PDA

View Full Version : Board too small?



Rydmend
21-02-2010, 23:23
I feel that the standard 4'x6' board doesn't seem to be cutting it in some situations, especially games at around 2000 points.

I played my nids against IG recently and the board was swamped with units. When there are 7 tanks and 6 MCs on the board with about 150 infantry sized models sprinkled in between you really lose alot of room to manuever tatically. Factor in the 25% terrain and things get a little too congested in some games.

Anyone else feel like the 4'x6' table is getting a little cramped?

*my fault I did mean 4'x6'.

Bunnahabhain
21-02-2010, 23:27
Yes.

Simplest and best way to improve the game is put 1500pts on 6 x 8 foot, rather than the more usual 6x4.

Vaktathi
21-02-2010, 23:27
4x8* is too small? 4x6 is standard, and while cramped at 2k for some armies, still works fine for me.

chaos0xomega
21-02-2010, 23:29
4x6 is indeed the standard, and is cramped at 2000 pts, but it beats playing 1500pts on a 4x4....

4x8 however? Cant see that as being cramped...

Baracus
21-02-2010, 23:48
If the board is to small can't you just put dudes in reserves?

WinglessVT2
21-02-2010, 23:52
4x6 is indeed starting to feel cramped, but I battle orks a lot of the time.

trigger
21-02-2010, 23:56
We play up to 1k on 4x4 , 2k on 6x4 , 3k + on 6x6 ... then if they gett massive we just go wider.

Biggest so far was 6x28 .. nids vrs orks ...was awsome.

[SD] Bob Plisskin
22-02-2010, 00:04
loss of space on the board is also a tactical disadvantage to horde armies that i quite enjoy and its aesthetically pleasing to have them all bunched up like a ... well ... horde.

chaos0xomega
22-02-2010, 00:58
I wouldn't say its a tactical disadvantage, I would just say that it reduces the difficulty of the game (for both players). Having extra space gives you the ability to actually maneuver, which makes the game more interesting, tactical, and thoughtful. Otherwise you're facing off in a line opposite eachother and just rolling dice. That is NOT a wargame, thats rolling dice and removing models.

librisrouge
22-02-2010, 01:13
Except that you need to take that factor into account with your tactics. Tactics isn't all about movement and placement. Sometimes it's about being prepared to have to win a simple war of attrition.

Look at WWI. They didn't fight that way because they were dumb. They did it because they were the best tactics of the age and much of the war was just like Infantry Guard vs. Infantry Orks (running and shooting.)

Those were the tactics and that was a war. Your tactics are shallow if they don't take such a possibility into account. Sometimes you have to fight shoulder to shoulder, it happens.

If you play an army that has so many models that 6x4 is cramped (something I've never even given a thought to) then consider playing a less numerous force or taking more advantage of reserves so that you have less models on the table at a time.

ehlijen
22-02-2010, 01:14
Reserves may not be the answer as too many outflanking units can make any board seem even more cramped.

Lord Cook
22-02-2010, 01:17
The problem is that the game is balanced (to use the term loosely) on the assumption that the board is no more than four feet deep. As soon as you start increasing the distances between the two armies, then some armies become more powerful while others become weaker. Have you seen what artillery-heavy Imperial Guard will do to your average assault-orientated army on a 6'x8'? It really isn't pretty unless you like the idea of endlessly re-enacting the Battle of the Somme.



Generally I find a 4'x6' board to be perfectly adequate, but for larger games at around 2,000 points or above it does become restrictive.

chaos0xomega
22-02-2010, 01:22
No. You only fight shoulder to shoulder if you fail to utilize your options. There were a lot of tactics that could have prevented the death toll of World War 1, but nobody adopted them because of the conservative mindset that prevailed during the time. To military commanders then, the old ways were better. The Germans realized this error and adopted stormtrooper tactics to counter this. Nothing magically occured that allowed the Germans to come up with this. The tactics were always there (or at least the capability to develop them) they just chose not to.

In other words, they DID fight that way because they were 'dumb'.

Also, war of attrition does NOT mean lining up shoulder to shoulder and slugging it out. Attrition means that as a belligerent, you attempt to defeat your opponent by wearing down the enemy by losses to manpower and materiel. It is not a tactic, it is a strategy.

You can still fight a war of attrition and move tactically. It just means that you defeat your opponent by killing enough of them that they can't fight back anymore, rather than putting them in a position where they can't win by denial of resources or cutting off supply lines or other "checkmate" solutions (which would be the strategy of maneuver(which is not the same as the maneuver I referenced in my previous post, that was just a fancy way of saying "movement")).

bigcheese76
22-02-2010, 01:25
Personnally I play anything smaller than apocalypse on a 6X4 and I find it is fine. Although when you both have mainly infantry at 2500 it gets rather cramped.

Netfreakk
22-02-2010, 01:32
6x4 is perfectly fine or my 2000pt games. Can't imagine a bigger board.

azimaith
22-02-2010, 03:10
6x4 is standard for a good reason. Assault armies run into more and more problems the larger the board.

IcedAnimals
22-02-2010, 03:21
I feel anything smaller than http://boingboing.net/2008/09/24/worlds-largest-warga.html is too small.

Ramius4
22-02-2010, 04:02
Then use a bigger table. Simple. Easy even. And does not require a thread...

ursvamp
22-02-2010, 04:16
Then use a bigger table. Simple. Easy even. And does not require a thread...

well aren't threads started out of the interest of discussing things? "Requiring" a thread is quite strange, since it implies that a thread should only be started out of necessity, rather than for the good and fun of it.
sorry to bash on you, but it just feels like a strange attitude to have towards G.D.-threads

carldooley
22-02-2010, 04:28
the problem with larger boards is that it becomes more difficult to move your models the larger the board becomes. You can see in the link that there are cutouts so that players can access the inner areas of the gaming board. without them, what would be the alternative? risking stepping on the terrain or your or your opponent's models as you climb across the board to reposition your models? if that is the case, play on the ground. Likewise, you could have 'bridges' across the open sections, but there are hazards there also - your models are using it and it falls. 6x4 is just about perfect in that just about everyone can reach across it, or at least go around it.

Occulto
22-02-2010, 04:47
the problem with larger boards is that it becomes more difficult to move your models the larger the board becomes. You can see in the link that there are cutouts so that players can access the inner areas of the gaming board. without them, what would be the alternative? risking stepping on the terrain or your or your opponent's models as you climb across the board to reposition your models? if that is the case, play on the ground. Likewise, you could have 'bridges' across the open sections, but there are hazards there also - your models are using it and it falls. 6x4 is just about perfect in that just about everyone can reach across it, or at least go around it.

Not just movement.

Try working out how many models are underneath an ordinance template in the middle of a huge table. :(

ehlijen
22-02-2010, 04:55
For both ingame and practicality reasons the board shouldn't be much wider than 4', but there's little stopping you from making it broader if you feel that you're too bunched up.

Kensai
22-02-2010, 07:23
Indeed a 4x6 table may be a little cramped in your situation, but this could very well be the case because both you and your opponent are playing 2000 pts worth of horde armies.

If 6x8 works better for battles such as this, go for it by all means. But keep in mind that other more elite armies such as Grey Knights may have a harder time filling tables of this size.

Mini77
22-02-2010, 07:45
I'd say if 6' x 4' is too small go 8' x 4' instead. The extra 2 feet width will help but don't make the table deeper else you'll never reach the middle properly (especially when stretching over scenery and miniatures).

CrownAxe
22-02-2010, 07:55
Guys, the deployment rules are designed around the distant from the opposing deployment zone

Pitched Battled is 24" between the deployment zones, NOT 12" from the table edge

so a 8'x6' would be 24" deployment zones in Pitched Battle

Still not a good Idea since it would make moving the models way more difficult. I would be easier to just make the table wider to 8'x4'

Vaktathi
22-02-2010, 08:13
Guys, the deployment rules are designed around the distant from the opposing deployment zone

Pitched Battled is 24" between the deployment zones, NOT 12" from the table edge

so a 8'x6' would be 24" deployment zones in Pitched Battle

Still not a good Idea since it would make moving the models way more difficult. I would be easier to just make the table wider to 8'x4'Yes, but they are designed with a 4x6 table in mind, larger boards really muck with the whole process.

The 8x6 example, that effectively gives a shoot army an extra 6-12" of space between it and an assault army. You've got 24" up, 24" no mans land, and 24" of enemy DZ, whereas in a normal game you've got 12" up, 24 NML, 12 EDZ. This means the shooty army, when lining up along the backboard, in the normal game is generally going to fill up the back 6" of the table, meaning an assaulty opponent deploying 12" up has 30" of board to cross. On the 8x6 the assaulty army now still has to cross the NML as normal, but also has to deal with an extra 12" of empty enemy deployment zone before being able to get to grips with a foe and the shooty army then has an extra turn or two to keep firing.

Havock
22-02-2010, 08:19
6x4 is standard for a good reason. Assault armies run into more and more problems the larger the board.

Not necessarily true, with 'run', mobility has increased dramatically, transports are far more survivable now. Orks, for example have a second turn charge, no matter what really.

ehlijen
22-02-2010, 08:34
Having to cross an extra 12" of table, because the shootier opponent will not deploy on the line if he doesn't have to, still generally translates into an extra turn before CC contact is made. That is a major shift in balance unless mitigated by other measures (putting all objectives near the centre maybe? Or more terrain to hide behind?).

Also: imgaine how much fun a CC fex has on a 6' deep board in a Dawn of War setup.

e2055261
22-02-2010, 08:35
8x4 seems ok to me. You still have the 24 inch no mns land. The consensus would tend to be that if you are playing a 2000+ game, then you need a bigger than standard board.

As always you need to discuss with your opponent.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-02-2010, 08:49
We use an 8' x 5' board-with 18" between deployment zones (instead of 24")which cuts down on the added running distance. The additional 1' of depth and 2' of width allows for more manoeuvre in depth and width, and also allows deployment in depth. An extra 6" also isn't a hassle to reach across- which we found it would be at 6' of depth once you've got buildings etc on the table.

I think that for a lot of GW gamers who might not be as tall as fully grown adults that 4' is probably a good maximum for the depth of the board and that if we were all 6'2" like my brother then a 6' deep board would be fine.

GrimZAG
22-02-2010, 08:54
Sounds like you need a 8' by 16' board...

That would be one epic game.

IAMNOTHERE
22-02-2010, 09:05
At the start of WW1 all european armies were geared up for manouver warfare. As initial attrition and winter kicked in they went firm and started digging in. As more and more reserves arrived they were funnelled to the front and also dug in.

By the time of the spring offensive you had raw troops whos only experience was trench. To break this stale mate the General Staff had a steep learning curve (on all sides).

It was only later in the war that Hague iirc switched back to manouver warfare and used a combined arms appraoch including armour, horse, arty and air.

Enough of the history, you were playing 2 horde armies so the table should be cramped. One of hordes' advantages is that it cuts down your opponents manouver room. 6'*4' is fine with most armies, as Lord Cook said it gets unbalanced beyond this size.

yabbadabba
22-02-2010, 09:15
Playing on a bigger board does not necessarily mean playing on a deeper board. You should keep changing board size, army size, terrain volume and scenarios to give you as much variety and experience as possible. It also helps to stop the game getting stagnant.

DaHedd
22-02-2010, 09:19
we used to use a huge board. Covered in fairly dense terrain.

Even then fighting a big Nid army was a nighmare.

Sircyn
22-02-2010, 11:27
Enough of the history, you were playing 2 horde armies so the table should be cramped. One of hordes' advantages is that it cuts down your opponents manouver room. 6'*4' is fine with most armies, as Lord Cook said it gets unbalanced beyond this size.

Another big factor in WW1 was the huge political pressure for swift decisive victory placed upon commanders when they were not prepared to deliver it. Sometimes you have to suck up the unfavourable situation - when it's warfare it can have massive rammifactions. This tends to explain any weird situations in my games, military considerations and sensibilities very often play second fiddle to other more powerful influences to draw battle.

I've found that up to 2k works well on 6x4 whatever the army, I quite like the idea that when two horde armies meet it would become a meat grinder... because it would be! Of course you can alter the board, I tend to go wider rather than deeper due to space restrictions more than anything else. The apocalypse mission deployment often mixes up the depth/breadth situation too. After having a look at the new battle missions I think they will keep my lot interested for a long while on 6x4 boards with 2k armies thanks to the unusual deployment and reserve options.

LonelyPath
22-02-2010, 13:20
I usually play on a 6x5! and we tend to have plenty of space. The only time I started to run short of space with with a 140+ model Ork army at 1500 points and got Dawn of War deployemt, on the first time my table edge had no space left!

Bunnahabhain
22-02-2010, 14:25
I use 8 x 6 (or even 12 x 6) tables for plenty of other games, so know you can reach the middle of a 6 foot one well enough, whereas an 8 foot one just doesn't work.

Assuming you have a decent amount and variety of terrain, I've not found the extra range a problem. With all the alternate deployment options available- infiltrate, deep strike, scout, outflank- you can move fast. Lots of the time, on normal sized tables, those ways to move faster can't be used fully, as the terrain doesn't allow it, or you don't want to get any closer, to avoid being within charge/ rapid fire range, or...

borithan
22-02-2010, 14:41
There were a lot of tactics that could have prevented the death toll of World War 1,Not really. Until the development of mobile rapid fire weapons (LMGs and SMGs) the defence retained a lot of its advantage. OK, better training could have allowed more flexible tactics, but that would have required keeping men from the front much longer than really could be afforded. They also needed to learn the lessons required to develop superior tactics and doctrine... unfortunately that took time that inevitably caused people's deaths.



To military commanders then, the old ways were better.Trench warfare was the new type of warfare (ok, had precedents in American Civil War, and I believe the Crimea too, but people didn't think it would dominate the war as it did on the Western Front). It was the development after the old type (massed maneuver warfare) proved to not really work against machine guns.



The Germans realized this error and adopted stormtrooper tactics to counter this.After 3 years of war. The Allies were developing their strategies at the same time (developing the tank, for example, and working how to use it effectively. Improving communications and increasing flexibility in battle plans etc). Developing new tactics takes time and experience.



Nothing magically occured that allowed the Germans to come up with this.Development of the SMG helped. Obviously many (most?) stormtroopers were not armed with SMGs, so I am not sure I could consider it critical to the tactics, but it certainly helped.



The tactics were always there (or at least the capability to develop them) they just chose not to.The tactics were always there if you consider them to be ideas which float about in the ether and people just have to pick them up. There 1) has to be a need for new tactics... ok, that was evident early on. 2) Someone has to think of them... not sure who came up with the idea, but they have to have the inspiration and 3) you have to develop them, or deal with any alternatives. Remember "attrition" was a new tactic. It was an new tactic in 1916 to try and end the war during the battles at Verdun. It failed (the Germans eventually suffered more casualties than the French did), so they had to think of a new idea.



Also, war of attrition does NOT mean lining up shoulder to shoulder and slugging it out. Attrition means that as a belligerent, you attempt to defeat your opponent by wearing down the enemy by losses to manpower and materiel. It is not a tactic, it is a strategy.True. However, machine guns, artillery, and the yet unresolved problem of maintaining an offensive meant maneuver was not terribly likely to matter much. Only when the imbalance in the favour of defence was resolved (Germans with Stormtrooper tactics, the British with their sustained limited combined arm offensive or whatever you want to call it, both a reaction to the trench deadlock, and so required it to exist in the first place to come into existance) would it become important again.

Anyway, the overcrowded board thing ends up looking more like an early WW1 set up, before the trenches became important. Or some disorganised Napoleonic battle.

Tamwulf
22-02-2010, 15:34
40K already requires a huge "foot print" to play. Making the tables even larger would cut back on the total amount of tables you could fit into a gaming space.

This is really only a problem for a few armies. Why should the entire game be changed to accommodate those few armies?

Bunnahabhain
22-02-2010, 15:45
40K already requires a huge "foot print" to play. Making the tables even larger would cut back on the total amount of tables you could fit into a gaming space.

This is really only a problem for a few armies. Why should the entire game be changed to accommodate those few armies?

Then find a better venue, if you possibly can.

The single thing that has improved my gaming the most is to find a club with a very large venue, so we routinely have several 8 x 6 and 12 x 6 tables, as well as lots of 4 x 6 set up on any given evening, and have space and spare tables to move around them, to set out reserves, for drinks, etc, etc

chaos0xomega
22-02-2010, 18:41
Trench warfare was the new type of warfare (ok, had precedents in American Civil War, and I believe the Crimea too, but people didn't think it would dominate the war as it did on the Western Front).

Trenches have been around since Roman times. Granted, they weren't necessarily built or used the exact same way, the concept was always there.


It was the development after the old type (massed maneuver warfare) proved to not really work against machine guns.

Aside from the fact that U.S. Grant had already developed the 'Operational art' during the civil war, which had it been applied by the European powers during the war, would have gotten around the difficulties imposed by massed maneuver.


The tactics were always there if you consider them to be ideas which float about in the ether and people just have to pick them up.

And as someone who studies warfare because it is necessary (or at least useful) for my desired career, I can tell you that those ideas did float up, and people did pick them, but other people forced them to be dropped again.


There 1) has to be a need for new tactics... ok, that was evident early on.

There was.


2) Someone has to think of them... not sure who came up with the idea, but they have to have the inspiration and 3) you have to develop them, or deal with any alternatives.

They did, well before the Germans began applying them at that. I direct you back to the civil war, where small unit actions and maneuver warfare was far more common than most people have been lead to believe (even moreso out west). Also, Spanish American War had its small intricacies at points, and hell, British/other colonial powers in Africa and the other "backwaters" of the world. The tactics and strategies were all developed well in advance of the great war, but for the most part they were so 'fringe' that they weren't accepted by the 'brass' as being valid. Again, the "old ways" were better.


Remember "attrition" was a new tactic.

At this point I'm calling your credibility/knowledge of the subject into question. First off attrition is a strategy, not a tactic, but semantics aside, attrition has been the primary form of warfare for the past x thousand years. Arguably, attrition warfare is the most basic and unsophisticated form of warfare.

In fact, there are some historians out there that have suggested that attrition warfare re-emerged during world 1 due to the failures of the initial offensives of the war and an unwillingness on the part of commanders to attempt additional ones for political reasons (which as others have said, dominates warfare far too much).

Cartographer
22-02-2010, 19:12
Just made myself a (another) 6'x4' board and it looked massive until I put it next to my 8'x4' and 10'x4' boards, but they are just too big to fit in my house anymore (they live in the garage). At a pinch 8'x4' can be accomodated but only just, so at home games are limited to 1500 points. Don't change the width too much if you decide to make a new board, less than 3' and CC armies will dominate, greater than 5' and Tau and IG will giggle their way to easy victories.

One of the most ingenious tables I've seen was a semi-circular board with a 12'x6' footprint, with a 2' wide semi-circle cut out of the flat side. This made a 4' wide arch with a ~20' board edge on one side and a ~6' board edge on the other.
It helped that the terrain was awesome too, with a slope up from the long edge and fortifications, minefields, razorwire scattered across it...

shin'keiro
22-02-2010, 20:24
I never play more than 2k - a 6x4 is just fine for this

Mortez Freeters
22-02-2010, 20:28
I agree; A proper board is at least 9'x6', and beyond 1000 points the game works far better on boards in excess of 100 square feet.

Nezalhualixtlan
22-02-2010, 20:32
I find 4'x6' fine for any game pt level between 1250-2000. 4'x4' for <1000, and 4'x8' for >2000-3000. I've yet to have a 2k game feel too cramped on 4'x6', even with swarms of tyranids. I tried a 2.5k game on 4'x6' though and it was just a gigantic clusterfcuk particularly since we were doing table quarters, we realized it's got to be 4'x8' for that point level though. Anything over 3k and I like a very large Apocalpse style board though.

Lord Cook
22-02-2010, 20:48
...attrition has been the primary form of warfare for the past x thousand years.

No it hasn't. I would expect someone who trumps their own background knowledge and disparages that of his opponent to not make claims like that. I will respond properly via PM, given how far off topic we are.

Gearhead
22-02-2010, 21:04
This is one reason I like my mechanized mareins so much, I don't have to worry about this nearly as much.

freddythebig
22-02-2010, 21:26
A couple of years back a 6'x4' board was perfectly adequate for most normal games up to around 2000pts or so.
Since then GW have reduced comparative points costs for armies as they are re-done with the consequence that more models are required to make up a given point level.
Therefore what used to be adequate a couple of years back now sometimes seems cramped.
It is all a by-product of GW wanting you to buy more models.

azimaith
22-02-2010, 21:26
Not necessarily true, with 'run', mobility has increased dramatically, transports are far more survivable now. Orks, for example have a second turn charge, no matter what really.

The distance on the diagonal vastly increases with a larger board. Some armies, like nids, do not have the ability to run everything quickly or have transports. Even then the armies that do have transports are not guaranteed to have them and I don't think balancing the game on entirely mechanized forces is fair.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-02-2010, 21:38
Unless you've taken an entirely static force it shouldn't be a huge hassle though. You simply need to place your less mobile elements where they have less distance to move ie where they have good lines of sight, in the centre or on objectives they need to defend.

I think that so long as you go into the game with fore-warning and the players are adaptable, altering the board's depth isn't a big negative for any one army and can spice up the game.

azimaith
22-02-2010, 22:13
In the end no matter what if the board is larger you can max out at a farther distance. A 8x4 board has a larger diagonal and lateral depth than a 6x4 board and if they place along their edge you will always have farther to go unless you increase deployment zones with them.
A single missed charge because of an inch more distance to cover easily makes the difference between winning and losing.

Pushkin
22-02-2010, 22:22
I agree, i think 6' x 4' becomes a problem at 2000pts when you're not using a SM/CSM or Demon army. IG, Nids, Orks and sometimes Tau and Eldar all start to feel a little cramped. This can be a real pain when your movement phase is essentially all about walking forward.

However, i think one way of dealing with this is effective use of terrain. If you raise the issue of space with your opponent and can agree on the terrain to work in a way that it adequately blocks LOS without taking up too much room i think it is feasable to still retain a flexible movement phase on 6'x4'.

I think the alternative is to use a larger table, but let the non shooty army have some sort of bonus. Extra D3 pieces of terrain to be placed by them? This could represent them choosing the best place to assault an entrenched position?

Havock
22-02-2010, 22:29
The distance on the diagonal vastly increases with a larger board. Some armies, like nids, do not have the ability to run everything quickly or have transports. Even then the armies that do have transports are not guaranteed to have them and I don't think balancing the game on entirely mechanized forces is fair.

Spore pods and outflank allow for some mobility, I think. It's not perfect but neither is it right now. Against some armies you have one turn to gut their armies, otherwise it is over.

Archangel_Ruined
22-02-2010, 23:38
6' square boards are pretty nice, you also get a bit of the C&C feel with a square playing field. I think that moving to a bigger board really helps the game, it spreads out forces, gives greater ranged weapons a real edge and rebalances the inherent inequality between shooting and close combat. There's a limit to what you can realistically play on though, 8' is about as big a width you'd want to play on, I'm a tall bloke but accurately moving figures and judging LOS becomes tricky when you're having to lean that far and over that much stuff. Getting enough decent terrain is already an issue for many clubs and stores, moving to much bigger boards isn't going to help this.

nightgant98c
23-02-2010, 05:02
I prefer a 4x8', which used to be the standard size, until 4th edition. It's not very practical, but I would also prefer a 5-6' wide board, because close combat is more deadly than shooting. I'd like to see assault armies have to work and think a bit harder to get there.

Krovin-Rezh
23-02-2010, 06:33
The problem is that the game is balanced (to use the term loosely) on the assumption that the board is no more than four feet deep. As soon as you start increasing the distances between the two armies, then some armies become more powerful while others become weaker. Have you seen what artillery-heavy Imperial Guard will do to your average assault-orientated army on a 6'x8'? It really isn't pretty unless you like the idea of endlessly re-enacting the Battle of the Somme.



Generally I find a 4'x6' board to be perfectly adequate, but for larger games at around 2,000 points or above it does become restrictive.
That's a good point, so why not use the 6'x8' board but close the gap a little? The rules for the Dawn of War mission where units can deploy anywhere on their half 18" away from the enemy would work nicely.

Pink Horror
23-02-2010, 08:16
A typical game is six turns, so making the board huge is terrible for foot sloggers - they end up having no chance to cross the board. For something like Capture and Control, I think the defenders on one objective should have enough time to try to walk over to the other objective, if they leave on the first turn. A bigger board just isn't balanced compared to infantry speed.

fluffstalker
23-02-2010, 08:21
To be fair, mech is king in 5h ed, so most games end up terrible for foot sloggers anyway. Board size will make little difference unless your crons or Nid, and 6x6 isnt too bad for them, as long as you dont play spearhead.

yabbadabba
23-02-2010, 09:53
When you make the table bigger, you have to look at terrain density and how the missions work. This should be bread and butter for any wargamer. A game designed for a 6'x4' might need some alteration to be adapted to a 8'x4' or a 6'x6'.

madd0ct0r
23-02-2010, 12:26
Has nobody else suggested just playing at 1750, 1500 or 400pts?

Lord Cook
23-02-2010, 14:11
That's a good point, so why not use the 6'x8' board but close the gap a little? The rules for the Dawn of War mission where units can deploy anywhere on their half 18" away from the enemy would work nicely.

Remember in Dawn of War most of your army is forced to come on from the back table edge. You're now ~60" away from the enemy, assuming a straight line assault directly forwards. Shooting armies will have a field day.

You could, as you say, outright change the rules for missions. But your opponent can still just deploy further back into his own deployment zone.

Vlad Urkana
23-02-2010, 14:38
I'm curious as to what armies people are playing at 2k points on a 6x8 and are still at a lack of room? The only armies I could see wanting more room than that are guard forces with a full battery of artillery. And note I said wanting more room and not needing it. I have no problem playing 2k points of guard on a 4x4 and even against CC armies I don't usually have any problems. You just have to learn how to space out your forces to keep from being swept up. Now if we still lived in the world of consolidating into combat then I think that 4x4 would be too small for 1500+ but as it stands I see no problem with 4x4 and 6x4 boards. Anything over 2250 or so definately needs a 6x4 minimum however and for Apocalypse games I could see the monstrous boards especially with some of the scratchbuilds floating around out there.

Pink Horror
23-02-2010, 15:59
To be fair, mech is king in 5h ed, so most games end up terrible for foot sloggers anyway. Board size will make little difference unless your crons or Nid, and 6x6 isnt too bad for them, as long as you dont play spearhead.

Mech armies don't need the extra space, so we're making the table bigger for armies that will be hurt the most by doing that.

Archangel_Ruined
23-02-2010, 20:57
I assume that the armies that will be most 'hurt' by bigger boards are footslogging close combat lists. These are given too big an advantage on small boards (they start closer, obviously, and they can dish out their offensive power in both player turns). A bigger board means a tau army can engage hordes of nids in a fluffier way, and if you don't like those odds there are options in most codeces for mitigating a bigger playing area (mycetic spores, transports, fast attackers). I think 40k is better on a 5 to 6' square board, weapon range matters more and six turns is generally enough to move where you like, especially with running now a factor.