Recommended board size vs. standard table sizes

[Bouargh]

Just noticed that my table was too small to fit the recomended board size. And I though it was big...

Its 100 cm width (40") while 44" (110xm)  is recomended. I never really noticed or bothered up to getting a Onslaught game last night; these missing 4" were not really an issue as we deployed under sweeping engagment pattern, but almost.

I imagine it is worse if you have a current and standard 90 cm with (35") table (as most people get at home).

 

Did you met specific issues or inconveniencies while getting your own games?

 

Again, I experienced relative inconvenience on big game only - 3000 pts. Otherwise not really.

 

What do you think about getting a games designed to be used on recommended sizes that do not match the industrial furniture standardized sizes?

 

Just wonder...

[NTaW]

Despite my table being plenty long with additional leaves, it's only 39" wide. I have hardboard planks I set across my table to create a playing area. There are three 2x4' pieces I use to create a 4x4' or 6x4' space, then I roll out my mat/set up my table pieces and that holds it all in place. The neoprene mat provides the most stable play area since the grip on the bottom helps stop individual panel shifts if someone bumps a table edge.

 

As for games designed to fit on a table top, 40k has never really been that for me. As a kid the only space we ever had to play was taped out areas of floor space....many models were stepped on. As an adult the space available in my housing or my ability to purchase a table large enough also impacted my ability to host games. The expected table size has been reduced for the last couple editions I think but it's still quite large, and I think that is in part why Combat Patrol has the following it does. Games can be as cool as possible but if they're not accessible it can be hard to become involved or maintain interest.

[Bouargh]

 

1 hour ago, NTaW said:

Despite my table being plenty long with additional leaves, it's only 39" wide. I have hardboard planks I set across my table to create a playing area.

 

As long as I used to live in a country house, with plenty os space in the barn, I never experienced issues. BUt a few year ago, with a New Year/New Job project, I moved abroad and live in flats. So space has become an issue for storing and playing. Clubs are still an option but in the end the same issues often happen. I miss my barn.

[Rogue]

Like NTaW, I have three pieces of mdf that make a 6x4 tabletop - it sits on top of my dining table when I need it. These days, it gives me a slight border around the battlefield, which is handy for cards and so on.

 

And if we're playing KillTeam or something of that size, I don't bother to get the boards out and we just play on the table top.

 

My friend doesn't have space for a 6x4 table at all, temporary or otherwise. So when we play at his place, we house-rule deployment a bit - the deployment zones get cut down, and sometimes we limit movement in the first turn (because the armies start too close together).

 

So I guess my answer is that the game is what it is (and always has been) - it requires space to play at a certain scale. But outside of tournaments, nothing is set in stone, and if you and your opponent are keen to play, there are ways to make it work.

[Firedrake Cordova]

Personally, my approach would be the same as @Rogue's friend's - if you're a few inches off in either axis, just adjust the deployment zones to keep them the same distance apart as they're supposed to be in the mission details.  

[Special Officer Doofy]

I found there is no winning with GW and the table size. I have tons of space at my house and even custom built a 6'x4' table for 40k at the start of 8th just to have them shrink the board size ever so slightly on me. Crafty GW... 

[Evil Eye]

Honestly I wouldn't worry too much about official board sizes. Go with what works best for you. I've heard the argument that it affects balance but quite aside from anything else, GW can't balance their games to save their lives, and having a slightly-bigger-or-smaller-than-recommended size for your table probably isn't gonna change that. Plus, you know, it's "recommended" size. The game won't stop working if you use a different sized board.

 

I find that size of board makes far less difference to gameplay than terrain density. IMO at least a good table should have a decent amount of LoS blocking terrain, arranged thoughtfully and thematically. Aside from anything else, it prevents gunlines from completely dominating the battlefield; putting aside just straight-up badly made or hastily arranged tables, a Hammerhead is going to be a monster on a barren desert board with only a few shell craters and rock stacks for cover, but in a temperate zone with trees and hills, or worse still a dense jungle or urbanized area it will struggle a lot more, as its long range will be less advantageous due to the lack of clear shots, enabling close range threats to get near enough to ruin its day.

 

(Side note, I REALLY wish we still had difficult terrain rules as standard.)

[Bouargh]

2 hours ago, Firedrake Cordova said:

Personally, my approach would be the same as @Rogue's friend's - if you're a few inches off in either axis, just adjust the deployment zones to keep them the same distance apart as they're supposed to be in the mission details.  

 

It is indeed an option. Yet it may rapidly be a boat of house rules, especially when you also have to cope with reserves and deep strike (lots of). My last experience with 5 Drop pods (out of which 1 Dread, and 2 deathstorm) was calamitous. These missing inches may (or may not) have done a difference. Or helped to compensate (partially) my tactical stupidity...

[The Unseen]

Wouldn't smaller tables make deep striking less impactful?

At least at first thought, it's just reducing the distance that the units would've had to cross normally, 

 

The big thing is making sure your deployment zones and objective markers are the same distance apart, or as close as possible anyway.

Deployment zones are easier, as how deep they are matters less than making sure you aren't starting to close, jut obj markers can be tricky, as spacing them appropriately can lead to them being inside, or much closer, to deployment zones. But you also don't want a unit to be able to charge from 1 to another if the set up didn't originally allow that.

Edited March 23 by The Unseen

[TheArtilleryman]

Can anyone here shed any light on why the recommended board size changed? I mean it was 6’ x 4’ for what seemed like forever and in recent years it’s suddenly this really odd size. I built about a dozen 2’ x 2’ modules to mix and match - hills, roads and plains, so that they fit together to make a variety of 6x4s.
 

Buuuuut… for some reason that’s no good anymore. It just makes no sense; even GW’s own Realm of Battle that was standard for years is now the wrong size and has gone - I feel sorry for people that paid 200 quid for it.

 

To be honest I just ignore the weird sizes and play with the old size and deployment zones regardless. I’m not rebuilding all those boards.

Edited March 23 by TheArtilleryman

[Evil Eye]

1 hour ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Can anyone here shed any light on why the recommended board size changed? I mean it was 6’ x 4’ for what seemed like forever and in recent years it’s suddenly this really odd size. I built about a dozen 2’ x 2’ modules to mix and match - hills, roads and plains, so that they fit together to make a variety of 6x4s.
 

Buuuuut… for some reason that’s no good anymore. It just makes no sense; even GW’s own Realm of Battle that was standard for years is now the wrong size and has gone - I feel sorry for people that paid 200 quid for it.

 

To be honest I just ignore the weird sizes and play with the old size and deployment zones regardless. I’m not rebuilding all those boards.

So GW could sell you battlemats, and then new ones when they changed the size again.

[andes]

1 hour ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Can anyone here shed any light on why the recommended board size changed?

 

The new size is a multiple of the folding cardboard mats GW includes in many of their boxed sets & games. I think it takes four of them to make the new size. I refuse to switch... I can't imagine trying to fit 2k of orks into the deployment zone when using those mini-boards, it's tough enough on a 4x6.

Edited March 24 by andes

[Dr. Clock]

I only have experience in the other direction this edition - I play on a full 6'x4' mat rolled out on a 8'x4' sheet of plywood.  Works well, but it makes screening reserves a little tougher, but also keeps any corner outflankers even further from the centre when they come in (depending on screening), so it's kind of a wash tbh.

 

If you're constrained, I would suggest keeping the objective and deployment/no-mans-land layouts the same. The way they are measured from the centre these days, it doesn't matter too much what the outside dimensions are as long as people still have to move the same distance between objectives and deployment zones. The biggest difference to most games will just be that units walking on the table will gain distance toward objectives they wouldn't otherwise benefit from. This will be somewhat balanced by the extent to which it will be easier to zone units off the table without venturing too far from whatever objective in the first place.

 

At a certain point you are going to struggle to get all your stuff deployed, but as long as no-one is doing pure horde style this should be okay. If it becomes a problem, I'd just give each side the option to walk 1-2 infantry units on in turn 1 anywhere in their deployment zone or something? You'd need to be careful not to create a situation where people abuse that to get guaranteed alpha-strike units perfectly positioned in bottom of turn 1 I guess, so I could even suggest turn 1 walk-on as Battleline only and/or say that they have to come on within 6" of a board edge in addition to ending that turn within their DZ.

 

Anyway - an interesting topic.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Zoatibix]

I miss the old 8x4’ days. Gave things more room to manoeuvre.

 

Our club always takes the recommended minimum size to be the exact and only size you can play on. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think table sizes need to go back to 6’x4’ tbh.

 

with a 48” range on a LoS weapon there’s essentially no where on a board that unit can’t reach if it can see on these modern boards. Even corner to corner. When you take deployment zones into consideration.

 

that and deployment zones can get very crowded on these smaller tables if you have horde armies

you cannot have space for super heavies to move around most of the table and have the recommended terrain layouts.

27 minutes ago, Zoatibix said:

I miss the old 8x4’ days. Gave things more room to manoeuvre.

 

Our club always takes the recommended minimum size to be the exact and only size you can play on. 

I remember 6’x4’ when was 8’x4’ the standard size?

[Zoatibix]

Second edition and into third at least we played on that. But I’m not sure it was the official size…or if there even was one back then.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Zoatibix said:

Second edition and into third at least we played on that. But I’m not sure it was the official size…or if there even was one back then.

Pretty sure in 3rd they recommended 6x4

 

not much was actually official back then lol. They left a lot up to us iirc 

Edited March 25 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Rogue]

We had an 8x4 table in my parents' loft, which served for Fantasy Battle, Epic and 40k. By the mid-nineties, we were taping off the last two feet as the 'standard' size dropped to 6×4.

 

I'm guessing slightly, but that suggests that 6x4 either came in with 2nd edition, or was adopted during it, as I'd moved out a couple of years before 3rd edition arrived.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8x4 seems absolutely unwieldy.

i have a 6ish foot wing span, I couldn’t imagine trying to reach across a table that size.

[The Unseen]

8x4 is good for apocalypse games, like 4 or 5k+, as the standard table just gets to cramped. 

8x5 is even better, but that's REAL unwieldy and hard to reach across, find, or fit in most places.

 

6x4 is the best though, I didn't care for the shrunken board for 40k. It made range less valuable, and made the already present mobility creep go completely nuts.

[Rhavien]

At least I'm happy about the new minimum sizes. I couldn't fit an 6x4 board into my hobby room somewhat comfortable. Those are minimum sizes in the rulebook. Not required nor recommended, but just minimum sizes. It's more convenient for clubs, tournaments or even ppl like me to use a smaller board. If someone can't even fit the minimum size into his room, I would also don't mind to play there. Would be cool if I know in advance so I can plan my army accordingly, but whatever. Maybe go down to 1500 if it's far to small.

You have a bigger table? Absolutely fine! Mission objectives are places relative to the center of the board, so even if you go nuts with table space the majority of the battle will take place in the same space like on a small board. If you think you have to saw off your carefully modeled scenic table because GW gives out new MINIMUM sizes it's on you and not on them. 

 

[Xenith]

On 3/23/2024 at 6:07 PM, Firedrake Cordova said:

Personally, my approach would be the same as @Rogue's friend's - if you're a few inches off in either axis, just adjust the deployment zones to keep them the same distance apart as they're supposed to be in the mission details.  

 

GW factored this in already - deployment and objective positions aren't measured from the table edge, but from the centre of the board, so theoretically a smaller table just means smaller DZ's, and shouldn't impact the distance between armies etc. Naturally, every table differs, and playing on different tables is just a different meta that players need to factor in. 

[Jolemai]

14 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

8x4 seems absolutely unwieldy.

i have a 6ish foot wing span, I couldn’t imagine trying to reach across a table that size.

 

You don't, you walk around it 

 

10 hours ago, The Unseen said:

8x4 is good for apocalypse games, like 4 or 5k+, as the standard table just gets to cramped. 

8x5 is even better, but that's REAL unwieldy and hard to reach across, find, or fit in most places.

 

6x4 is the best though, I didn't care for the shrunken board for 40k. It made range less valuable, and made the already present mobility creep go completely nuts.

 

All about the 12x6 boards for Apocalypse 

 

Spoiler

 

Unsurprisingly, I preferred 6x4 with the battle boards. Happy it stays for HH and TOW

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/26/2024 at 3:04 AM, The Unseen said:

8x4 is good for apocalypse games, like 4 or 5k+, as the standard table just gets to cramped. 

8x5 is even better, but that's REAL unwieldy and hard to reach across, find, or fit in most places.

 

6x4 is the best though, I didn't care for the shrunken board for 40k. It made range less valuable, and made the already present mobility creep go completely nuts.

That’s about how I feel about it too.

 

range is less important, and automatically buffs melee armies by bringing them closer to the shooty armies.

 

On 3/26/2024 at 9:49 AM, Rhavien said:

At least I'm happy about the new minimum sizes. I couldn't fit an 6x4 board into my hobby room somewhat comfortable. Those are minimum sizes in the rulebook. Not required nor recommended, but just minimum sizes. It's more convenient for clubs, tournaments or even ppl like me to use a smaller board. If someone can't even fit the minimum size into his room, I would also don't mind to play there. Would be cool if I know in advance so I can plan my army accordingly, but whatever. Maybe go down to 1500 if it's far to small.

You have a bigger table? Absolutely fine! Mission objectives are places relative to the center of the board, so even if you go nuts with table space the majority of the battle will take place in the same space like on a small board. If you think you have to saw off your carefully modeled scenic table because GW gives out new MINIMUM sizes it's on you and not on them. 

 

Nothing ever stopped people from using smaller or larger tables at home, but whatever size the rulebook says is likely what shops and tournaments will go with.

[crimsondave]

8x4 was the standard where I was, official or not,  back in the day.  We went to Lowe’s and bought a piece of 8x4 plywood and made 2x2 squares of interchangeable styrofoam.  It was pretty cool but messy.  I have too many 6x4 mats to ever change now.