Could table sizes be going up?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Thinking about the bonuses to mobility we’re seeing in regards to transports and now there’s no apparent rough terrain rule to slow units down, it seems reasonable that the table sizes might be increasing a bit again.

 

otherwise I see shooty oriented armies at an even more significant disadvantage.

[Dam13n]

It certainly would be preferred (for me at least), if they returned to the standard size being 6' by 4'.  I also wouldn't be surprised if GW looked at it from the point of view that such a change would be good for them financially, as it would essentially render the current range of gaming mats / terrain boards obsolete, thus creating a demand for a new range of 6' by 4' mats / boards that GW could (and likely would) sell.

 

But from a gameplay sense, having a larger board makes movement and positioning more important, which is a boon to tactical play.  As it makes it more difficult to maintain optimal range to multiple units, as units will likely be more spread out, thus forcing players to commit to a tactical decision on which enemy units to focus on.

 

It's certainly the case with a number of games (not just 40k) that condensing large model counts onto small tables leads to bad games.  Of course the opposite can also be true, having units too spread out can lead to a lack of action, which can get boring as the players find themselves doing less.  So I think one thing we as yet don't know, which is the points costs of units, will be a big determining factor into whether or not this does/should happen.  As if armies are getting smaller, the table size shouldn't be getting bigger.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

17 minutes ago, Dam13n said:

It certainly would be preferred (for me at least), if they returned to the standard size being 6' by 4'.  I also wouldn't be surprised if GW looked at it from the point of view that such a change would be good for them financially, as it would essentially render the current range of gaming mats / terrain boards obsolete, thus creating a demand for a new range of 6' by 4' mats / boards that GW could (and likely would) sell.

 

But from a gameplay sense, having a larger board makes movement and positioning more important, which is a boon to tactical play.  As it makes it more difficult to maintain optimal range to multiple units, as units will likely be more spread out, thus forcing players to commit to a tactical decision on which enemy units to focus on.

 

It's certainly the case with a number of games (not just 40k) that condensing large model counts onto small tables leads to bad games.  Of course the opposite can also be true, having units too spread out can lead to a lack of action, which can get boring as the players find themselves doing less.  So I think one thing we as yet don't know, which is the points costs of units, will be a big determining factor into whether or not this does/should happen.  As if armies are getting smaller, the table size shouldn't be getting bigger.

Points costs won’t effect the balance between shooting and melee though, and I have a strong feeling that these rules will greatly skew things toward melee armies, particularly fairly durable melee armies.

 

SW/BT will have a massive advantage over tau/guard

[bigtrouble]

GW shortened the range on the bolt rifle to 24", and the melta rifle is down to 18", so I don't think they'll expand the table. They seem to be leaning into bigger bases and lower model count, and as always, terrain density is the determining factor for whether a shooting army is favored or not. 

[Marshal Mittens]

I mostly play on an 8x6 (8x5.5 really?) Table, I think maybe a return to 6x4 but really it's what you and your mates decide? Did game stores in your area cut off a bit of their tables last edition?

[Dark Legionnare]

We never stopped with the 6x4. Lent itself well enough with adaptations to moving the VP's of missions and such to scale it from the missions to 6x4.  We all still find 6x4 is best.  Far less "You have to smash against your opponent"

There can be flanks and such.

[Evil Eye]

I will never understand the insistence on keeping to GW's suggested table sizes. They're not even mandated, it words it along the lines of "We'd recommend these sizes for an optimal experience". You could argue the game is balanced around those sizes, but since when has GW's ability to balance their own game in the last 10 years been anything other than laughable?

[Special Officer Doofy]

My whole group stayed at the 6' x 4' table sizes. Most of us have our own tables and mats, and the mats are expensive. I get the shrink was to help out melee, but we easily achieved that with just more terrain.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Yeah all the stores in my local shops use the recommended sizes as I’m sure all of the tournaments do.

[Special Officer Doofy]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Yeah all the stores in my local shops use the recommended sizes as I’m sure all of the tournaments do.

 

Wouldn't know, don't play at stores with rando's anymore. I take it you have played on both, did you notice much of a difference?

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

We went from 6x4 to the 60x44 setup, which now that I write it like this seems really annoying for some reason. And then, when Boarding Actions were first dropping I pulled the trigger on a big order of Gamematt.EU terrain with a 44x30 matt, thinking it'd be perfect for playing Boarding Action crusade.

 

And wouldn't you know it, GW had changed the map sizes again for that game mode, so nothing I bought lines up. We still use it, of course, but man that was frustrating. Now I'm in the camp of, just play on whatever you have and make the measurements match for both players. If you play the full table, play the full table. Play a matt, play the matt. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

 

Wouldn't know, don't play at stores with rando's anymore. I take it you have played on both, did you notice much of a difference?

Played both table sizes you mean?

I haven’t played a 6x4 table since like 4th so I can’t really say since my memory isn’t that good.

 

however if a table increases in size seems reasonable that it will take melee units slightly longer to get into charge range, giving shooting armies a bit more opportunity to be competitive.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Played both table sizes you mean?

I haven’t played a 6x4 table since like 4th so I can’t really say since my memory isn’t that good.

 

however if a table increases in size seems reasonable that it will take melee units slightly longer to get into charge range, giving shooting armies a bit more opportunity to be competitive.

 

Yeah sorry, both size tables. I like the bigger tables personally, more room to play. Our group found shooting having the advantage was due to easy line of sight and not enough terrain in 8th so we added more terrain and never switched to the smaller tables in 9th. This is coming from someone whose armies are 50-90% melee and has the slowest moving armies (nurgle).

 

I mean I would not be surprised now that transports/vehicles don't suck (I bet they are even overpowered at launch haha) that they push the larger boards again to sell those transports.

[Sea Creature]

9th was designed with the smaller dimensions in mind. I doubt they’ll go back.

[Special Officer Doofy]

1 hour ago, Sea Creature said:

9th was designed with the smaller dimensions in mind. I doubt they’ll go back.

 

T1 land raider charge it is then 

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

however if a table increases in size seems reasonable that it will take melee units slightly longer to get into charge range, giving shooting armies a bit more opportunity to be competitive.

 

I find it is not so much table size that is important but how far apart the deployment zones are. In the old days they were 24" apart and nothing moved over 12" so the earliest a unit could charge would be T2 for fast units or T3 for regular infantry. Of course that assumes 1 side is shooty and hanging back. If both sides had decent melee it was still easy to have a big scrap in the centre on T2.

[Warden-Paints]

I'm pretty sure they reduced table sizes to make the game easier for people to play at home. IIRC they talked about sizing based on Ikea's best selling dinner table or something like that. 

 

So no, I think the reason they changed the size in the first place remains viable, so it won't ever go back. 

[Halandaar]

Yep, the point of reducing the suggested board size was so that the game would fit on an average dining table. I certainly don't miss having to haul the 6x4 bit of hardboard out of the garage every time I want to play a game, and with the even smaller games like Warcry I enjoy being able to have the space to play the game and also space to have all my cards and stuff such that they aren't on the board.

 

With 40k moving to card-based I can't imagine they'll be looking to have the gameboard take up more space again.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Halandaar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Halandaar said:

Yep, the point of reducing the suggested board size was so that the game would fit on an average dining table. I certainly don't miss having to haul the 6x4 bit of hardboard out of the garage every time I want to play a game, and with the even smaller games like Warcry I enjoy being able to have the space to play the game and also space to have all my cards and stuff such that they aren't on the board.

 

With 40k moving to card-based I can't imagine they'll be looking to have the gameboard take up more space again.

 

 

No one ever forced you to do that though. You could have always just played on a kitchen table.

[BluejayJunior]

No one is forcing anyone to use the 44x30 or 44x60 (or whatever the sizes are). Those are just the minimum table sizes they list in the book. Even if most tournaments use it. 

[Halandaar]

24 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

No one ever forced you to do that though. You could have always just played on a kitchen table.

 

Did I say anyone forced me to? As many people on different topics have attested lately, something being just "recommended" by GW immediately becomes the de-facto standard for the majority of the community, hence because I used to play WFB and 40K a lot I had a standard sized board to accommodate that. Lets also just say that some of the people I used to play against were a lot more militant about their interpretation of what was "correct" than the people I tend to play against nowadays.

[Bouargh]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Thinking about the bonuses to mobility we’re seeing in regards to transports and now there’s no apparent rough terrain rule to slow units down, it seems reasonable that the table sizes might be increasing a bit again.

 

I think it is premature to say. Teasing rules mainly on how terrain is offering cover is not necessarily meaning that all ruels for terrain have been covered. Other option is that stuff affecting movement would be covered in movement rule section... I would not draw any conclusion from snippets of info.

 

Anyway, as far a table size is concerned I also doubt that we will se a increase. I don´t have better arguments than the one exposed by other contributors, except my personal paranoia in respect of what Tournaments brought to game design. current size is quite good for the competitive scene as it make the game compact and leads to direct confrontation from very first turn in most cases. 40k is designed to be a dynamic encounter and does not base its mechanisms and purposes on a position/manoeuvre game. In that sense, reduced tables are better as you dive in action immediatly 

[The Yncarne]

I suspect looking at missions will determine the recommended board size. I've been playing another system that not only accommodates smaller, more common kitchen table sizes, but have written many missions with that smaller size in mind.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

Did I say anyone forced me to? As many people on different topics have attested lately, something being just "recommended" by GW immediately becomes the de-facto standard for the majority of the community, hence because I used to play WFB and 40K a lot I had a standard sized board to accommodate that. Lets also just say that some of the people I used to play against were a lot more militant about their interpretation of what was "correct" than the people I tend to play against nowadays.

You said you grabbed it out of the garage or whatever.

that was your choice, one that I would have never made personally i didn’t have a large enough table

[Arkangilos]

On 4/20/2023 at 11:57 PM, Special Officer Doofy said:

Our group found shooting having the advantage was due to easy line of sight and not enough terrain in 8th so we added more terrain

Following the art of war :p

 

If your enemy can outmatch you in the opening by shooting, fight them in a place where there are less openings and then crush them in the sweet release of blood letting.

 

Blood for the- -cough- -For the glory of Sanguinius!