Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:


But maybe they did some market research into the average size of a playing surface? Maybe that size really is closer to the "kitchen table" size most people have at home and improves accessibility?

Yeah, I praised the changes as I couldn't play at home with 1001+ points armies otherwise. Standard size was definitely too big.

To be honest the bigger table that I have is still smaller than the minimum size, it's 40'' wide instead of 44''. Not a big deal though, I've played some games simply reducing both deployment zones by a couple of inches and we couldn't notice any significant difference than playing with the correct size.

Bitharne, you are probably right, it is to do with manufacturing standards, probably the maximum size their printer could make or whatever.
Perhaps the smaller home table effect is just a happy accident.

Blackie: Yeah, I have a 72x36 inch table at home and I just reduce the deployment zones by 6" for our games, it works fine. For really big games I would probably hit problems but we are usually only playing with max 50 or so models on a side.

 Sunsanvil wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, I've been hearing a lot about how 9th Edition calls for smaller play areas (and all that that implies), but isnt the wording "minimum"? As in 44"x30" is the minimum for a Patrol/Incursion, 44"x60" minimum for Strike Force etc? Whats to stop people from playing larger tables?

Yes, table size is a minimum value. As has been pointed out, this is GW attempting to get people to play with the cardboard tiles they've made for Kill Team, so they can try to make more money out of people.

Admittedly, they might want to sell more than one style of reversable board for anyone sensible to take them seriously, but there you go.

And then you have the tournament tryhards on the playtest team which had mats for sale at the new minimum sizes suspiciously quickly - and who will push for people to use these sizes in their events so they can try to shift their stock.

Point being, you and your group should play with the board sizes you have and feel comfortable with - if that means playing a 1,000 point game on a 6x4, gopher it, so long as you're taking appropriate precautions given the ongoing global situation, of course.

Yeah I think most garage gamers play on whatever surface they have. I use my dinner table at the moment, when I was a kid we had an old pool table, and in uni we had a big slab of MDF.

If I was gonna go for a bespoke surface these days I would probably go for 6'x4' because that is the standard outside of the GW ecosystem and I would rather abide by that. You can always shrink a play surface down with a frame as some have mentioned here but you can't make it bigger.

It's worth pointing out that some of the onslaught missions don't fit on 6'x4' tables as the minimum table size is 90"x44", which is wider than 6'

I think the ideal table size in a perfect world where space etc is no question would be 8x4, I'd almost never use the whole thing but as has been mentioned tis easy enough to block areas off.

That said I do find it nice IF they've created a game that works on areas that will be more commonly found. Depends on whether it's a money making thing solely or this was taken into account with the game design really!