Hi as I said in another post I'm just back to the hobby after a long break - I have a lot of old space marines and the ones from the dark imperium and indomitus sets - I need to get a battle mat and have found they are now different sizes than the old 6x4 boards - does anyone have experience of the GW cardboard mats or should i consider a different type - the GW are black moonscape and red Martian - had thought of a desert type any advice would help before i base any new marines TIA

Suggestions:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/f-a-t-mats/
https://www.gamemat.eu/en/battle-mats/

 Beaker07 wrote:
Hi as I said in another post I'm just back to the hobby after a long break - I have a lot of old space marines and the ones from the dark imperium and indomitus sets - I need to get a battle mat and have found they are now different sizes than the old 6x4 boards - does anyone have experience of the GW cardboard mats or should i consider a different type - the GW are black moonscape and red Martian - had thought of a desert type any advice would help before i base any new marines TIA

Assuming you mean this: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battlezone-Manufactorum-2020

Nu-40k is sized to play on these boards. A small sub-500 pt game/kill team would be played on 1 board (i.e. 1 set purchased from GW), a mid-sized game would be on 2 boards (1 set purchased), and a "standard" 2000 pt game on 4 boards (2 of these purchased) to make 60" x 44" (I think ttechnically 44.8") table. That being said, there are many sources for neoprene/mousepad style mats (Frontline Gaming, PWork, and Deep Cut Studio are my personal favorites) that are available in the 60x44 format - my recommendation is to purchase that type of mat instead.

Note, that 6x4 boards are still playable, the rule sets the MINIMUM size for a 2000 pt game as 60x44, which is smaller than a 6x4, thus allowing you to continue using 6x4 boards if you want to, its just that the "competitive scene" has opted to use the table sizes defined by GW, and as these things typically go the competitive scene has set the standard for casual play by extension, as competitive gamers always want to "practice" for their next tournament and the best way to do that is to "train the way you fight". My recommendation to you, particularly if you play tabletop wargames other than 40k, would be to purchase a 6x4 mat and a conversion kit similar to this one https://store.frontlinegaming.org/flg-mats-hazard-conversion-kit.html to allow you to play it on the smaller "standard" size. There are similar products from other manufacturers that do the same thing (some are mdf, others use different materials or methods to achieve the same result). If you don't want to spend the money, then you can purchase blue masking tape and simply tape out the boundaries on the mat in order to convert it to 60x44.

Thanks - some nice mats there - have you used them yourself?

Just use your 6x4s and tape off the excess if you absolutely must just follow the rulebook. If you are a stickler or going full competitive then disregard this post and follow the links posted above.

our group has switched to FrontLine Gaming mats, along with the conversion kit to show the new boundaries. Highly recommend them. Use the same mats for other miniature games also. So we have a mix of the older 6x4 and some 60x44.

Thanks for all the info - yes that is the set i meant - so to start with i am making 2 x 500pt lists but aiming for the 1000pt level mostly so 1 box would do me for it or 2 boxes for 2000points - looked up some mats in EU from gamemat from previous posters advice and they are neoprene/mousepad style mats - would avoid nasty folds and gaps in cardboard

I use the fat mat (at least until I get my realm of battle sector imperialis painted). I'll probably just add hazards for the unplayable areas

Thanks - sorry i have a 6x4 wooden board (plain chipboard) which i used never had any proper "scenery" type battle mat before so was looking on advice re GW cardboard or others to put on top of my plain board which i could cut to size if i wanted

 Beaker07 wrote:
Thanks - sorry i have a 6x4 wooden board (plain chipboard) which i used never had any proper "scenery" type battle mat before so was looking on advice re GW cardboard or others to put on top of my plain board which i could cut to size if i wanted

Don't go cutting up your board because of GW. Just get whichever mats of whatever sizes & patterns you like, put them on your board, and then cover them in terrain (GWs or otherwise) to taste.

On cardstock? Only for boardgames.

Thanks - no wont do it just because of them - looks like a neoprene/mousepad style mat is the way to go then - have some terrain will need to get some more all GW so far

Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

40k isn't a sport.
40k's board size isn't regulated or mandated by the rules.

GW's "recommended" board sizes have absolutely nothing to do with tournament games, game balance, or anything related to the actual playing of 40k (or AoS, for that matter). They exist purely because that's the side boards they could fit into their standard product boxes.

 Toofast wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

I abhor "competitive" 40k because you're seeps out of that environment & poisons the rest of the hobby.

I made my own mat from felt which I textured with gesso and paint. Felt is an inexpensive mat substitute. I cut mine down to 44 by 90 but I wish I had left it 48" wide for other games. So I'll need to make another one this year.

It's worth repeating that 60X44 is the minimum recommended board size. So do what ever you like. I fine 60x44 to be way too small.

40K plays differently on a 60x44 than on a 6x4 table. Ranged weapons work differently, melee happens much sooner (1st turn is possible). So the table size definitely matters.
Make a table with the 6x4, lay your mat out, use the extra space on the sides for models, rulebooks, etc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40k isn't a sport.
40k's board size isn't regulated or mandated by the rules.

GW's "recommended" board sizes have absolutely nothing to do with tournament games, game balance, or anything related to the actual playing of 40k (or AoS, for that matter). They exist purely because that's the side boards they could fit into their standard product boxes.

Thats absolutely not true. The game plays differently on a 4x4 board than it would on a say 10x12 board. As it stands the game is being playtested using the "recommended" table size and as such that it where the "balance" lies. The size difference between 60x44 and 72x48 might not be significant enough to really matter, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that units or armies might become more or less effective when played on a table of a different size than what it was intended to be played on, and thats a simple truth. The value of a basilisk (for example) with a 240" range certainly increases dramatically the larger the table becomes as it allows the player to significantly decrease the risk posed to the unit from the enemy without decreasing its lethality in the process.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The game plays differently on a 4x4 board than it would on a say 10x12 board.

Never suggested it wouldn't. Not sure what points you're trying to make here, as it's certainly one I wasn't making.

chaos0xomega wrote:
As it stands the game is being playtested using the "recommended" table size and as such that it where the "balance" lies. The size difference between 60x44 and 72x48 might not be significant enough to really matter, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that units or armies might become more or less effective when played on a table of a different size than what it was intended to be played on, and thats a simple truth.

I'd almost agree with you, if not for the fact that everything is far faster and weapon ranges are just increasing. Even in 6x4 most things now start in range, and turn 1 charges are a pretty normal thing these days. 6x4 or GW's stupid made-up dimensions play very little role in that.

And my actual points stand:

1. 40k is not a sport.
2. 40k's board size is not regulated or mandated by the rules.
3. GW's chosen board size has nothing to do with game play and everything to do with the size of board they could fold and fit into their standard-sized boxes.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The value of a basilisk (for example) with a 240" range certainly increases dramatically the larger the table becomes as it allows the player to significantly decrease the risk posed to the unit from the enemy without decreasing its lethality in the process.

And that might matter on a board that that's big, but if it's between 6x4 or 60x44, it doesn't matter, as no part of the board is 240" away from anything else.

I purchased two mats from FLG as well as several other items, and I will never buy another product from them.

The entire order was painful from start to disappointing finish.
- The mats are not symetrical. They were 6x4, but the were slanted diagonally. Which made the specially built table I had made useless, as it didn't fit the mat.
- Customer service told me it was my problem. I had ordered it 3 weeks prior to their big 40k event, and was still told there would be delays. I was still charged the full cost of expedited shipping though. I did recieve half the order within a week, which was pre-cut cardboard terrain buildings. Most were bent or warped. Nothing glue and popsickle sticks couldn't fix. The mats arrived 5 weeks after the order was placed. When I complained about the poor cut quality and the wait time, I was told "You ordered during our literal busiest part of the season".
- After the whole Totenkomph thing I just stopped even trying to give Reece any money.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Nu-40k is sized to play on these boards. A small sub-500 pt game/kill team would be played on 1 board (i.e. 1 set purchased from GW), a mid-sized game would be on 2 boards (1 set purchased), and a "standard" 2000 pt game on 4 boards (2 of these purchased) to make 60" x 44" (I think ttechnically 44.8" table.

Quick correction here: both Combat Patrol (<=500pt) and Incursion (<=1000pt) battles are fought on 44x30" tables. Kill Team is fought on a 22x30" board, though.

Personally, I don't mind GW's cardboard mats. I've got several from buying various terrain boxes over the past few years (they tend to give decent discounts anyway, so the boards are a good little freebie) and frequently use them for Kill Team in particular.

Given the choice, neoprene is definitely better overall. However, I like the way the cardboard boards fold up flat, and if the table I'm playing on is slightly too small then the rigid cardboard allows it to overhang without any problems. Just different tools for different jobs.

If table space is no object, then I'd just get some 6x4' mats and use masking tape or conversion kit if you want to use the "recommended" sizes.

It's worth mentioning that the maps in missions measure distances from center lines/ points outward...

This means that if you play on a larger than recommended table, your no man's land is the same width and distances between objectives will be the same- unless you modify the map in the mission to reflect the possibilities afforded by a larger table.

H.B.M.C. is right, there's a minimum board size but it doesn't mean that's the standard and anything else is not proper 40k.

I prefer the 60''x44'' because unlike the 6'x4' it fits my and my friends' tables pretty well and I mostly play at homes rather than stores.

Playing 1500 points instead of 2000 on 60''x44'' is even better.

Our group uses the new table sizes to just wall off the extra space of old boards with barricades, trees, rocks and the like. Easy to do.

We tested both sizes thoroughly at the start of 9th and the game is just much better with the smaller tables.

That melee is happening earlier on smaller tables is an urban myth at best - melee units need to cross the exact same amount of inches to get into your deployment zone on both types of tables. The only difference is that players can't hide their entire army so far back where melee infantry can't possibly reach them.

The only game mode which doesn't work well with minimum table sizes at all is planet strike.

Also, don't ever buy the cardboard boards from GW. They toss them out along with every other box, you can get a pile of them very cheap from ebay or similar sites. They are fine for quick games on someone's dinner table, but obviously inferior to real mats or self-build boards.

Thanks to everyone for their help and comments think I'll use my 6x4 wooden boards and buy one or two neoprene/mousepad style mats to put on top of them

What's funny about the GW cardboard game surfaces is that they themselves do not measure to the stated 44"x60" or any of the recommended minimum sizes. They're actually a little larger. I haven't measured in awhile, but IIRC each board is over by about 3/8".

Edit:
Just looked on GW's site and they say each board is 30"x22.4".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And my actual points stand:
1. 40k is not a sport.
2. 40k's board size is not regulated or mandated by the rules.
3. GW's chosen board size has nothing to do with game play and everything to do with the size of board they could fold and fit into their standard-sized boxes.

1. Being a sport is debatable. I tend to lean toward sports requiring a bit of sweat and physicality. But, it's certainly a ranked competition with a global presence in addition to just beer and pretzels.
2. It's has rules. They say here is the minimum size for this many points. Feel free to use bigger. Granted it's anecdotal, but I can't recall the last time I saw the game played on a full 6x4.
3. Probably true. They said because of feedback and table size, but it could purely be cost effective packaging. We should always take everything corporations say at face value right?

Also, I found the board you learned to play chess on.

1. W40K is not a sport.
2. [...]
3. Profit! Make no mistake... This is the no.1 reasoning behind the gameboard size change.

GW was using the 30"x22.4" carboard tiles for Kill Team since its inception. The 30"x22.4" was chosen because it fit the Kill Team boxes. GW stated/admitted this, but no one gave it a second thought because Kill Team was its own thing. Then 9th edition came and obviously GW saw a sales opportunity to offer a new product line of terrain using the 30"x22.4" carboard tiles.
a. I'm sure they have a better margin than the far superior, plastic Realm of Battle boards.
b. I'm sure they're easier to produce, stock and even sell.
c. They'll wear out and will be repurchased. On and on it goes.

For an easier time, a sheet of PDF or plywood, is exactly 4x8, and no odd angles. Put that on a couple of saw horses, and you have a full game table. or chop two feet off and you're good to go. It's half the cost of a neoprene matt. Most plywood or pdf ranges in the 20-40 dollar range.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

This. feth 'em.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


1. 40k is not a sport.
2. 40k's board size is not regulated or mandated by the rules.
3. GW's chosen board size has nothing to do with game play and everything to do with the size of board they could fold and fit into their standard-sized boxes.

Neither are chess or monopoly but they have standard board sizes. It's not mandated by the rules but to pretend their isn't a standard among tournaments is being disingenuous at best. They might not have chosen the board size based on gameplay reasons but the gameplay is definitely changing due to the smaller board size.

I'm a huge fan for the 30"x44" board size for 500-750ish point games. It fits wonderfully in our small apartment, and gives me licence to collect smaller, more unique armies.

In the long term, I ready hope that scale of game becomes more common.

 Toofast wrote:

Neither are chess

Chess is recognized as a sport by basically every sports classification body.

 Toofast wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

Howabout for getting better game?

Why handicap yourself just because GW wants more cash and ITC realized they can get more profits...That's literally the reason ITC went along with 60x44 as they themselves said. MORE PROFIT.

It's nothing to do with what gives good game(infact it gives worse). It's all about PROFITS for tournament organizers.

Do you get more profits for playing on inferior board size? If not then you don't have the one and only reason for the size.

“Inferior board size”? Do we have to hyperbole everything on Dakka?

Both board sizes give different pros and cons. Play what you enjoy. No one is making you cut a board down.

FWIW our groups enjoys the smaller sizes. You can play whatever format of the game you like. There is no “superior” or “inferior” game based on what table you use.

I think he meant to say "smaller" when he chose the word "inferior".

 Blackie wrote:
I think he meant to say "smaller" when he chose the word "inferior".

The presence of the word “worse” also indicates he meant inferior.

For storage reasons I've recently switched to the smaller size but I've been playing on a 6'x4' since 9th dropped and there's not really any reason to drop to the smaller size, so if you have a bigger board I'd say stick with it. You can always get a smaller mat later if you want anyway, and leave your boards at the same, larger, size. That can be quite handy for giving you somewhere to put your books, etc.

tneva82 wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

Howabout for getting better game?

Why handicap yourself just because GW wants more cash and ITC realized they can get more profits...That's literally the reason ITC went along with 60x44 as they themselves said. MORE PROFIT.

It's nothing to do with what gives good game(infact it gives worse). It's all about PROFITS for tournament organizers.

Do you get more profits for playing on inferior board size? If not then you don't have the one and only reason for the size.

How am I handicapping myself by practicing on the same table size I play all my tournaments on? Wouldn't using a 6x4 handicap me when all my games that count for something are on 60x44? Sure they did that because it makes them money. Their reasoning is irrelevant. If the NFL made the fields 150 yards long for next season but the players felt it led to worse games, do you think they would go back to practicing on a 100 yard field? Just because you don't play tournaments and prefer garage fluffhammer with models you built in 5th grade doesn't mean that's the universal one true way to play Warhammer. Some of us like competition and want to practice how the official games are played, which is 2k points on a 60x44 table.

Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

I just hope this weird board size stays GW specific and doesn't leak out into the broader wargaming hobby.

Can't see it happening. It is due to the size of the cardboard matts that GW can fit in their boxes. It is purely driven my sales and not by game balance.

As other mininature wargame companies don't make game mates, I think we are safe to say that this is a GW only thing.

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope this weird board size stays GW specific and doesn't leak out into the broader wargaming hobby.

Mat manufacturers fell over one another trying to be first to market with the changed sizes. Tournaments adopted it instantly.

GW said jump, and the community responded "How high?".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope this weird board size stays GW specific and doesn't leak out into the broader wargaming hobby.

Mat manufacturers fell over one another trying to be first to market with the changed sizes. Tournaments adopted it instantly.

GW said jump, and the idiots responded "How high?".

Fixed it for you...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope this weird board size stays GW specific and doesn't leak out into the broader wargaming hobby.

Mat manufacturers fell over one another trying to be first to market with the changed sizes. Tournaments adopted it instantly.

GW said jump, and the community responded "How high?".

You mean a corporation seized an opportunity to make more profits? The horror! I would fully expect companies who make gaming mats to jump on the hype train for a new table size that they've never made and none of their customers own. That's like being mad at Michelin and Goodyear for making more 24" tires now that Chevy is making a truck with 24" wheels

Toofast wrote:
You mean a corporation seized an opportunity to make more profits?

No. That's not what I meant.

Take reductive logic somewhere else.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Toofast wrote:
You mean a corporation seized an opportunity to make more profits?

No. That's not what I meant.

Take reductive logic somewhere else.

Yup that's treading too far into slippery territory...

All the while I drive my car with 15in wheels/tires.

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

Toofast wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

Howabout for getting better game?

Why handicap yourself just because GW wants more cash and ITC realized they can get more profits...That's literally the reason ITC went along with 60x44 as they themselves said. MORE PROFIT.

It's nothing to do with what gives good game(infact it gives worse). It's all about PROFITS for tournament organizers.

Do you get more profits for playing on inferior board size? If not then you don't have the one and only reason for the size.

How am I handicapping myself by practicing on the same table size I play all my tournaments on? Wouldn't using a 6x4 handicap me when all my games that count for something are on 60x44? Sure they did that because it makes them money. Their reasoning is irrelevant. If the NFL made the fields 150 yards long for next season but the players felt it led to worse games, do you think they would go back to practicing on a 100 yard field? Just because you don't play tournaments and prefer garage fluffhammer with models you built in 5th grade doesn't mean that's the universal one true way to play Warhammer. Some of us like competition and want to practice how the official games are played, which is 2k points on a 60x44 table.

You're handicapping yourself in the context of you being able to play either 60x44 or 6x4 on a 6x4 table. You can play using tourney table sizes on a 20x16 foot table if you wanted, the point is if you max out at 60x44 you're unable to expand or use more space if desired, the same is not true the other way round.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

I actually liked the 4x4 board as well

Dudeface wrote:
You're handicapping yourself in the context of you being able to play either 60x44 or 6x4 on a 6x4 table. You can play using tourney table sizes on a 20x16 foot table if you wanted, the point is if you max out at 60x44 you're unable to expand or use more space if desired, the same is not true the other way round.

It's worth noting that onslaught missions are supposed to be played on 90x44 though, which actually doesn't fit on a 6x4 table. For some of the missions objectives would be outside of the table or awkwardly sitting right on the edge of a table which can cause "feels bad"-moments.

The minimum board size is really just that for us. The minimum.

Depending on the preferences of both players and point size we play on everything between this and 72" by 48".

If we make a bigger multiplayer game, we have several boards of whatever size feels right.

People should use what they think is fun. Sticking with tournament standards "just because" is silly if you don't attend them regularely or just to play some games without any real intention to go top 10.

Even more so if you always play with people you know instead of random pickup games.

Dudeface wrote:

Toofast wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just use 6x4. Forget about the stupid new table sizes. They don't matter.

Unless you're going to play in tournaments. My local FLGS has their tournaments on 60x44. My games at the Warhammer store are usually on a 60x44. I have a 6x4 but why get used to 6x4 when all my games that matter will be on 60x44? Just because some people on this forum actively abhor "competitive" gaming like BTs abhor the witch doesn't mean everyone wants to play fluffhammer. You think NFL players are practicing on a field 140 yards long and 70 yards wide?

Howabout for getting better game?

Why handicap yourself just because GW wants more cash and ITC realized they can get more profits...That's literally the reason ITC went along with 60x44 as they themselves said. MORE PROFIT.

It's nothing to do with what gives good game(infact it gives worse). It's all about PROFITS for tournament organizers.

Do you get more profits for playing on inferior board size? If not then you don't have the one and only reason for the size.

How am I handicapping myself by practicing on the same table size I play all my tournaments on? Wouldn't using a 6x4 handicap me when all my games that count for something are on 60x44? Sure they did that because it makes them money. Their reasoning is irrelevant. If the NFL made the fields 150 yards long for next season but the players felt it led to worse games, do you think they would go back to practicing on a 100 yard field? Just because you don't play tournaments and prefer garage fluffhammer with models you built in 5th grade doesn't mean that's the universal one true way to play Warhammer. Some of us like competition and want to practice how the official games are played, which is 2k points on a 60x44 table.

You're handicapping yourself in the context of you being able to play either 60x44 or 6x4 on a 6x4 table. You can play using tourney table sizes on a 20x16 foot table if you wanted, the point is if you max out at 60x44 you're unable to expand or use more space if desired, the same is not true the other way round.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

I actually liked the 4x4 board as well

I have a realm of battle sector imperialis board and 6x4 mats. I just setup terrain to block off the edges. I still use 4x4 for Necromunda and AT so I like having a 6x4 table. I just don't use 6x4 for 2k point 40k games because those are usually tournament practice.

 Dysartes wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

Even smaller games 1,000pts plays well on a 6x4. Games of 500-750 might be a bit too small for a full table however.

The bigger the table the more deployment and movement count. Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

 Da Boss wrote:
I just hope this weird board size stays GW specific and doesn't leak out into the broader wargaming hobby.

Its already started unfortunately. Conquest (the fantasy game) went to this size because of gw and because game stores don't want to stock special 6x4 game mats that won't be used in 40k when 40k is has and always will be the whale share of their profits. This is not conjecture, this is me speaking as a former vanguard that was on the actual google call with the conquest marketing director explaining to the tier 3 vanguards why this size was chosen.

They have since relented and went back to 6x4 after a large uprising by the conquest players but its still being eyeballed.

Tournament 40k for most areas I have ever been in rules casual game rules as well. Whatever is true for tournament 40k most often bleeds into how you have to play your casual games as well, at least if you are playing at game stores. If you are playing in private at your home then that largely doesn't matter to you.

I know this is also true in AOS land. When we were doing AOS and 40k campaigns, once this 60x44 stuff came out... no one wanted to do for fun campaign games on 6x4 because most people that I've been with use their for fun games as tournament tune up games and want the rules to reflect their tournaments.

 stonehorse wrote:
Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

That..... That's the idea, though.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

Even smaller games 1,000pts plays well on a 6x4. Games of 500-750 might be a bit too small for a full table however.

The bigger the table the more deployment and movement count. Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

GW has long since been moving to minimize maneuver and just get to "the good stuff" for a few years now. It is the point (as poster above comments) that you can just get into melee or threaten the whole table without the need to maneuver into place.

For some thats huge. I'd say for GW's target audience, thats the goal.

For others that want maneuver to matter more you'll need to find a different game.

 auticus wrote:

For others that want maneuver to matter more you'll need to find a different game.

Or ya know, just stop giving a gak about the minimum and play on whatever size table makes you the happiest.

 deviantduck wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

That..... That's the idea, though.

Do you think that your models should find it easy to get to parts of the battlefield, and have a ranged threat that makes getting to grips with the enemy units very easy?

If so, I guess current 40k is perfect for you. Personally I'd rather the game step back to deployment and movement being quite important, which I think was last achieved in 3rd edition.

 auticus wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, playing 40k on a board smaller than 6'x4' just seems odd to me... especially with how threat ranges have only increased as the editions have rolled on.

A 4' x 4' board for smaller games - 1k and below - was always reasonable in prior editions, though.

Even smaller games 1,000pts plays well on a 6x4. Games of 500-750 might be a bit too small for a full table however.

The bigger the table the more deployment and movement count. Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

GW has long since been moving to minimize maneuver and just get to "the good stuff" for a few years now. It is the point (as poster above comments) that you can just get into melee or threaten the whole table without the need to maneuver into place.

For some thats huge. I'd say for GW's target audience, thats the goal.

For others that want maneuver to matter more you'll need to find a different game.

Very true, 40K now is all about the dramatic action that looks busy and not about the subtle action that can be more important to how the game plays.

Hard to give up on 40k entirely, as I said I've been playing it since 2nd edition.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 auticus wrote:

For others that want maneuver to matter more you'll need to find a different game.

Or ya know, just stop giving a gak about the minimum and play on whatever size table makes you the happiest.

That requires your community to allow you to do that. If your community is driven by tournament standards, the only way to play on whatever size table makes you happiest is if you play with yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hard to give up on 40k entirely, as I said I've been playing it since 2nd edition.

I feel you. I started in 3rd. Played it pretty solidly up until a few years ago. The direction the game was moving toward (slowly eroding maneuver, granted I remember the parking lot days of 4th where the guard players just assembled a tank company in their deployment and never moved a hair so I can't say that there was tons of movement then either in a lot of cases... and I remember turbo charged Blood Angels charging on turn 1 in 3rd edition) ate my interest. It culminated with its balance issues and the dominance in my area of the tournament meta - the only way for me to enjoy 40k was to continue to buy new armies and sell old armies regularly to keep up with the bad balance and that got exhausting.

I still monitor it here from time to time to see if anything has changed. The 60x44 stuff really kills it for me because I feel that size is more suited for small scale skirmish games. But considering 40k is about getting into the movie style action from turn 1, it is appropriate for today's game I suppose. Fortunately I have battletech

 stonehorse wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Having a table that is small can mean that units can easily get across it, or/and exert their threat range to all corners of the table.

That..... That's the idea, though.

Do you think that your models should find it easy to get to parts of the battlefield, and have a ranged threat that makes getting to grips with the enemy units very easy?

If so, I guess current 40k is perfect for you. Personally I'd rather the game step back to deployment and movement being quite important, which I think was last achieved in 3rd edition.

Yes. I do think melee units should have the opportunity to get into melee. This is why important shooty units should have screens.

Rolling back the playstyle of 40k's last 6 editions and 2 decades of playing isn't a step back, that's a u-turn and a couple tanks of gas.

Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Key distinction

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

How is that related to board sizes?

It's not.

Turn 1 charges relate to army rules. The no-mans-land between deployment zones has not meaningfully changed. What has changed is the "back field", having been reduced quite a bit. The deployment to deployment distance hasn't changed.

The distance from the front of your deployment to the back of the enemies deployment has reduced. Which can matter sometimes, but most the turn 1 charges are getting pulled off by 36" supermove units, where the changed backfield would barely matter.

Just looks weird and cramped to me on the smaller boards, especially given the larger units like Knight Titans and the base size creep for normal units. I actually played on smaller boards a lot as a kid and you can for sure still have a good game, but 6x4 seems to fit 28mm games at army level moreso.

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

It was a battle though! The 40k/aos players liked the smaller tables and have been pushing for Conquest to let them get into fighting turn 1 as well lol.

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Better than having units deployed in the corner that shoot every turn with no or little chance to charge them.

 auticus wrote:

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

It was a battle though! The 40k/aos players liked the smaller tables and have been pushing for Conquest to let them get into fighting turn 1 as well lol.

Christ almighty. If people are that set on needing fighting on turn 1 maybe they should go play M:TG with a pure haste creature deck, or just stick to video games.

Still, it does show just how much influence GW have on the hobby as a whole. They changed the game size to accommodate their product, them other companies try to copy that as they were all to aware that a lot of battlements and such would be made to the new size...

6x4 battlemats, its just better and is the standard for good games likes one page rules and kings of war. for 9th 40k just use thin foamboard or something to block off want you dont want

Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

Just play whatever size you enjoy and ignore anyone telling you how you’re allowed to have fun.

So we're all in agreement. 60x44 for 40k at 2k.

Not even slightly...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

In the same way that the use of D6s was simply based on what size dice typically are available at hobby shops, and D6s weren't dreamt up as the 'magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming'.

So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

 catbarf wrote:
The game was still designed around 6x4 tables

That's not true though.

 catbarf wrote:


So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

It was and this edition is designed around 60x44. 6x4 was "jUsT tHe MiNiMuM" table size, too. What did everyone default to? 6x4. It will be the same with this edition. 60x44 is just the minimum, but that's what people will play because it's the standard. Also my kitchen table or island will fit a 60x44 but a 6x4 hangs off the edges so it's more convenient if I don't want to break out the gaming table.

 catbarf wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

In the same way that the use of D6s was simply based on what size dice typically are available at hobby shops, and D6s weren't dreamt up as the 'magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming'.

So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

So don’t change then? No one is making you. If you like what the changes bring play that way. If you don’t, don't. What part of this is hard to grasp for so many people?

What part of this is hard to grasp for so many people?

Your community.

If your community provides you players that are happy to play on either table, this is not a problem.

My old community was very rigid in only playing by tournament standard, so if I wanted to play on a 6x4 I had to wade through a lot of bitching and complaining and finding someone willing to do so because "the game isn't balanced on a 6x4 it was designed for 60x44" (also known as "all my games are tournament tuning games and you wanting to play on 6x4 means i'm just wasting my time since I can't use it to tune for anything)

Things are vastly different here in the States in regards to how gaming groups operate as opposed to elsewhere. I know my UK friends all have very open gaming groups that are open to a lot of things, so a lot of what they hear coming from over here baffles them but here there are places where its very very difficult to have people deviate from what they consider a standard.

Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

Cancer is more like it tho, malignant and needing to be excised.

I mean, people can decide to do differently. No group all think alike, so even a hardcore all tourney all the time group will have two people who want a narrative battle. Two in our group play 3rd edition on an 8x4! Anything is possible and you don’t have to do what you don’t want to. Take a bit of control over your hobby and play like minded people.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I mean, people can decide to do differently. No group all think alike, so even a hardcore all tourney all the time group will have two people who want a narrative battle. Two in our group play 3rd edition on an 8x4! Anything is possible and you don’t have to do what you don’t want to. Take a bit of control over your hobby and play like minded people.

As Auticus points out, much of this is a national mindset/style thing. You lot over there tend to do clubs, where it tends to be a much more regular group and finding like minded individuals is often easier. The States, on the other hand, tends to center around stores, where you're more likely to run into people you've never met/played and thus having a more codified way to play has historically been more important(especially for people like myself who are subject to frequent moves). The most expedient and accepted way to do this tends to be by following whatever tournament system is popular in that area and so most people play expecting that style and finding like minded people is much harder.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

Thats another thing where our cultures may differ quite a bit. Over here tournaments are a big chunk of the game. Big enough that they very much influence every other aspect very heavily.

Which is why this table size debate is such a big deal to a lot of people over here.

JohnnyHell, I am not personally impacted by this as I already, as you suggest "take control of my own hobby". But not everyone can do that, because people might live in relatively isolated areas, areas where gaming groups are uncommon, or be in some other way restricted from which groups they can attend by something as simple as a scheduling conflict. These people have to play with whoever they are able to, and have to therefore go along with the consensus from the group. It seems pretty clear that the US at least is much more competitive in general (and this bears out my experience of working with Americans, they tend to enjoy competition more in general I would say) when it comes to wargames and therefore there's more pressure to default to competitive standards as "fair".

So I dunno, try imagining the POV of people dealing with that and having a bit of empathy for them.

 deviantduck wrote:
So we're all in agreement. 60x44 for 40k at 2k.

No, 60x44 is the minimum allowed and 2k is just the most common format. That's it, nothing more.

The game works perfectly by using larger tables and/or smaller formats.

If you feel like you need empathy for being angry about a smaller board, the problem isn't your group though...

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

The people passionately opposing the new board sizes are a vocal minority, most people either don't care and a lot of people prefer the new sizes - because of space, availability and/or gameplay. And don't fool yourself - dakka has long stopped being a representative part of the community.

 Da Boss wrote:
JohnnyHell, I am not personally impacted by this as I already, as you suggest "take control of my own hobby". But not everyone can do that, because people might live in relatively isolated areas, areas where gaming groups are uncommon, or be in some other way restricted from which groups they can attend by something as simple as a scheduling conflict. These people have to play with whoever they are able to, and have to therefore go along with the consensus from the group. It seems pretty clear that the US at least is much more competitive in general (and this bears out my experience of working with Americans, they tend to enjoy competition more in general I would say) when it comes to wargames and therefore there's more pressure to default to competitive standards as "fair".

So I dunno, try imagining the POV of people dealing with that and having a bit of empathy for them.

I have a tonne of empathy for people in such situations, let’s not be so reductive. But threads like this are full of unhelpful whataboutism and folk who simply go with a flow that they dislike. And Karol. All the shifting hypotheticals and lack of personal agency don’t in any way make it easier for people who simply cannot play another way, but I’d wager that isn’t the majority. People need to talk more pre-game and not play games they don’t enjoy.

Imagine for a second my post wasn’t aimed at everyone and we’re closer to being on the same page!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you feel like you need empathy for being angry about a smaller board, the problem isn't your group though...

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

The people passionately opposing the new board sizes are a vocal minority, most people either don't care and a lot of people prefer the new sizes - because of space, availability and/or gameplay. And don't fool yourself - dakka has long stopped being a representative part of the community.

Damn well put.

 Blackie wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Better than having units deployed in the corner that shoot every turn with no or little chance to charge them.

New size actually helps shooting(even more so in AOS). Can't hide from shooting with distance.

Ranged weapons love this board size.

If you hide in your corner you're giving up primaris and you lose. Terrain rules help mitigating long range shooters' effectiveness. Short range powerful weapons like meltas may love this board size, not things like the hammerhead or units that fire from a corner and never move from there.

 Jidmah wrote:

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

Unfortunately, that included ITC rules and we see where that got us.

To actual narrative support from GW in every codex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, that was snarky.

I agree that how the ITC style has swallowed up the perfectly fine matched play rules from before is a problem, but GW is the one who decided that everyone plays that way now, not the players.

I'm fairly sure that a lot of people would play CA2018-style missions if they were printed in the BRB instead of the secondary/primary gameplay style from GT2021.

 Jidmah wrote:
but GW is the one who decided that everyone plays that way now, not the players.

You're not American, so sorry, but that's simply untrue over here. The ITC was a pervasive virus the moment it was introduced in 8th that wormed its way into every game at nearly every store across the US. It became the "default" way to play in the US way before 9th edition made it official. If you weren't playing by ITC rules, people seriously thought you were playing wrong.

It's one of those European vs American things that neither side can really stress enough as a difference in gaming culture.

people seriously thought you were playing wrong.

+1 to that.

We tried doing campaigns using full sized boards and non ITC format and every campaign day was drama-day with guys pitching red-faced fits and claiming we were playing 40k wrong and were teaching new players the "wrong way to play".

I won't even get into the trash fire that was the day we did an urban battle with big buildings and streets and lots and lots of terrain like civilian vehicles etc. It looked amazing but you would have swore someone walked through and was laying personal insult to peoples' houses and families for doing it.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

Cancer is more like it tho, malignant and needing to be excised.

How dare anyone have fun in a different way! My way is the one true way to have fun!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
So we're all in agreement. 60x44 for 40k at 2k.

No, 60x44 is the minimum allowed and 2k is just the most common format. That's it, nothing more.

The game works perfectly by using larger tables and/or smaller formats.

The game works very poorly at a small scale. I played a 500 point game the other day and it wasn't enjoyable. I would much rather play any of GW skirmish systems if there's only going to be 10-12 models per side.

Toofast wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

Cancer is more like it tho, malignant and needing to be excised.

How dare anyone have fun in a different way! My way is the one true way to have fun!

Not my way, you can excise the cancer and stop it spreading or you can continue down the current road and get more and more broken BS that the weak-minded lap up and salivate like a Pavlov dog at the mere mention of...

If GW was interested in making a balanced, competitive game they might be able to. But unfortunately for everyone interested in that, GW doesn't seem to be.

Toofast wrote:


The game works very poorly at a small scale. I played a 500 point game the other day and it wasn't enjoyable. I would much rather play any of GW skirmish systems if there's only going to be 10-12 models per side.

Yeah, 500 points is quite extreme but 1000-1250-1500 are all formats that work fine. Arguably better than 2000.

If GW was interested in making a balanced, competitive game they might be able to

It doesn't sell nearly as well. If the game were balanced people wouldn't need to churn new armies regularly.

When I did the azyr point system for AOS on AOS release - the #1 complaint levied against the azyr system was "balance is boring, you killed listbuilding - listbuilding doesn't matter with your system because everything is too balanced that its not fun".

People enjoy listbuilding and trying to win the game before the game starts. That started wtih magic the gathering in the 90s and bled into tabletop gaming in the 2000s and reached its zenith and continues to ride today as a very popular way of designing games because it sells wildly well.

*speaking as someone in the games dev industry - when we design games often we have rules to make some form of imbalance exist for that very purpose. Marketing. It sells ridiculously well - people like feeling clever by building power lists and winning with them.

This is exactly my point. It's imbalanced and constantly shifting ON PURPOSE!

If you reward the company with "consume mass quantities" you will get only mass quantities.

Don't fall for the glamour and "Don't believe the hype!"(but said like Flava Flav)

Totally agree.

But I don't see that reward ever stopping for gw, the player base steam shovels cash to them for their product. They have no incentive to stop with the imbalance... its made them the #1 tabletop gaming daddy on the market.

Which is why I pay GW what I do for their 40k rules...which is what they're worth, nothing.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Which is why I pay GW what I do for their 40k rules...which is what they're worth, nothing.

When even the big youtubers use wahapedia to get their rules.... should ring some bells at GW HQ. (Sadly it probably means they'll just have their lawyers send angry letter to russia again)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Which is why I pay GW what I do for their 40k rules...which is what they're worth, nothing.

When even the big youtubers use wahapedia to get their rules.... should ring some bells at GW HQ. (Sadly it probably means they'll just have their lawyers send angry letter to russia again)

They have to because if you get them from the book, they're probably outdated. For example the Custodes book will be valid for exactly 1 week. 7 days after it releases, another book is coming out that will change points and rules for that army and invalidate a lot of the stuff in their codex. Literally what is the point of making a $50 printed book that will be invalidated by another printed $35 book the following weekend?

Toofast wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Which is why I pay GW what I do for their 40k rules...which is what they're worth, nothing.

When even the big youtubers use wahapedia to get their rules.... should ring some bells at GW HQ. (Sadly it probably means they'll just have their lawyers send angry letter to russia again)

They have to because if you get them from the book, they're probably outdated. For example the Custodes book will be valid for exactly 1 week. 7 days after it releases, another book is coming out that will change points and rules for that army and invalidate a lot of the stuff in their codex. Literally what is the point of making a $50 printed book that will be invalidated by another printed $35 book the following weekend?

Cuz idiots and their money are soon parted ways.