vehicles, whereas today the standard seems to be 6" (and loads of vehicles). I remember there was much muttering when a colossal 12'x6' board was made for some event by GW. The rule back then seemed to be twice as wide as it was deep. (No sniggering) they also did an all vehicles game on two 8'x4' boards butted together to make an 8'x8'

The current trend seems to be 6'x4' which is only slightly wider than it is deep - probably due to the way units move now? Not so much flanking and more direct assault? Dunno. Just a guess.

From what I've seen of Apocalypse, which is admittedly not much, is that the old 12'x6' is almost the starting point for such battles.

Also the 'modular' nature of the modern boards GW sell I imagine has something to do with the size most people expect, as 6'x4' is the RoB size and I think the old battlemat too.

Can't speak for all games but for 40k 6th I think the larger the board you can accommodate the better, just for breathing room for the amount of vehicles and the general movement of troops and the interesting bits of large scenery.

My first board (which I still have) was 4'x3' on which I played Epic and 40k 2nd Ed. (yes, really, games could be a lot smaller back then) and also Necromunda. I doubt it would be usable for 6th these days, not unless I made a sister board for it and put them together!! It's still fine for skirmish games though.

Menthak
28-11-2013, 17:30
I'd play on games the length of a basilisk's range if I could, but yeah, larger games make it alot less about what you bring to the field as to how you apply it.

Felwether
28-11-2013, 17:32
My group has pretty much always played on 4x4 tables exclusively and it works fine. Then again we tend to play smaller games (1000pts being the norm) and also enjoy dense, bloody battlefields.

That said, I'd love to play a standard sized game on and 8x6 or larger - having to actually manoeuvre and get into range would be great.

Sir Didymus
28-11-2013, 17:37
Back in RT, I used to play on a 6'x6' board. I think the 6'x4' came into existence, because it seemed like a natural format for fantasy with classical warfares more rigid battle lines, and then just got ported into 40K.

I'd say the only limitation should be dependant on the length of your arms :)

MusingWarboss
28-11-2013, 17:41
I'd say the only limitation should be dependant on the length of your arms :)

If it was fantasy and you had them on movement trays then you could use those push poles you see in military war rooms! :) The only downside would be removing casualties but I suppose you could just use a casualty marker or a one of those litter picking grabber sticks!

Felwether
28-11-2013, 17:43
I think some kind of Mission Impossible style, pulley system needs to be rigged up!

Ironbone
28-11-2013, 18:19
Well, by my imperions, standard 72"x( sometimes 60', or 48" for smaller points games )48" wide table was already growing too small for many armies well before now, from the very beginig of 5th ed in fact. Reasons are many, form incerasing of games paste ( well if even basic infantry unit is capable of 2nd turn charge, it's hard to call this game slow ), larger model count (so far all 6th ed get some price drops, so can fit same build for less points ), to (finaly) change game form beeing close combat basic to bit more balanced one.

Banville
28-11-2013, 20:20
I'm glad there's some sort of consensus around this. I know the dratted Realm of Battle Board is 6x4 but, to tell you the truth, I'd rather pass on GW's more blatant attempts to suck money from our wallets. I really get the feeling that most people who put thought into it would rather play on a bigger board. Obviously space is a factor for people and that's pretty much non-negotiable. However, for my garage games, I think I'll leave the big board set up.

I'm going to say 6x6 is very acceptable but 8x6 is ideal for 2000+ games. Would people concur with that assessment? I'm asking because the board I have at the minute is no more than some planks of MDF. I'm going to go about building as good a table as I can, using insulation board for hills and gullies and rivers and the like. I have a lot of LOS blocking terrain so I think judicious use of that will tone down the tendency for gunlines to hammer stuff from a distance.

I think that's the key, really. Lots and lots of LOS blocking buildings.

Banville
28-11-2013, 20:21
Double post

Torga_DW
28-11-2013, 20:45
It can make a huge difference to game balance though - footslogging melee armies suffer more the further they have to travel.

SamaNagol
28-11-2013, 21:31
Eldar players across the world would rejoice if 8x6' tables became the normal standard lol

Gradek
28-11-2013, 22:01
I think that the 4' width must remain, as otherwise you might as well eliminate close combat armies from the game. Also, the amount of terrain needed to properly cover a 8'+ board would be beyond most gamers (who struggle to cover a 6x4 board most times).

Ruination Drinker
28-11-2013, 22:13
I'm not a huge fan of having more terrain for my Trukks and Wagons to cross to get my boys stuck in.

Beppo1234
28-11-2013, 23:13
I think that the 4' width must remain, as otherwise you might as well eliminate close combat armies from the game. Also, the amount of terrain needed to properly cover a 8'+ board would be beyond most gamers (who struggle to cover a 6x4 board most times).

yeah, this has to stay. One, it's people's reach. Yes, some are longer than others, but sometimes you putting a tricky model in a tricky position, and you need to pretzel sometimes to get it there. Two, there needs to be balance between maneuvering and action. Armies being 2 feet apart at deployment is a good balance for this.

Ironbone
28-11-2013, 23:20
I'm not a huge fan of having more terrain for my Trukks and Wagons to cross to get my boys stuck in.
I'm to huge fan of boyz jumping out the truucks and wagons in turn 2 and trampling my guardsmans either ;):p.

Amendera
29-11-2013, 02:08
I'm to huge fan of boyz jumping out the truucks and wagons in turn 2 and trampling my guardsmans either ;):p.
Arguably easier for you to not make that happen if you have a bigger board of Mr Longest-Ranged Army

IcedAnimals
29-11-2013, 03:21
8x4 could work as long as if you get the set up that uses the width of the table you increase the deployment. And I don't think the 24 inch no mans land should remain during that type of set up. It just handicaps melee armies far to much in an edition that has done that enough as is. If you are going to play on an 8x4 table, make sure that there are plenty of roads to give vehicles their speed boost.

CrownAxe
29-11-2013, 04:09
8x4 could work as long as if you get the set up that uses the width of the table you increase the deployment. And I don't think the 24 inch no mans land should remain during that type of set up. It just handicaps melee armies far to much in an edition that has done that enough as is. If you are going to play on an 8x4 table, make sure that there are plenty of roads to give vehicles their speed boost.roads don't exist in 6ed

Harwammer
29-11-2013, 04:20
In the grim darkness of the future there is only muddin'.

Ruination Drinker
29-11-2013, 05:45
In the grim darkness of the future there is only muddin'.

And shooting from behind an ADL.

Teraks
29-11-2013, 08:32
The only problem with tables larger then 6'4' is for melee armies. If you get the deploy on short sides then yeah, you can still deploy 24" from your opp's deployment zone. But he could on the other hand deploy on the very table edge. Making it so far that you'll have slim chances, if any, to survive his shooting.

However i do like the 8'4' Idea, but then you might need to always do deploy along the longer sides to prevent hampering melee teams as much.

At home i use 6x 3'4' boards, usually used up for 3 different 6'4' tables, but i could try 2 x 9'4' perhaps.

Ironbone
29-11-2013, 11:43
Making it so far that you'll have slim chances, if any, to survive his shooting.
That why terrain was invented :p.

But actually that a serious issue :). 48" wide board, especialy without enouhg terrain favours bit too much cc armies, even now, in "supposly" shooting ed. On the other hand, it's true that larger the board, the better are gunline armies, and mobile gunlines even more.

Personaly, i think 24" gap between armies is good, and should stay, but borad should have more space for armies deployment. 54", or 60" wide board will give both armies 15"-18". While this 3"-6" may not sound like much, belive me, every army will have use of this exstra beathing space.

Hammer&Anvil style of deployment already proven that there is nothing wrong with finaly beeing able to use long range weaponry, as assoult focused armies can still cross no-man's land very quickly.

T10
29-11-2013, 11:44
I'm not a huge fan of having more terrain for my Trukks and Wagons to cross to get my boys stuck in.

It's not all about you. :)

-T10

Banville
29-11-2013, 11:51
I'm seeing terrain as the biggest issue here. If you have a melee/footslogging army you need enough terrain to shelter your dudes, obviously. Also, surely playing objectives rather than just straight out annihilation evens out the fact that someone can whittle you down as you cross the table. You don't really need to get close if you play mission objectives.

I do admit though, that my mates and I have a lot of terrain. Probably more than we'll ever need. For those of you struggling with the thorny issue of blocking LOS, why not try making your own? Big rocks piled on top of each other as buttes even work. It's really easy and now that Tau player isn't lighting you up from 60" away on a consistent basis.

Ironbone
29-11-2013, 12:05
I'm seeing terrain as the biggest issue here.
Somewhat true. Problem is there usually is too much terrain to cover enemy advance for shooting armies, and at the same moment, not enough for assoult army. I've seen literaly dozens of instances when one player rant about board beeing "flat pancake", and other one ranted about "can't seeing anything in this jungle". Balance beteewn this two extremes is possible, but very hard to find.


It's really easy and now that Tau player isn't lighting you up from 60" away on a consistent basis.
Then i ask - what is the point of having long range weapons if you never are able to use it :p?

ChrisMurray
29-11-2013, 14:58
I can imagine (I haven't played a game) that a larger board with the right mix and quantity of terrain would be more fun. You may need to increase the number of turns in the game though to compensate. I always like to imagine that the first two - three turns (depending on the speed of your army) would be spent manovering\getting cc units to the enemy whilst being shelled by long range weapons. A larger table would make deepstriking\flanking units more useful too. However you can only have a larger table if you have the space. My dining room table is only about 3 foot wide and 5 foot long so I might get away with a 6x4 if I can have it overhang a little.

Bubble Ghost
29-11-2013, 15:22
You would definitely need to make special arrangements with scenery and/or rules if you were increasing the distance across the table. But extra width is pretty much unconditionally a good thing, and doesn't need any extra planning except agreeing not to use Hammer and Anvil deployment (which is rubbish anyway). 8x4 is a much better default table size than 6x4.

Ironbone
29-11-2013, 18:42
You would definitely need to make special arrangements with scenery and/or rules if you were increasing the distance across the table.
Aside one-two extra turn maybe, I don think so. All for what wider boad is adding more space for deployment and manovers. Combat can be started very fast anyway, just maybe in turn 3 insead of 2. In game that last 6 turns :p.

Wow, just Wow ;).


that a larger board with the right mix and quantity of terrain would be more fun
Exactly. I advise against large Los blockers that can hide a land raider, but sufficient amount of terrain is key to good game both for ranged and assoult armies.

Bloodknight
29-11-2013, 19:05
However i do like the 8'4' Idea, but then you might need to always do deploy along the longer sides to prevent hampering melee teams as much.

*shrug*; Melees happened even in 2nd Edition, with a 4" basic move for most human-like infantry on a standard 8x4 board with only 4 game turns.

That said, I think the problem is not the much handier 6x4 table size, but all the amount of junk you get to cram on those tables today in a 1750 army. My personal opinion is "yes, you need a bigger table to play 40K on today, but only because the army headcounts get bigger all the time". Can't be the faster movement types, in 2nd edition a Falcon moved over 30" easily, even the LR-Demolisher made it to 21" on full throttle.

Thrax
29-11-2013, 21:26
I'm fortunate to use a table that's about 5'x7', with an extension that can make it a few inches over 8'. It's two closet doors joined together and it resides in my basement. It's just a bit larger without being too difficult to reach across and allows more room for maneuver. Playing on a 4'x6' seems a little cramped to me but not bad.

childsoldier
29-11-2013, 22:07
Yeah my gaming group usually play 4'x4' (for people looking for trends in the thread this is the same group Felwether plays in, so count it as one). Ideally I'd like to play on bigger boards as I play Guard and an extra bit of shooting time would be very welcome. That said we've never really had the room to accommodate larger games, and so long as you play a sensible points limit for the board you're on it shouldn't really matter too much. Though the few times we have played on larger tables, usually in multiplayer narrative scenarios, they've been great fun and a nicely different challenge to our usual encounters.

Belakor
29-11-2013, 22:40
Balance beteewn this two extremes is possible, but very hard to find.

It is not all that hard really, just use the alternative terrain rules, fair for all and it somewhat forces people to make less one dimensional lists.

Ironbone
29-11-2013, 22:56
It is not all that hard really, just use the alternative terrain rules, fair for all and it somewhat forces people to make less one dimensional lists.
Oh, if only it would be that easy :p. Terrain rules in 6th ed (with obvious exception of random terrain type table) are overall ok, and works the same for everyone. Right ammount of terrain, that satisfies both armies, and do not hamper too much efectivness of one or other, is not that easy to find. Otherwise, I wouldnt so often encouter situations where for my army I see very narrow, and short fields of fire, and first words of enemy player are "Oh no, not frying pan again".

How 2 players using same board view is so diffrently :p ?

Belakor
29-11-2013, 22:58
Except with the alternative rules you roll how much terrain you use in a battle, maybe so much that pure gunlines suck?

Ruination Drinker
30-11-2013, 06:04
That why terrain was invented :p.

But actually that a serious issue :). 48" wide board, especialy without enouhg terrain favours bit too much cc armies, even now, in "supposly" shooting ed. On the other hand, it's true that larger the board, the better are gunline armies, and mobile gunlines even more.

Personaly, i think 24" gap between armies is good, and should stay, but borad should have more space for armies deployment. 54", or 60" wide board will give both armies 15"-18". While this 3"-6" may not sound like much, belive me, every army will have use of this exstra beathing space.

Hammer&Anvil style of deployment already proven that there is nothing wrong with finaly beeing able to use long range weaponry, as assoult focused armies can still cross no-man's land very quickly.

Hammer and anvil deployment is no fun for anyone. Even when two long range armies face off in this way, all they end up doing is plinking at each other from stand off range.

Bloodknight
30-11-2013, 10:27
Hammer and anvil deployment is no fun for anyone.

That reminds me of one of the 3rd edition missions that we always rerolled after a few test games. Short side deployment, huge no man's land, you wanted to reach the other deployment zone. As an IG player I usually tried to win that via annihilation of the other army, which worked surprisingly often. The only 2 players in our group who won that via the objective once were me with Dark Eldar and our Eldar player, none of the other armies were fast enough, even in transports. The usual thing was that one side camped and one got shot on the approach, leading to a disappointing number of draws.

Ironbone
30-11-2013, 11:02
Short side deployment, huge no man's land
But i want to do something opposite - standard no man's land, larger deployment zones :p.


maybe so much that pure gunlines suck?
Pure immobile gunline always was poor army ( wich i learnd hard way :cries:), as no army, not even guar/tau can muster enough firepower to kill enough enemy models before they will be able to assoult you, as you will have just 2, max 3 turns of shooting before trampling starts ( overwatch is fun to have, but overrated). That's the reason why guard is somwhat medicore army now ( with one broken vendetta I admit, but rest is bit lame ), and tau is one of the best, because fisheads have mobility to avoid combat bit longer, and are only one who's overwatch is actually capable of stopping enemy assoult. Plus, excelent alinace with 2nd top army, eldar, and firepower even greater than guard.

Only enemy against immobile gunline excels is other immobile gunline :p. In non-objective game ;).

Bloodknight
30-11-2013, 14:27
But i want to do something opposite - standard no man's land, larger deployment zones

That doesn't really change much because not setting up at the front of the deployment zone allows one of the players to dictate the size of the no man's land, when the deployment zones are deep enough. i.e. if you have a 24" deployment zone instead of 12" you can widen the no man's land by 12" just by deploying 12" back.

Ironbone
30-11-2013, 16:32
if you have a 24" deployment zone instead of 12" you can widen the no man's land by 12" just by deploying 12" back.
I was thinking more about 15-18". 24 id bit too much even for horde-dakka army lover like me ;).

mrjellybeans
30-11-2013, 17:18
I always liked a mix.

With a large table you have the option to play on smaller sections when you have smaller games, and spread out when you feel frisky.

Terrain is also to taste, but expecting anywhere from 'arctic tundra' to 'hive city' for desity is what can make list building extra fun.

Camman1984
01-12-2013, 00:55
I remember a couple of years trying to play on a 5x8 board but we were orks and they were tau, the simply railgunned our trucks and that was that. We were 3ft from the enemy with little to do that run into their guns. This was 5th ed so even running at full speed we were looking at 5 turns to get to the enemy.

I like big tables but you have to find some way of balancing the real long ranged armies with the melee ones.