PDA

View Full Version : Table size



Master Stark
27-04-2009, 22:03
How have people found their games to be fitting on their tables? Is the standard 6x4 still the best size? Given that WotR is a new game, and there is no convention in place, I was wondering how people were finding the tables. Obviously most everyone who has their own board will have a 6x4 or 8x4, but I've been thinking that a 6x5 or 8x5 might make a bit of a difference.

Emissary
27-04-2009, 23:48
The table length doesn't matter as much as the width does IMO. It's been my experience that if you start increasing the space between two armies beyond what's expected, it starts to give advantages to specific builds unless other things are done to even things out.

Sarah S
28-04-2009, 00:02
Have you tried any of the other deployment methods Emissary? Because if you use the table on page 79 then only 1/3 of games will be the bland long edge deployments.

For those reasons, I would stick to the standard sized tables, or in the alternative make sure to keep the distance between player's deployment zones the same by modifying their depth in accordance with the deployment method used.

Emissary
28-04-2009, 00:05
Yeah, I should have mentioned I was referring to your normal, generic pickup game. I kind of alluded to other methods at the end of my post but wasn't nearly clear enough.

Crazy Harborc
28-04-2009, 00:18
Standard size tables......The only places I have seen 4 by 6 as the standard size is in GW stores. 40 plus years of wargaming has taught me that 4 by 8 foot is normal/standard.

Sarah S
28-04-2009, 00:28
Yeah, I should have mentioned I was referring to your normal, generic pickup game

You don't think the deployment methods listed in the book can be used for a normal, generic, pickup game?

I kind of thought they were designed specifically for that, and are an integral part of the game. I think using the table is the default position, as the other option is special agreement with your opponent.

Emissary
28-04-2009, 01:08
I'm not saying they can't. I'm just speaking from experience that they aren't always used. Most of the times the people at our store would rather just play a standard game.

Master Stark
28-04-2009, 01:34
I'm not saying they can't. I'm just speaking from experience that they aren't always used. Most of the times the people at our store would rather just play a standard game.

But isn't a standard game where you roll for game type, then roll for deployment?

Edonil
28-04-2009, 01:36
standard type could also just be 12" deployment, beat the crap outta each other. Depends on who you ask.

Axis
28-04-2009, 01:57
We used a 4 by 4 table for our first 1k game. Since we were just getting the hang of it and points weren't large it was fine. For 2k games (which is the only type we have played since our first try) we have used a 6 by 4. I am thinking if we go to 3k we might need an 8 by 4 but i am not sure yet!

tabletopnews
28-04-2009, 03:08
standard type could also just be 12" deployment, beat the crap outta each other. Depends on who you ask.

Except that it isn't is it? The rulebook has deployment and objective tables for this very purpose?

Sarah S
28-04-2009, 03:17
That's what I thought. I think the deployment and objective tables are important parts of the balance of the game, and people who disregard them are doing so at their own risk.

I do believe that the objective and deployment systems actually pose a very significant encouragement for players to bring balanced lists able to deal with a wide variety of circumstances.

Axis
28-04-2009, 04:43
Um. The whole discussion about what a standard game is or isn't really isn't that relevant to this thread. This thread is about what size table you recommend (for x points i suppose as well) since there isn't an established convention yet.

Edonil
28-04-2009, 05:00
The book itself recommends 6x4 as the standard size for games in the 1k-2k range, adjusting smaller and larger depending on points. However, as to the thing about deployments and objectives, I've only gotten in three games, I'm looking forward to trying them out, I just haven't had the chance.

Sarah S
28-04-2009, 05:11
Um. The whole discussion about what a standard game is or isn't really isn't that relevant to this thread. This thread is about what size table you recommend (for x points i suppose as well) since there isn't an established convention yet.
It is relevant, because if you played on a 4x8 table then playing with the Battle for the Pass deployment is going to be very different from playing on a 4x4 table.

Axis
28-04-2009, 05:21
Why not instead of banging on about standard games you just give the size you recommend and some reasons? It is quicker and actually addresses the OP's question.

Sarah S
28-04-2009, 05:26
Like mys first post?

For those reasons, I would stick to the standard sized tables, or in the alternative make sure to keep the distance between player's deployment zones the same by modifying their depth in accordance with the deployment method used.

Table size can vary by game size, but try and keep it reasonable, and keep the distance between deployments the same. But don't go overboard on huge tables, because then Maelstrom of Battle might get a little weird.

See? It's impossible to divorce the deployment from the table size, because how the game plays is dependant on deployment, and making sure the deployment results in a reasonable game is dependant on table size.

Jorgen_CAB
28-04-2009, 05:30
You need to be logical when you figure out the table size. It also depend on what armies that you play with and what you consider to be fun.

If you play with armies that bring lots and lots of troops it is only fair for the opponent if you play in a battlefield that give you both room to maneuver. It is very boring of there is no way the flank someone for example.

The 6x4 in the book is just an example and is by no means a rule of any kind. The only rule, or sort of, is that you should have a neutral zone between armies that are 24".
how wide the deployment zone is should not really matter.

If you play a larger game and get the battlepass scenario you might need a 6x6 table area for example.

So far I have only played smaller battles, but at 1500p we are at the limit of what we feel is fun for a board at 6x4. Granted we have played mostly with Mordor and Gondor forces so far. Two armies that usually bring lots of troops. So we will mostly play the shield wall deployment on 8x4 boards when we increase the points further.

Axis
28-04-2009, 05:32
My apologies. I didn't see standard in there. I guess i was looking for numbers like 6x4 or something similar.

Still, i think it would be better to use deployment and the rest as reasons for some size you like rather than saying they are irrevocably connected. True, they are but i think you could make an entirely separate thread about that.

EDIT: someone got in before me, i was responding to Sarah S' post.

Marauder
28-04-2009, 17:08
We've been playing 4x4 for small games (1000pts and below). I'd think for up to 2000pts 6x4 would be okay, but larger than that you'll need 8x4.

I don't think a 5ft. wide table is really in the mix.

msoong
29-04-2009, 06:24
We play 1,000 point games on 6x4 and it's just about right.
If I go to 1,500 then I'll prob expand to 8x5 (max size for my table).

xxRavenxx
29-04-2009, 07:21
I would imagine that an 8x6 table would be the logical next step up for bigger games.

Remember that just adding length without width doesnt actually increase the dynamic of the game, just gives you more room to string out a line of men and run forward into another line. A wider table, lets more units fit in behind others and gives more room to maneuver before you hit the opposing line.

Crazy Harborc
30-04-2009, 00:30
I have a 5 by 9 foot ping pong/table tennis table. WE use 4 by 8 feet worth of ceiling tiles on top of it as the playing area.

Building a 6 by 8 foot table is a problem when it comes to pre-cut lumber. 8 foot lengths are "standard". Sheets of plywood for the top of tables is also 8 ft. and by 4 ft. wide.

To date, we have had little to no problems fighting 4-5,000 points per side. That's for WAB, WHFB rules. Most of our games have been in the 2-3,000 points range.

Jind_Singh
30-04-2009, 18:41
I've played mainly on 6 by 4 and I find it's not deep enough. Will all the 'at the doubles', that spell which makes you move super fast, and 10" cav I think 6 ft by 8 ft would be ideal for a 2000+ games but good luck finding it!
We played a 2500 pt game last night on a 8 * 4 and it kind of worked - the problem is for the horde armies - they take up pretty much the entire deployment zone!

Emissary
30-04-2009, 18:50
We've begun to make 8x4 the standard at the store for 2,000 point games. It seems that so much of the board is covered in a 6x4 that it makes outflanking and movement a bit too hard.

shaso_iceborn
30-04-2009, 18:53
we take 2 6x4 tables and put them together to make a 8'x6' table then we put a divider between the 2 forces and deploy together (after terrain setup) and roll for first turn. aaawe have noticed this does 2 things, forces you to learn youe armies weaknesses and strengths. 2 it it allows for more balanced games as when deploying you have to decide carefully where to deploy to defend/attack avenues. This really helps make all the games we pla extremely exciting and not so set unit a to defend aganst unit x type games. you really have to be careful wen setting up. It also brings tactics back as you have to decide which avenue to attack from.

Try it a few times you will see.

thorgrim
10-05-2009, 00:43
Personally i would reccommend a 6 by 4 for anything below 3k. And anything above expand up to a 8 by 6. This larger table means that you would have the space to redeploy your army rather than just fighting whatevers unit happens to be in front of you.

SJBenoist
10-05-2009, 01:04
I have played or seen about half-dozen ~1500 point games so far, from what I can tell 4' really isn't large enough for my taste.

Two 6'x4' (or 8'x4') tables should do the trick nicely.