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.

I used to play in 8x4 tables. You had proper flanks and initial setup really mattered because redeploying across the board was unfeasible. But different tables bring different challenges, and different people will enjoy them more or less.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Why stop at 6x4? 8x4 should be standard. Make weapon ranges and melee unit deployment relevant.

This^^

I mean, you can't really go more than 4' across the middle because of difficulty reaching, and if you make your tables too wide you start to restrict how many you can fit in a given play space. If the table feels too cramped you could also reduce move speeds and weapon ranges to compensate; there are plenty of historical games where you sort of need to (Black Powder doesn't work that well on 6'x4' until you halve all distances).

I stick to 6 by 4 because that's the size of the game mat I bought and I'll be damned if GW or some 3rd party company get me to buy another one just because they artificially want to constrain the game table size. Personally I like the extra space.

We used to have an 8x5 table. That was great for making manoeuvre and ranges important.

Currently we're playing 25 and 50 power level games so we're playing on various sizes from the minimum to 4x4 and we can play up to 6x4.

When we get round to playing some larger games I'll have to see if I can arrange for an even bigger board so we can go back to 8x5. Most 40k armies move so quickly these days I think that a larger board size will make for more impactful choices.

I really dont like the smaller tables. Makes first turn charges and short range weapons way more powerful than they used to be. Also crowds the objectives in closer which means armies that rely on ranged firepower can have a hard time. Weapons like battlecannon, supakannon, and railgun seem kind of pointless on these smaller tables.

Also I dont like how everyone just acts like 6x4 is pointless now and just throwing them out for the new weird table size. I get GW made the new size so their cardboard table toppers would actually be usable, but its really annoying

To be honest, the smaller tables have grown on me. I had just moved internationally less than a year prior to 9th launching and didn't have any 6x4 mats as a result, so I've embraced the new norm.

But guys, if lethality is so high in 40k with 1000+ points removed every turn, after turn 1 it should be plenty of room to maneuver even in 44'' x 60'' tables, don't you think?

Also, for those who aren't obsessed with tournaments' standards, note that smaller formats exist . 1250-1500-1750 are all played on 44'' x 60'' just like 2000 points games.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

Oh thank you for the beautifully written response as to why it's the opposite. Indulge me in the details and you'll find a worthwhile discussion

Nah, don't feel like it. I mean I don't want to kick your crutch out from under you if you need small tables so that you don't have to worry about things like ""deploying properly", "being in range" or "delivering assault units".

I mean, if you read the post you quoted, you'd see I referred to the army I play, where all of those things actually matter.

If you honestly think you have more room to manoeuvrer and get out of range of things on a smaller board then I have no idea what to say. You are literally gone in the head if you think that...

Not once did I say you have more room, I said movement matters more, and that you know assault is almost a sure thing, you clearly are unable to read just like the other fella. Nice try.

But it doesn't matter more. It matters less because as you said yourself the charge is inevitable due to the smaller space and its not like the direction you get charged from matters. You're contradicting yourself in your own post.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But it doesn't matter more. It matters less because as you said yourself the charge is inevitable due to the smaller space and its not like the direction you get charged from matters. You're contradicting yourself in your own post.

It's not a contradiction at all, just because a charge is highly likely, nay inevitable, it doesn't mean movement matters less. You can still prepare for assault through your movement phase and influence what gets charged, and how you can prevent additional movement in the pile in and consolidate steps. Move blocks, screening etc. are all proof of this. Concerning direction of charge, sure there is no special rules, but that didn't matter on a bigger board either, so moot point. That being said, direction probably does matter in general because of the need to score or deny primaries as well as secondaries, but that's applicable to both board sizes. That is why movement matters more on small boards, because if you play poorly with smaller board sizes, you get punished.

At this point you contribute nothing to this conversation considering you can't back up your own statements as to why 6x4 is actually better, you're just having a salty moan. It's very apparent based on your post history that you just want to gak on the game. You've not played the game in a while either, that figures.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
But it doesn't matter more. It matters less because as you said yourself the charge is inevitable due to the smaller space and its not like the direction you get charged from matters. You're contradicting yourself in your own post.

It's not a contradiction at all, just because a charge is highly likely, nay inevitable, it doesn't mean movement matters less. You can still prepare for assault through your movement phase and influence what gets charged, and how you can prevent additional movement in the pile in and consolidate steps. Move blocks, screening etc. are all proof of this. Concerning direction of charge, sure there is no special rules, but that didn't matter on a bigger board either, so moot point. That being said, direction probably does matter in general because of the need to score or deny primaries as well as secondaries, but that's applicable to both board sizes. That is why movement matters more on small boards, because if you play poorly with smaller board sizes, you get punished.

At this point you contribute nothing to this conversation considering you can't back up your own statements as to why 6x4 is actually better, you're just having a salty moan. It's very apparent based on your post history that you just want to gak on the game. You've not played the game in a while either, that figures.

My evidence for 6x4 is better for movement is that there is LITERALLY MORE ROOM TO MOVE. That is an objective fact.

We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Honestly, there's no reason why you shouldn't play 2k matches on a 3x3 board, it's not like more space is good.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Literally nothing you listed as being good on a small board cannot be done on a larger board.
Except your opponent can manoeuvre around your screen. You might move something to avoid a charge then be out of range of what you want to shoot or what YOU hoped to charge. Note that these are all negatives for YOU, because sometimes the possibility of bad things happening to you and working around them is what makes games interesting.

Smaller boards a crutch. They're the wargame equivalent of a participation trophy, designed to make sure that no matter how badly you set up or play everyone gets to have a go at charging or shooting (unless they die first because everyone is in range of everyone).

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Literally nothing you listed as being good on a small board cannot be done on a larger board.
Except your opponent can manoeuvre around your screen. You might move something to avoid a charge then be out of range of what you want to shoot or what YOU hoped to charge.

Smaller boards a crutch. They're the wargame equivalent of a participation trophy, designed to make sure that no matter how badly you set up or play everyone gets to have a go at charging or shooting (unless they die first because everyone is in range of everyone).

And you've literally said nothing on the contrary to back up why I'm wrong. If you screen well enough, your opponent won't move around the screen, so there's that reason out.

You might move something to avoid a charge then be out of range of what you want to shoot or what YOU hoped to charge.

This is called counter play, you probably haven't heard of it because you don't play the game. They aren't negatives either, because a good player knows when and where to use units at optimal for them. Anyway, this still applies to your big board philosophy.

With all your whine, I need some

i prefer the new smaller size. that said my table is 8x4 so there is space for mini storage on either end for reserves or casualties. 4x6 works but with the newer unit movement being smaller than before it means some armies (liek my orks when running intanftry lists) go from bad to worse as they never get into combat before being shot off the board

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Literally nothing you listed as being good on a small board cannot be done on a larger board.
Except your opponent can manoeuvre around your screen. You might move something to avoid a charge then be out of range of what you want to shoot or what YOU hoped to charge.

Smaller boards a crutch. They're the wargame equivalent of a participation trophy, designed to make sure that no matter how badly you set up or play everyone gets to have a go at charging or shooting (unless they die first because everyone is in range of everyone).

And you've literally said nothing on the contrary to back up why I'm wrong. If you screen well enough, your opponent won't move around the screen, so there's that reason out.

You might move something to avoid a charge then be out of range of what you want to shoot or what YOU hoped to charge.

This is called counter play, you probably haven't heard of it because you don't play the game. They aren't negatives either, because a good player knows when and where to use units at optimal for them. Anyway, this still applies to your big board philosophy.

With all your whine, I need some

I noticed you don't actually have any salient arguments beyond "nu uh you're just a whiner who doesn't play" so I'm done here.

I mean, I countered every point you made but okay

Personally, I prefer playing on the 6x4 board. I think that increasing the space to maneuver makes the game better because if offers more player choice. It also makes move blocking and screening more challenging which I think is good. Granted I play mechanized Iron warriors so I like having a purpose for my rhinos and land raider.

That being said I have no issue with playing the minimum size if my opponent prefers it. It’s not a difference that ruins the fun of the game.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Like I alluded to in my post - a bigger board just incentivizes different units. Slower infantry will be dropped in favor of things that can cross the broader objective map.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
We aren't discussing whether a 6x4 is better for movement though, we're talking about whether it matters more and why a smaller boards are better. More room to move ≠ better though, that's subjective at best and you still fail to respond with any decent argument against my own, instead changing the argument ever so slightly.

Like I alluded to in my post - a bigger board just incentivizes different units. Slower infantry will be dropped in favor of things that can cross the broader objective map.

Can't disagree with you there.

 Irbis wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Football players also practice on official sized fields, and if it's too big, they mark portions off limits. Or did they lost the plot too?

Not a football fan then?

Anfield – 100 yards by 74 yards (101m x 68m)
Camp Nou – 114 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Emirates Stadium –115 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Etihad Stadium – 115 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Old Trafford – 116 yards by 76 yards (106m x 69m)
Stamford Bridge – 112 yards by 73 yards (103m x 67m)
White Hart Lane – 109 yards by 73 yards (100m x 67m)

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Football players also practice on official sized fields, and if it's too big, they mark portions off limits. Or did they lost the plot too?

Not a football fan then?

Anfield – 100 yards by 74 yards (101m x 68m)
Camp Nou – 114 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Emirates Stadium –115 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Etihad Stadium – 115 yards by 74 yards (105m x 68m)
Old Trafford – 116 yards by 76 yards (106m x 69m)
Stamford Bridge – 112 yards by 73 yards (103m x 67m)
White Hart Lane – 109 yards by 73 yards (100m x 67m)

I mean I think your quotes broke but sportball is not comparible to miniature wargames so lets not go down the faulty analogy road.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I mean, I countered every point you made but okay

No, you really didn't. Your arguments were not the stellar retorts you thought they were.

To the topic at hand, I agree with HBMCs notion that the 'new' table size has nothing at all to do with improving gameplay and that's why I'll never play on the minimum sized boards. With weapon ranges being what they are now, even a 6x4 makes it pretty easy to shoot whatever you want whenever you want.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I mean, I countered every point you made but okay

No, you really didn't. Your arguments were not the stellar retorts you thought they were.

By all means, make your arguments against them instead of just saying "nah" like the last guy. I never said they were stellar, but they are adequate and valid reasons.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I mean, I countered every point you made but okay

No, you really didn't. Your arguments were not the stellar retorts you thought they were.

By all means, make your arguments against them instead of just saying "nah" like the last guy. I never said they were stellar, but they are adequate and valid reasons.

No, they're not.

See- I can do this too!

I like the new board sizes as I have a small apartment, my minis have to live in a box and 44"x30" can fit on the kitchen table, meaning I actually have a chance at playing, since I can get my mobility scooter around the table easy.

 Blndmage wrote:
I like the new board sizes as I have a small apartment, my minis have to live in a box and 44"x30" can fit on the kitchen table, meaning I actually have a chance at playing, since I can get my mobility scooter around the table easy.

You needed GW to tell you to use a table size that'd fit in your apartment??

ccs wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I like the new board sizes as I have a small apartment, my minis have to live in a box and 44"x30" can fit on the kitchen table, meaning I actually have a chance at playing, since I can get my mobility scooter around the table easy.

You needed GW to tell you to use a table size that'd fit in your apartment??

Apparently the vast majority of players wants standardization and wouldn't accept playing in a "non official" table. So yeah, GW convincing those stubborn players that it's ok to play on a table that fits in a small apartment is gold .

Worked with my group as well. While toning up/down lists has never been a problem here, convincing players to use different points formats and table sizes from the "standard" values is much harder, in my experience.