6x4 is no longer practical

[Comrade Penguin]

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

I play with an adequate amount of terrain, but that does not negate the advantage that most modern shooty mech armies have over horde lists currently.

By extending the table length, you are increasing the amount of turns it takes for foot CC units to reach combat. This means they take more damage coming in and have less time to hit back once they reach enemy lines. In effect, you are giving shooty armies an unfair advantage because they have an extra turn or two to do exactly what they are good at. At the same time, you are hurting CC armies because you are reducing the amount of turns they have to be effective.

Besides, how many IG and SW players agree to having MORE terrain than the recommended 25%

[yabbadabba]

[QUOTE=Comrade Penguin;6262681]I play with an adequate amount of terrain, but that does not negate the advantage that most modern shooty mech armies have over horde lists currently.[/QUOTE} Define adequate because I assure you that what is adequate, what GW consider adequate, and what the community deems adequate are extremely variable.

By extending the table length, you are increasing the amount of turns it takes for foot CC units to reach combat. This means they take more damage coming in and have less time to hit back once they reach enemy lines. In effect, you are giving shooty armies an unfair advantage because they have an extra turn or two to do exactly what they are good at. At the same time, you are hurting CC armies because you are reducing the amount of turns they have to be effective.

The game is based on playing on a 6x4. If you change that, then you need to change the parameters as well for the game to work. If you increase the depth by 50% then you need to increase the turns by a similar amount. The same goes with scenery, especially those TLOS blockers which reduce the effectiveness of shooting based armies. Like everything these decisions require some common sense and willingness to work through issues; if that's not going to happen then stick to 6x4.

Besides, how many IG and SW players agree to having MORE terrain than the recommended 25%

You might need some new opponents then

[Veteran Sergeant]

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

The problem is a ruleset that took the ability to shoot effectively away from those armies, not the style of play. But this is an end result of the fact that 40K bites off more than it can chew. Most wargames focus on certain styles of play. 2nd Edition was certainly like that. Every army could shoot, even if they had some close combat specialists. But that's what they were, specialists. 3rd Edition and onward broke the formula and certain armies became dedicated to single play styles. This hurts the "horde" armies most because any deviation from the artificial limitations (such as table size) to the game designed to "balance" play kills them, as you described.

Thus, the problem is not that increased table size hurts certain armies and benefits others. The problem is that the game has slowly but surely become less well balanced and less well designed which requires these kinds of inane limitations.

[Chem-Dog]

The game is creeping towards larger battles generally. For example, I frequently hear Blood Angels and Grey Knights players complain that their army is hard to play at anything less than 2K, with some armies (and some builds of some armies) 2k will fill up your standard 1' X 6' deployment zone (taking generous terrain into account) to such a density anyone with a few pie plates is going to be wetting themselves.

At home I can just about squeeze a 6' X 8' into my living room which is the largest room in my flat so it's not practical to play any larger. At the Club, where I do the lion's share of my gaming, we can fit six standard sized tables. We can do larger tables (we've run several Apocalypse battles there) but this seriously diminishes the number of people who can take part in a battle at any one time (yes you can double up but this defeats the point of using larger armies). There's also a distinct time limit on our club time, we get about 4-5 hours to set up, play and pack up. Battles which creep over 2000 points tend to take a significant amount of extra time so I for one would be at a loss if 2.5K+ were to become the norm.

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.

We also had a decent and flexible system for cover

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.

Orks were never supposed to get across the board intact, they were supposed to be able to absorb enough damage to make it across the table and still do some damage despite serious losses. And as a Guard player who regularly faces Orky KFF of doom mech list (as often as not with a horde infantry army) I'd argue that the build is more important than which list it comes from, I see plenty of intact Ork units catapulting into my units after effectively shrugging off any damage you might be able to put on them in the scarce turn or two before impact.

[Col. Tartleton]

The trick is 2 8x4 tables spaced apart adequately but simulating an 8x8.

You get 64 square feet of table and the ability to reach everything.

It's like having a couple ping pong tables but smaller.

A ping pong table is 9x5 feet. 2 of those would give you 90 square feet. *Drool* Besides a solidly built ping pong table would be perfect for placing the gaming board.

A gun with a 72" range ought to get more than a couple shots off before it gets mobbed by assault troops.



A measly 24 square feet is so crowded. 90 man... The future. It's like 4 times that.

[Comrade Penguin]

Hey, I'm all for the larger boards in apoc games, but the game is currently set to be played on a 6x4. This also means that the points cost in the codices reflect a 6x4 game. If you increase the size of the table, you should also increase the points cost of shooting units because they become exponentially better. Meanwhile CC units should receive a drop in points since more of them would get chewed up before swinging to hit.

I find it funny that all of the guard and tau players are advocating this, but not a single CC army. Well in my humble opinion I think 2k point games should be played on a 4x4

[Tarian]

Hey, I'm all for the larger boards in apoc games, but the game is currently set to be played on a 6x4. This also means that the points cost in the codices reflect a 6x4 game. If you increase the size of the table, you should also increase the points cost of shooting units because they become exponentially better. Meanwhile CC units should receive a drop in points since more of them would get chewed up before swinging to hit.

I find it funny that all of the guard and tau players are advocating this, but not a single CC army. Well in my humble opinion I think 2k point games should be played on a 4x4

Well, to make your recommendation similar to ours, there would be virtually no terrain, and I've played 1500+ games on a 4x4, and without adequate terrain, hordes get chewed up even worse (imo).

That, and when was the last time you've seen a Guard player have his Basilisk out of range? I don't think GW factored a 240" range into the point cost very much.

In short, terrain is the balancing factor between hordes and gunlines, not so much distance between them.

[KRakarth]

Err you guys do realise 8x4 was standard right up until 5th, when they dropped the standard table size.So if you ask me 6x4 was NEVER big enough for a 1500pt battle. 500pts per 2ft of width is the absolute maximum and still leaves you short of manouvering room! Small battles big table always leads to a more interesting game. Just up the cover to about 50%.

[Bunnahabhain]

Err you guys do realise 8x4 was standard right up until 5th, when they dropped the standard table size.So if you ask me 6x4 was NEVER big enough for a 1500pt battle. 500pts per 2ft of width is the absolute maximum and still leaves you short of manouvering room! Small battles big table always leads to a more interesting game. Just up the cover to about 50%.

Errr, what?

Lots of us here have played 4th ed and before, and 6 x 4 tables have been the standard for as long as I can remember... I'll find the old rules and quote you the pages saying 6x 4 if you like..

[totgeboren]

Err you guys do realise 8x4 was standard right up until 5th, when they dropped the standard table size.So if you ask me 6x4 was NEVER big enough for a 1500pt battle. 500pts per 2ft of width is the absolute maximum and still leaves you short of manouvering room! Small battles big table always leads to a more interesting game. Just up the cover to about 50%.

I think you are misremembering. Funnily enough, I played on a 4x8 table for almost all of 2, 3 and 4:th. However, during 4:th, my brother made a new table, and did it "like it was supposed to be", which was recommended as 4x6. For all these editions, the layout maps of how to deploy were based on 4x6 proportions, if you have the books, you can check for yourself.

w40k has had a recommended table size of 4x6 since 2:ed.

I think 4x6 is ok for 1500 pts, though 1250 pts works really nice. A 4x4 with armies of 1000 pts or less can also be fun. Actually, the big problem with 40k armies today is the amount of vehicles. Infantry heavy armies fit well enough on a 4x6, even slightly larger ones than 1500 pts. But when people try to deploy a parking lot or mechdar army, there simply isn't enough room.

[Banville]

The gunline vs CC thing is a bit of a canard. I agree with the posters who say it is terrain not table size which determines the effectiveness of shooting. I play a pretty close-combat/cose range Sallies army and what bugs me about 6x4 is the fact that Devilfish, Wave Serpents, Necron Arks etc etc are made semi-redundant due to the fact that the distance is closed by turn 2. These things, as well as jump infantry, bikes etc are supposed to be manoueverable and be able to redeploy rapidly and create a "flexible" battle line. On a 6x4 table the tactical possibilities afforded to these and similar by their own rules is severely limited. I mean, to my mind, Devilfish should be able to sweep around and drop their Firewarriors to outflank an assault or to evacuate the little blue buggers out of harm's way. As it is the table is too small for this to happen. My Crusader, for example, a great lumbering piece of archaic engineering is effectively as manoueverable and infinitely more survivable than a lot of Eldar or Tau stuff.

On a 6x4 it tends to be just "roll forward 12. Disembark Terminators." My Tau opponent, who should be more nimble than me, has basically the same option only with blue dudes armed with cool guns but pillow fists.

[prowla]

If you're going to go 6'x6', you're going to need a table you can lean on, though. A ping-pong table is pretty perfect for that

[murgel2006]

I do not like 4x6 for more than 1500 points. gets to crowded AND I do not like it for games with tanks, is even worse.

My personal favourite is 6X8 or 2 Meters by 3 Meters ("table" lying on the ground so you can step on it) but we add 2-4 turns to each game.

[koran]

This starts like a bit of a ramble but it does have a point, honest.

I recently read a comment on a post somewhere talking about the positives and failings of the 28mm model system that has become standard. The positives are mostly based around the level of detail and the ability to convert and add character to your army.

Some of the negatives are that the scale does not allow for sensible ranges (a boltgun/lasgun only being able to shoot the equivalent of well under 100ft) in most games at 28mm scale and for that reason the scale should be left for skirmish games of 10-20 men only. I found this an interesting comment which I partially agree on; I play Infinity and have found that as a skirmish game of around 10 models it does make for a much more dynamic game. But this could have more easily been the game mechanics as much as any scale issues. It was suggested that anything bigger than a skirmish would be better at a 15mm scale or smaller. I also play flames and epic and cant say I can fault this. The scale makes for a much better look to games and the gun range starts to feel like it makes more sense.

Now I know people will comment that the ranges can be looked at as the "effective range" of weapons or that in the end it is just a game so I wanted to test this out by having a few games. I couldnt think of a way that made sense to rep 40k at 15mm scale so the obvious solution was to change the size of the board to more closely represent the bigger scale needing more room to play (see, there is some relevance to this ). I didnt get to play many games like this but came to the decision that 40k plays a lot more fun on a 8x6ft board with closer to 40-50% terrain. We couldnt decide on how to increase the ranges of guns (though we agreed that there needed to be some increase). I felt that a 50% increase worked, others that they should be doubled. With the increase in terrain this works well while keeping the game balanced.

Now we only used marines, space wolves, tau, orks and guard in the games (so no nids) but if it wasnt so impractical Id totally jump on a bigger board band wagon.

I guess that a spearhead deployment on a 8x4 board would also work in a similar way as it gives the room to move.

[Col. Tartleton]

The gunline vs CC thing is a bit of a canard. I agree with the posters who say it is terrain not table size which determines the effectiveness of shooting. I play a pretty close-combat/cose range Sallies army and what bugs me about 6x4 is the fact that Devilfish, Wave Serpents, Necron Arks etc etc are made semi-redundant due to the fact that the distance is closed by turn 2. These things, as well as jump infantry, bikes etc are supposed to be manoueverable and be able to redeploy rapidly and create a "flexible" battle line. On a 6x4 table the tactical possibilities afforded to these and similar by their own rules is severely limited. I mean, to my mind, Devilfish should be able to sweep around and drop their Firewarriors to outflank an assault or to evacuate the little blue buggers out of harm's way. As it is the table is too small for this to happen. My Crusader, for example, a great lumbering piece of archaic engineering is effectively as manoueverable and infinitely more survivable than a lot of Eldar or Tau stuff.

On a 6x4 it tends to be just "roll forward 12. Disembark Terminators." My Tau opponent, who should be more nimble than me, has basically the same option only with blue dudes armed with cool guns but pillow fists.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how fast the Dark Eldar compared to the Imperial Guard if they're both able to cross the distance in a turn.

If people actually used big tables suddenly flyers might be reasonable.

Heck now I'm thinking how much you could get done in a smaller scale with a bigger board... Epic on 2 5x9 boards... That's a board like a kilometer wide to real scale. Ooh weird. That makes 12 inches 100 yards. That's just big enough for low yield atomics or high yield explosives. Orbital Bombardment would finally be reasonable!

[Sotek]

2nd was 'anything to infinty' practically 4x4 / 6x4. Really depended on the scenario

3rd,4th and 5th were 'battles' so were 6x4 with 20-25% terrain

Ideally there should be options for 4x4 6x4 and 8x4. Like 'skirmish' 'battle' 'apocalypse' where 1250 or less, 1251-2500, 2500+ are the brackets.

[fwacho]

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?

I do occasionally miss the old 4X8 days of third, when missile launchers and lascannons found themselves out of range and assault armies had to decide if they really wanted to dedicate a unit to killing that pesky scout squad out in the boon docks. imagine how it would affect reserve armies who would still take a turn or two to reach their objectives.

[Raellos]

8x4 is really good, but 6x4 is more practical for doubling up.

[FashaTheDog]

That, and when was the last time you've seen a Guard player have his Basilisk out of range? I don't think GW factored a 240" range into the point cost very much.

Several times. One game was a massive 70-80K game with more than a dozen players a few titans (and Epicast Phantom was the king) and loads of tanks and super-heavies representing the main portion of a planetary invasion back either just after Apocalypse was released. The table was 6' by something like 30' (I think a little more). I had probably a dozen or more Leman Russ squared off against a similar tank force on the far open end near the front of the store while the artillery batteries ended up across from each other on the crowded opposite end. The center was a city area where the bulk of the battle raged while I had my tank duel but there were a few times where Basilisk barrages from both sides were out of range when they tried to break the tank duel so either she or myself could swing our armored assets into the flank of the main battle. That was fun to see Basilisks out of range.

Played a game on the patio, which is something like 30'x40', so there would have been a case there if we had any in that game. Another time the group at my LGS had two T shaped tables (took 2 4'x8' for each) connected by a trio of bridges along the 8' segment. With the table length just over 25', Basilisks could not fire at the far end and both sides held theirs all the way back too. A multi table game I ran a year ago also had the potential as I ruled that if they had the range to cross the gap, weapons could be fired from one table to another and the far ends were placed more than 20' apart. It comes up every now and again, and I think that it might again be time.

As to the table size for normal games, 4'x6' is the most fair to all armies as a whole. My Dark Eldar have never complained about tables being too big, but the army is built so that every unit, when in their transports, can move at least 2' a turn if need be. With the mass of Raiders I run alongside a trio of Ravagers, 1,000 points is quite crowded on a 4'x4' table; it leaves me with very little room to maneuver as I get in my own way. Until I get to more than 2,000 points, a 4'x6' is fine, although at the 1,850 point I do find myself a little inhibited, but that is balanced out by the ability to pretty much be anywhere on the table I want with what I want in a turn or two at most; in fact there are games where I go from one short table edge to the other and back with my Reavers. So they would love the extra room to show off their speed and mock the slow Mon-Keigh.

My Tyranids really need to have the 4' gap between armies, the other dimension's length is less important to my big guys since I either deploy my Carnifex broods, Tyrant, and Trygon in the center or across from my foe's main portion of their army if I deploy first or second, respectively. The Genestealer Broods and 300 point brood of Hormagaunt love all outflank so they would be affected by the extra 2' as coming in on the wrong end could guarantee they could not get into the fight at all, making them more of a gamble. All in all, it would do more harm than good for them.

My Ork army would be inconvenienced by a larger table as it means I might not get the second turn charge, but it is also nice to not completely fill my deployment zone with Ghazghkul, 180 Boyz (power klaw armed Nob included, obviously), and whatever I need to fill the points past 1,515. So in the end I don't really care what size table I use with them, but the less room there is to run, the faster the lads can get stuck in.

My Krieg would love you for a larger table as my Medusi would get to use more of its 10' range while not worrying as much about that pesky minimum 2' bit. Even the lighter artillery like the Heavy Mortars would enjoy the increased range as the enemy might actually start outside of their range and need to move in, thereby increasing their survivability, not that I particularly care if anything in my army lives or dies, so long as victory is achieved. On the same token, my Guard army would need to wait until the enemy closed before beginning the usual advance (obviously against some armies I do not, but most of the time I do) with the five Leman Russ spearhead supported by the infantry behind, so not really bothered one way or the other there.

My Daemons would like the larger area to come in as the enemy would have to leave them more table, although my Chaos Marines and Space Wolves, well just the Blood Claws actually as the rest of the sons of Russ wouldn't care, would be rather cross about needing to cover more ground. If I ran the Dornian list I would be better off than a pure Khorne horde (you think Kharn and his 20 Berserker groupie band were angry before) thanks to the Rhinos and Raptors, but even still, three Rhinos would last maybe a turn if I was lucky. The rest of my power armor would not be bothered by the change as they're rather flexible so long as there is enough cover. The one other Marine army of mine that would be enraged by a larger table is, unsurprisingly, my Angry Marines. That has more to do with the fact that they are always angry, all the time, but even with power feet giving them fleet and the Predator Angrinator launching them into the assault (with luck there and hopefully not killing too many of them in the process), the increased distance could make them spontaneously combust in rage (like the missile launcher armed Devastators ). And the Terminators. Oh, what a nightmare it would to use them since they can't deep strike and have no transport option; they'd go insane and bite their own tongues off or some such other ridiculousness.

Oddly enough, I don't think my Tau would benefit too much from the increased range due to the reliance on mid-range (24-36") firepower. They would enjoy the extra room against assaulting armies, but dread facing Guard as they would gain more from the space and make me well aware that I rely too much on being within 36" to do most of my killing. Dark Eldar would be even worse to face as they'd be able to dance around me with their Night Shields and have the even more room to get away from retaliation. All those fancy Rail Guns would be targets 1 through however-many-I-have so it would be all that much harder. My only comfort here is that I am my group's only active Dark Eldar player so such a match would be quite unlikely.

Having looked at how each of my armies would play differently in a normal game, I'm going to have to say the current standard is best as a larger size would be too much of boon for certain match ups. Best to make leave it be until we see what they do with 6th (the teaser for it is on the website now if you're that one guy who was unaware ). If you go Apocalypse, however, all bets are off and the larger and more unconventional the shape of the table(s), the better.

[Iron Puritan]

The average 40K table is pretty barren. Add more terrain before making the table bigger.