PDA

View Full Version : Scaling up the battlefield/game table



H3L!X
17-02-2014, 09:50
With all the fuzz going around how bad fliers and Super Heavys fit into 'normal' sized games, i thought that upscaling the 'table' size is the way to go. And the floor in my living room is perfect for a match.

But the larger battlefield brings new problems:
-Movement is to short
-Weapon ranges also fall short
-Close combat armys have to cover even more ground

Solutions:
Movement:
Vehicles: Increas the movement of Vehicles by 6" (or better 12"). This will give them the chance to reach a specific point during the game. Also it now makes transports viable and the vehicles now actually have a speed bonus over infantry.

Infantry: Not really sure but i would add 3" to all movement (including running, charge, consolidation...)

Weapon Range:
I don't know a good value, but of the top of my head i would add 20" to all ranges.

Flamers will then be 20" torrent and alrady torrent flamers add 20" to their normal torrent

Closecombat
No idea as i don't have a poor closecombat army.
Tyranids are the biggest problem as they don't even have transports!

Sir Didymus
17-02-2014, 10:25
Back in RT the top speed of a jet bike was 320", the average infantry weapon had a range of 24", models had differing movement values, and fliers were able to ascend and descend. So just get an earlier edition of the rules :)

Shiodome
17-02-2014, 12:57
i'd actually keep all shooting the same ranges BECAUSE assault troops would otherwise have a hard time. then the game becomes more about manouver, which should be the crux of any proper wargame.

totgeboren
17-02-2014, 13:15
If I'm not mistaken, in RT ballistic weapons could fire 10x their range, but had to roll a 6 before rolling to hit, and Energy Weapons had the same except they could fire 5x.

so the range given is actually the 'effective range', not the absolute range. Just try that and see how it goes. You could also allow stuff to run/flat out x2 as far as long as no enemy is within 24".

Camman1984
17-02-2014, 13:16
I second keeping weapon ranges the same, means weapons with huge ranges like basilisks actually have a tabletop advantage and can hid out of the way like artillery should.

I enjoy the 'lounge floor' battles as it means you end up with mini objectives and small in battle skirnishes that appear as the battle rages on. We used an old house rule that you could double move instead of shooting, and if there were no enemies within a certain distance you could march move for double again, dont remember our exact distances but as it was way back in 3rd/4th times.

Sir Didymus
17-02-2014, 13:17
I'd up the ranges on everything, since that would better reflect sci-fi warfare - which should be the object of any proper sci-fi warfare game ;)

silentsmoke
17-02-2014, 13:21
I do prefer the old days of weapon ranges and movement. I think the ranges of weapons are short, but to be honest I don't really care that much - As i am Guard player with more artillery than you can shake a stick.

H3L!X
17-02-2014, 13:41
The reason i want to increase the range is that it looks/feels rather odd that my movement is almost as far as weapon range!
I thought about doubling thr range, but that will create a huge discrepancy from weapon to weapon! For example Guardians with Shurikencatapult 12x2=24" and SM Bolters 24"x2=48"; better example: Lascannon 48"*2=96" and Brightlance 36"*2=72"...before the range difference was 12" now it is 24"!!! Thats why i want a set value of e.g. +20"!
And Artillery that doesn't cover half the floor isn't artillery imho!

nedius
17-02-2014, 13:50
One thing I did once was to play a game of 40k using epic scale figures, on a normal sized board. 40k made a huge amount more sense at that scale. It was a very fiddly game to play, but so much about the scale made sense; the range of fire, the distance travelled by fliers and vehicles, etc. I tried it again swapping inches for centimetres. The scale made even more sense, but slowed the game down hugely. Interestingly, it made transport vehicles hugely important...

Lord-Gen Bale Chambers
17-02-2014, 13:56
Any increases in range weapons hurt assault armies. I would leave the weapon ranges as they are. There are quite a few weapons out already with really long ranges.

Just let infantry run at max speed if no enemies are nearby (36"?) and make sure there are some roads so vehicles get the movement bonus using them.

Using roads in this manner on a large board sets up some tactical options. Do you move your tanks in a column so they can all gain the bonus and move quickly, where can you best setup your heavy weapons to cover an enemies approach from the road, do you take a more cautious approach offroad with cover?

The last apoc game was the largest I ever played with 8k a side on a 12x6" table. Defenders were in the middle with the attacker coming in from the long board edges. Between deep striking infantry, a "platoon" of Elysian veterans in Valkyries and a ton of rhinos and land raiders with 3 baneblades and two warhound Titans split between the sides, range and movement were not much of a problem.

If you are playing a normal 1500-2000 pt game, I wouldn't recommend playing on more than a 6x6 or 6x8 board. That adds more than enough room and works with the existing weapon ranges and movement very well.

Knifeparty
17-02-2014, 14:23
I'd up the ranges on everything, since that would better reflect sci-fi warfare - which should be the object of any proper sci-fi warfare game

But that's the thing, 40K isn't sci-fi, It's fantasy in space.

The more they move away from this the worse the game gets, 6th edition is by far the worst edition (IMO). Armour means nothing, combat means nothing and it's sad, very sad. 40K is different because it isn't a sic-fi game, they have magic and daemons and close combat weapons, these are the things that make 40K what it is, it's what makes it interesting.

They need to make shooting far less potent and make slower units faster.

Some armies like Chaos, when you play them against an army like Tau if feels like you are standing still while they dance around you and shoot you to pieces. You literally cannot do anything except wait for Heldrakes to come in. Increasing ranges of shooting just means that 3/4 of my army would die by turn 2 instead of just half.

I do think 40K needs to scale up to 2500 points, 1850 is way to restrictive.

H3L!X
17-02-2014, 14:37
Thats why i am asking for solutions on closecombat!
I happly would allow charges from vehicles, infiltrating and outflank!
On a larger 'map' it isn't as bad as it was in earlier editions.

totgeboren
17-02-2014, 15:56
I do think 40K needs to scale up to 2500 points, 1850 is way to restrictive.

No wonder you think shooting is way to powerful. The more points you play at, the better shooting armies get. They can concentrate firepower on fast/dangerous targets much more efficiently at high point games, assault armies often have a harder time using terrain or not getting in each others way meaning they become more susceptible to blasts, and the units that do make it into close combat will have a harder time surviving after winning an assault.

Against Tau it's even worse because of their support Overwatch.

Try playing less points, not more, so you can use the terrain better and you will see shift in efficiency for assault armies (not saying assault armies are dominant as lower points games, just saying that high points exacerbate the problem of shooty dominance).

Knifeparty
17-02-2014, 21:37
I should clarify that I don't play higher than 1850pts in a regular game as that is the average game size in the group I play in, I would like to, but that is a different story.

I definitely agree with you Totgenboren that playing at smaller points level increases close combat efficiency, however I have found that 40K is leaning so far towards shooting that I've lost all interest in playing.

Ssilmath
17-02-2014, 21:44
If you want close combat armies to have a strong presence, just make the battle take place in a built up area. You may want to make paths for ease of movement (For the players) but get plenty of stuff for them to move around in and behind. Keep everything else the same but get rid of turns. Instead, go until one side is wiped out, a certain number of victory points are awarded (Say, holding an objective gives 1 VP each turn, go until 20 VP's reached, put all objectives in the middle portion of the floor) or until one side concedes and withdraws. And expect to play for a while, if you want to use that large a space you're going to need it.

H3L!X
17-02-2014, 23:00
I always play on tables with dense terrain! Even a lot of the better tables of battlereports often have to few terrain or variety in size and type! So that wouldn't be a problem.

Yep, ignoring rounds is the way to go.
Time isn't a problem too, at least not for me.

T10
18-02-2014, 07:33
With all the fuzz going around how bad fliers and Super Heavys fit into 'normal' sized games, i thought that upscaling the 'table' size is the way to go. And the floor in my living room is perfect for a match.

But the larger battlefield brings new problems:
-Movement is to short
-Weapon ranges also fall short
-Close combat armys have to cover even more ground


Just a couple of thoughts here:

If you double all the ranges and movement distances etc, the thing you achieve is to effectively shrink the size of all physical game elements to 1/4th of their area footprint. If it takes a flying model two turns to move across the battlefield, then doubling the dimensions of the battlefield and doubling the speed means that the flyer still crosses it in two turns.

Now, instead of increasing all ranges and stuff, you could instead increase the number of turns you play, e.g. double. However, bear in mind that damage exchange in a normal game starts off fairly light, then intensifies as the armies get closer, and then ultimately drops off as they casualties become significant and offensive output is reduced. What this means is that a 2000 points game that lasts 5 turns before one side is destroyed is unlikely to last twice as long just because the points size is doubled. Having units spread out over a greater area may serve to mitigate this, but then this will be because a lot of grunts are left out of range, becoming useless.

-T10

Baaltor
18-02-2014, 07:46
...a lot of grunts are left out of range, becoming useless.


They also serve, who only stand and wait. :P

Although I'd second your words on the scaling concept. It's seemingly a paradox.

H3L!X
18-02-2014, 08:12
Just a couple of thoughts here:

If you double all the ranges and movement distances etc, the thing you achieve is to effectively shrink the size of all physical game elements to 1/4th of their area footprint. If it takes a flying model two turns to move across the battlefield, then doubling the dimensions of the battlefield and doubling the speed means that the flyer still crosses it in two .

With no word i said i want to double movement!
I said increase the vehicle speed by e.g. 6"! So instead of 6"/12"/18" you have 12"/18"/24"
Infantry only by +3 or not at all, that would finally make transports, placement
and tactical movement important!
Because now infantry can't walk beside a vehicle anymore, finally the vehicle is faster!

Weapon Range:
Declare the range that weapons have as the effective range where you can shoot at full BS. For each 12"over effective range you get -1BS up to BS1 Your max range would be double your effective range. E.G. a SM firing his bolter at max range (48) has a BS of 2.

Monk813
18-02-2014, 10:59
How about a slight change in the "Go to Ground" rule? Change it to where the way it's written now is an impromptu reaction that can be taken in your opponent's shooting phase. If you choose to go to ground during your own turn then you receive a +2 to cover. And then add in a slight variation where you can "Move to Cover". A unit would be able to declare this after moving, receives +1 cover, loses the ability to fire but can still move in their next movement phase. Dunno if allowing after a run would be too powerful or not, either way I think this represents a strategic advance for those units with short range and/or close combat weapons.

Denny
18-02-2014, 12:37
Play with normal ranges and movement, just make the deployment zones the 'normal' (24 inches) apart.

You can still have issues with units castling at the back, but at least assault armies can start closer and infiltrate/outflank/deep strike still work, and if you use lots of cover and players know going in that they will need to find a way of crossing the table it shouldn't be an issue.

IMO adding to all the ranges/movement is going to cause problems: do you increase the half range of melta weapons? How does salvo work? What about psychic powers with a 2d6 range?

T10
18-02-2014, 14:30
With no word i said i want to double movement!


I know. I realise you're fairly pleased with your house rules. I only brought it up as points to consider when changing aspects of the game.

-T10

H3L!X
18-02-2014, 17:46
I know. I realise you're fairly pleased with your house rules. I only brought it up as points to consider when changing aspects of the game.

-T10


Sorry if my answer seemed a bit harsh...i hate text chats for their potential of misinterpretations!
I like reading all answeres and consider each idea to hopefully get the best of it!

Actually this is not a houserule set for me! I wanted to create a rules set for everyone interested to use! So i am glad if we come to a an agreement wher most are happy with (most because you never get all to like it)!

Baaltor
18-02-2014, 20:24
Sorry if my answer seemed a bit harsh...i hate text chats for their potential of misinterpretations!


It didn't seem that harsh to me. Although I feel the vehicle movement thing still counts a bit. You might want to consider roads for the 40k rules they have. Also skimmers could have their speed increased too, maybe across the board to represent their advantage of all terrain.

I really don't have much to add here though, I'm kind of stuck on how to fix this issue, so I'm more of an observer. :P

H3L!X
19-02-2014, 12:44
Maybe it is best to leave movement and shooting like it is!
Thinking about, it actually makes the movement phase really important and opens up a new tactical level.
Just imagine a squad of yours holding an objective 50" away from the main engagement, when enemy deep striking units arrive there. Will they hold long enough that you can finish another fight before sending reinforcements? Is it better to react fast and send a squad with transport asap that could have been usefull in the main battle?
Will the reinforcements even arrive there or do they get caught on their way?

One problem i still have...i need more terrain! :D

MadHatter
20-02-2014, 05:00
I think you should leave the rules the same with the exception on the amount of turns. This will actually make bringing transports worth it. Loads of terrain and roads could make or break an army along with the players tactics.

Hawkkf
20-02-2014, 06:59
I have played a few large (on the floor) games and have a few thoughts about playing them.

1) I would leave the base rules alone. A couple of house rules are fine, but make sure they are things you have used in other games. In large games there is already a lot of chaos and remembering alternative rules can get confusing. The last game I played we altered StrD and me and my opponent both realized on turn 2 that we were playing the alteration differently.

2) Objectives are key. If you just do annihilation it turns into a turkey shoot with death lanes in between entrenched troops. I suggest multiple types of objectives. Placing a main objective at each base as an HQ, having several secondary take and hold objectives scattered across the board, and a relic in the center of the board give mutiple chances for VP and scatter the battle across the field.
Another option that we tried in my last game was to make an overall commander 3VP and a number of lesser captians 1VP each (we decided they each needed a name to add a layer of depth). These are to represent key personel whose loss could affect the entire military campaign.

3) Terrain brings the game to life. The bigger the game table (floor) the more important terrain is. Roughly 2 peices per 2x2 is needed, but should be set to tell a story. One game we had a large ruined city area taking up a third of the floor (with room for vehicles to pass between as if roads were once there), a line of LoS blocking hills representing a ridge line running diagonal, and plenty of forrests around it. It made the objectives make much more sense. Holding the square in the center of the ruined town, or the ridge line that gave a commanding view of the entire board really seemed like vital strategic objectives.

4) Number of turns is always tricky. In most cases when you need to use the floor you have more models than time to play. I have not yet had the fortune to play a game where we could lock down the room and come back and play over the coarse of a week or so. At best most of us will have a two day time span to play and game no matter how much we want to keep going. My suggestion is to score VP at the end of each full game turn. Objectives would be 1-3 pts each scored every turn held, but other VPs like the assasinations are scored only when completed. First blood and line breaker don;t make much sens eot me at this level, but consider them with your oponent. That way objectives are even more important and no matter when the game ends, you can tell who won. I have had it happen where we only get through 3 turns after an all night game and calling it only to have the other players use the "well if we went another turn I could have won". Although some players like ending without a for sure winner, I think having a set winner gives a backstory to the next big game.

5) Why set limits? The every turn VP method opens up the option to keep going with no turn limit. If you are lucky enough to have a sealed (as in child/pet/nosy friend proof) room where you can play over the course of as many days as you want, why limit yourself to turns? You could have a VP goal instead or any other end of game trigger such as a player dropping below 25% points left (which could be bonus VP to the other player).
A few suggestions for unlimited games include every 8 turns you swap between night and day making each turn represent 3 hours of battle (which it may very well be game wise). So if turn 1 is nightfight then on turn 9 it becomes nightfight again. Also it is feasable to allow reinforcements at set times of a certain number of points. This could be influenced by special objectives that dont give VPs but affect this instead such as a comm relay/beacon.

Just a few of my thoughts based on my experiences. Now I just need a big enough house with a spare room to play in and willing sucke.. friends to play against once a week in an ongoing game.