View Full Version : What's your typical Gaming Board size?

28-05-2007, 09:59
I had an interesting thought the other day and thought I would share.

It came to me as I was looking around the Sydney Battle bunker at the games that were going on... most armies were able to fire from the first turn or get into H2H by at the least turn 2-3... and I looked at the size of the tables and I thought to myself "well no wonder people are complaining!"

The game is simple yes... but there are tactics! The reason small games work so well is that they have alot of room to manouver and employ tactics.

The tables are just simply to small for 28mm gaming.. Games are decided during deployment because of this. The forces are so close that you've literally handycapped yourself if you make a mistake during deployment.
and yet these table seem to be the standard size for all games. Why?

why not play down the length of the board instead of across the width? or why not make your tables wider?

So, what are your thoughts of this? Is 40k being let down by the table sizes we play our games on?


Serge M.

28-05-2007, 10:11
The game system was designed to be fought across a 4 foot wide board. Too much more and a shooting oriented army has a clear advantage. Too much less and a close-combat oriented army has a clear advantage.

Gorbad Ironclaw
28-05-2007, 10:15
The problem with a wider board is all those missions where you have to across the board, or capturer objective, or loot counters or table quarters and whatever. With a turn limit, if you want all armies to actually have a chance in compeating in those games you can't have the table to wide. An Eldar or Tau army is going to have a massive advantage playing on an 8' wide table simply because they have the speed to just move anywhere they want. Where as a Guard army is almost certainly going to struggle just getting around the table.

28-05-2007, 12:04
Why the interest in CC?

and why would guard have a hard time geting across the board?

mind you not all missions make you set up face to face across the width.

anyways.. it was a thought. More room to set up with out having everything bundled together would be nice to see for once though...


Serge M.

28-05-2007, 12:11
why would guard have a hard time geting across the board?

Specifically vanilla Guard have a hard time because they have to take advantage of close formation for their leadership bonuses to work, also they have to stay together because a squad is too weak to stand up to most things, whereas a tac. squad can survive fairly well without support.

28-05-2007, 12:23
In Games Workshop, 4x4, with their being two gaming tables and two starter system tables at all times.

At home, I have a home-made 6x4 gaming table.

28-05-2007, 12:24
In my experience larger tables work better,provided there is plenty of terrain.If the table's much larger,you can always add a turn or two.
The best game I ever had was down on the beach over a few rock pools,starting about 12 feet apart.This was a few years ago,when there were forced march rules.We also allowed players to double the range of weapons,but re-rolling hits for any shots over normal range.Worked fine,lasted about 8 or 9 turns I think.
By the way,it was Eldar vs. Marines. Eldar won.

28-05-2007, 13:29
When i still rented my old flat before i was evicted I had a 6x4 board, it was fine and many a fun game was had

now that I'm back with the parents theres not anouth room for a 6x4 board so I'm making a 4x4 city fight board

6x4 is fine for 2000 point games, any larger need a 8x4 really and 4x4 is great for city fight as its up close and personal with lots of terrain

28-05-2007, 13:35
I always thought that table width was, in a large part, a function of practicality.

As a 6' tall guy, I can easily move miniatures in the center of a 4' wide table. If you get much wider than that, I begin to lean precariously and have to place weight on the table to reach miniatures in the center.

The other side is, a lot of people just like the fighting. The game reflects that moment when the battle is really joined, not the manuevering that takes place to get there. Deployment covers all the clever movement, and now it's time to fight.

28-05-2007, 13:37
6x4 table for 1500 points, 4x4 for 1000 or less

Did a 10k battle, but ended up with a 12x8 table for it :p

Cry of the Wind
28-05-2007, 13:37
Having played mostly 1700pts games on 6x4 and 8x4 and 1500/1000pts games on 4x4 my preference is for 6x4. It gives enough space to move around and I've never had problems with too little terrain. 1000pts on 4x4 make great games as well but any larger and the table seems too small.

28-05-2007, 13:54
At home games we usually play on a 4x4 board with average scenery coverage with enough free space to set up good firelanes and vehicle paths.

At our local GW (GW Glasgow) we have around...5-7 6x4 tables. They recently refurbished the store slight so some space was lost. The tables have various setups such as open plains and cityfight, so you have plenty of choice.

I prefer playing at home on a 4x4 board. You can really get down to action more quickly and for me personally, playing either all infantry guard or a mech free tau, if I am given a big board edge to set up on I end up spreading my troops too thinly (force of habit). SO a 4x4 board actually helps me in a way stay focused strangely enough. I love playing on 6x4 boards with my DA though, all squads in rhinos and my vehicles scooting around wackey races style :D

Slaaneshi Slave
28-05-2007, 13:56
We normally play on a 48"x60" table for standard games up to about 2000 points.

28-05-2007, 14:04
We usually use a 4x8 or 4x6 table.

When it comes to being deployed too closely the slanted deployment that's used in some RTT missions is pretty nifty for making the game more interesting.

28-05-2007, 14:11
why not play down the length of the board instead of across the width? or why not make your tables wider?

some of the missions in the BGB are played down the table instead of across. The problem is that a lot of people seem to like to play 'kill everything' missions instead of actually using objectives.

28-05-2007, 14:17
64x56 inches at home, 59x47 and 47x47 inches at my local GW store.

Dribble Joy
28-05-2007, 14:21
6 x 4 at the local GW store, games are rarely bigger than 1500 at vet's night.

Home game at my mate's house (which go up to 5k but usually 2-3k) are on an 8 x 4.

Slaaneshi Slave
28-05-2007, 14:49
some of the missions in the BGB are played down the table instead of across. The problem is that a lot of people seem to like to play 'kill everything' missions instead of actually using objectives.

Having played a few games recently down the length of a board, I can tell you it chances vastly how some armies are played. I run a mechanised SoB list, and having to stay in your Rhino for a turn after your Smokes have run out is nerve wracking. So far its worked... But sooner or later I will come up against a firing line army such as static Tau or Imperial Guard, and get wasted before I get half way up the board.

28-05-2007, 17:09
My mate and I use a table that's 8' x 4' give or take a couple of inches.

We only ever seem to use half or three quarters of the board though, because we play using 1500pt armies, the rest of the table is used for mugs, dice, casualties etc.

We play both lengthwise and widthwise but mainly widthwise because going down an 8' table takes a while and ends being boring, the first 3 or so turns may as well be disregarded and the armies setup where they would be at the end of the 3 or so turns because most of the weapons are out of range until then and nothing but movement happens.

28-05-2007, 17:30
48" by 48" for 2000 pts or less at GW Hemel.

28-05-2007, 17:34
i think that in general a width of 4 ft is about right, it takes infantry about three turns to assault opponents in the other zone this way. Any wider and shooty armies will rip more HtH orientated armies apart. Any shorter and static shooty armies will be ripped to shreds.

I think width is more imoprtant, it allows maneuvering and terrain becomes more important.

Generally for 1000+or less 4*4 is about right 1500 to 3000 about 4*6 over that 4*8 is about the most i've used (bar one 6*6)

28-05-2007, 17:49
Mostly 6x4, except Wednesdays, when there are 8x4 tables at the club. I much prefer the bigger tables, it makes the game better, especially if you set up the terrain intelligently.

My last battle was on a 72"x18" board. Terrain set up looked like this.

Horde of orks and orks and orks and killa kans


Squashed up Guard

That's how you get an 18" wide board. The Guard need more than one turn of shooting to stop an ork army...

Stella Cadente
28-05-2007, 18:38
The typical board I play on is 6x4, but I shall be making a 6x5 cityfight board, a much better size I think

Light of the Emperor
28-05-2007, 19:24
I have two 8x4 foot boards. You can always cut off sections to go smaller if necessary.

Brother Alecium
28-05-2007, 19:43
We usually play rather large games in my group. So most of the time we do 48"x 96". That way there is a little more room to fit the army, and to spread out larger forces.

28-05-2007, 22:54
I agree that the game can sometimes just be move, shoot, move, shoot, close combat, game over. They should make the tables much longer and there should be tons of terrain on the board, that way there would be more tactical thinking involved. At my place, I am planning to turn a huge piece of dry wall into a 40k game board (you know spray paint it green maybe, at some effects, etc.).

28-05-2007, 23:10
However big my fiends table is! Likely 6 foot by a little less than 4