6x4 is no longer practical

[Banville]

Hi Guys and Gals,

I've been playing 40k since 3rd edition along with Fantasy and over the last few years I've really gotten into Warmahordes as well. Across these game systems there is a standard table size recommended; Warmahordes is 4x4, Fantasy and 40k is 6x4.

Now, while Fantasy in its current iteration is barely able to support a 3000pt game on a 6x4 table, I have ot say I'm struggling to see how 40k can be played on a 6x4 at anything above 2000pts. The prolifieration of fliers coming down the tracks coupled with the absolute joke that is TLOS compounded by "free" movement independent of facing or orientation means that a 6x4 board becomes very claustrophobic, very quickly.

Anyone of the same opinion? What are people's experiences of playing on a larger table?

[DigitalDogParty]

If it's less than 2,000 points, my friends and I play on a 4x4. Generally, that's big enough for a 1v1. If we play higher than 2,000 or with more people, then we break it out to the 4x8. Thing is, sometimes it's just not the length of the table, but the width? That seems to be the problem sometimes.

[Banville]

I agree. Maybe 6x6 would be better. That 24 inches of open ground between the armies closes far too quickly. Manouevering doesn't really happen in that you don't have room to adjust to your opponent's movement.

I play Salamanders, mainly. I run a fluffy list with no fliers (Nocturne used to be described as having very strong gravity, making Salamanders unfamiliar with Landspeeders, jump packs etc). However, at 2000pts, I do run a 5 man unit of SS/TH Termies in a Crusader backed up by a unit of Tactical Termies on foot. These units are in the middle of the table end of turn 1 with very little chance for my oppponent to respnd "tactically" to them.

[Bunnahabhain]

A 6x 4 has never been practical for more than about 1500pts of 40K.

The single best way I have found to improve 40k, with NO rules changes or tweaks whatsoever, is to use a much larger table than is viewed as standard.

Long range matters more
Deep strike and very fast movement matters more
More room to deploy, so less inclination to just go reserves.
Outflank gets toned down.

In all, it makes many armies play more like they do in the background, and I find it to be more fun.

This also makes it easier to use bigger, taller bits of terrain that do block pseudo-TLOS ( the system we have isn't true LOS, it is a messy bodge...)

[DigitalDogParty]

It's hard to "outmaneuver" your opponent on a 4x4 or something of the sort. Even objectives sorta cram up and just pushing your army forward will usually cover 80% of the map. At least, this occurs for my group.

[Beppo1234]

I agree. Maybe 6x6 would be better. That 24 inches of open ground between the armies closes far too quickly. Manouevering doesn't really happen in that you don't have room to adjust to your opponent's movement.

There is a limitation that always exists: how far one can physically reach across the table... and for that, you really have to look at the youngest target audience of this game, as they will have to shortest of arms.

[kaptin_blacksquigg]

The only problem with using different table sizes is that it inevitable unbalances certain armies.
Armies like Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard low big tables where armies like Orks and Tyranids find it very hard on bigger tables.
THe oposite is of cause true on smaller tables.

for me 6*4 is perfect for 1500-2000
Generally I think 1k should be played on 4X4
For large games I'l always got for longer (8*4) before wider (6*6) as it has less of an unbalancing effect as mentioned above.

[DigitalDogParty]

There is a limitation that always exists: how far one can physically reach across the table... and for that, you really have to look at the youngest target audience of this game, as they will have to shortest of arms.

Nonsense! Just drop in over the table like Tom Cruise in 'Mission Impossible'!

Um...but really, 6x6 is usually perfect.

[yabbadabba]

You have to take into account why 6'x4' is the recommended size; its certainly not because of scale. One of the things, hardly ever mentioned on Warseer, that is critical to make a game enjoyable is the table size and terrain.

I currently play on a 6'x4' but its not big enough, yet its the ideal size for squeezing in a front room or similar. The ideal size table for most ordinary games is 8'x4' and its the size I stuck to, whenever I had the space, when I was a shop manager. Even 500pt games take on a whole new dimension on a 8'x4; with lots of terrain.

However, and especially for WFB Sieges and 40k, I am starting to gravitate to a 6' deep table.

[Tarax]

Making your table deeper, so 6' instead of 4', makes it harder for reserves to make it in time to the other side.

Yet I like a deeper table, because you can now have a defense in depth, or several waves of attackers already on the table.

But most of all I think 'smaller' tables are just fine, it's just that we are accustomed to/forced into fighting bigger battles. As with the rules, they are meant for a certain number of points, ie 2000 in Fantasy and 1500 in 40K, and these work just fine on a 6'x4' table.

[Carlosophy]

NB: We had TLOS in 2E/Necromunda, 3E and 4E. It specifically states in the 4E rulebook 'bend down to get a models eye view'. TLOS has been around for 20 years. Get over it.

On topic: 6x4 is an issue if you deploy lengthways and play across the table. Try going back to 4E and deploying in quarters instead. Sure, it messes up flanking if you appear on the short board edge but you get much more scope for pincer movements and actually making a credible battle line.

This is from a guy who plays 1500 - 2000pts on a 4x2.5 table regularly.

[ehlijen]

The standard recommended game size of 1.5k fits well onto 6*4 and one FO chart.

[tuebor]

I think the standard of 1500 points should be played on a 6x4 table and every 500 points thereafter should add 2 feet to the length of the table, so 2000 on an 8x4 and 2500 on a 10x4 and so on. I see so many Apocalypse battle reports (or unreasonably large regular games of 2500 points or more) that look incredibly boring, tanks and infantry literally lined up base to base or hull to hull and just advancing forward in a line like some sort of Napoleonic battle line. Wider tables can be fine if you really take care to use enough large, LOS blocking terrain and to make sure there's enough of it in the middle so that shooty armies don't get a huge no-man's land in the middle, unless of course that's the scenario you're looking for.

I played a couple of a years in a club where we played 1850 games on 4x4 tables with little terrain. It was so incredibly boring, shooty armies would roll dice at the melee armies for 2 turns and then the melee armies would roll dice for the rest of the game. Every single game came down to whose dice were hotter because there was no room to maneuver and not enough cover to matter. I went to another club that played 1500 games on proper 6x4 tables but they would put all of their terrain on each side of the table where shooty armies would dig in and we had the opposite problem of the other club. It wasn't until we got together and made enough big, LOS blocking terrain and made sure to put some in the middle of the board that games started to get fun for both sides. Of course, this all goes for standard deployment, different deployments are a completely different thing.

I got off track a bit but basically yes, 6x4 is really crowded for 2000 points and above. Longer tables really are needed although wider can work but I think that'll make people only mech up more as there's no way to reasonably get to distant objectives without transports on wider tables.

[fluffymcfluff]

I have always played on an 8x4 table regardless of points, lots of terrain with plenty of LOS blocking. The only time we don't have a good game is when someones dice don't behave, or the occasional poor deployment/tactics. Overall I prefer to play on the bigger table, opens up a lot more options for everyone.

[Comrade Penguin]

The only problem with using different table sizes is that it inevitable unbalances certain armies.
Armies like Tau, Eldar and Imperial Guard low big tables where armies like Orks and Tyranids find it very hard on bigger tables.
THe oposite is of cause true on smaller tables.

This.

As an ork and tyranid player I cannot imagine playing a standard point sized game on a larger table. We have a hard enough time as it is getting our fragile units across the table intact and into combat with the current board size. Now imagine it takes us two-three more turns to reach that IG parking lot. You might as well not even put your minis on the table, because they will not stand a chance against that.

Currently the horde armies use the table size to corner mech units and swarm them with minis. If you extend the board size, the mech players can simply laugh and drive away when your horde closes on them.

So that leads to the question: Do we really need an atmosphere that is more friendly to shooty mech (IG, SW)? I'll pass

[Tarian]

The trick to bigger tables, is more terrain. Parking lots don't like having to take tests when they try to drive away, and terrain that blocks LoS hampers Guard shooting efficiency. A great board setup I played a while back was on a 8x4 table, with a city ruin on one side, a forest on the other, and lots of craters/fences/ruins in the middle. Enough terrain that my Guard couldn't just blast everything without at least moving or indirect, but not so much that Tanks etc. couldn't move around carefully.

Then again, we usually say "This patch of trees blocks LoS, as it's a lot denser than the model represents." Which provides better cover for units as well.

[yabbadabba]

-snip-

Need more scenery mate ;-). My Catachan's get the backsides handed to them in Cityfights by Orks and Tyranids, especially hordes.

[Thrax]

Luckily I have room for a bigger table in my basement, and in fact I have played most of my games on it. It's about 4'10"x 6'8". It's not a lot bigger but you really can tell the difference (it's two old closet doors bolted together) between that and a 6' x 4' table. For really big games in extends out to 8'2" long. As said before, the terrain used is essential to a good game no matter how big the table is but a bigger table does allow for more options.

[Born Again]

Some of the best, most enjoyable games I have played have been 500-1000 points on a 4 x 4 board. You can't really go above 1000 on that size though unless it's with two very low model count, highly elite armies, and by the same token two maxed-out horde armies begins to get a bit squishy, but for the 'average' game at that size it works great, I find. Of course, the points value thing will annoy many people, as you can't go spamming stuff and backing in crazy deathstar units as such low point levels, but I like that too - makes you think about your army composition more, and those expensive units and characters suddenly seem all the more valuable.
Above 1000 points though, you really do need a 6 x 4. In fact, most games I have played above the 1000 mark have been big Apocalypse games, where I agree the problem is the width - with a table that can stretch to 12 feet long, starting only two feet apart seems a little off.

[DarkDrgon]

Something you have to keep in mind are physical limitations for people who don't have a flgs or club nearby. I had trouble finding a 6x4 table topper at home, I don't even want to think about how I'd manage an 8x6 or 6x6