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.

 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.