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.

They are pretty popular, and it seems like putting skaven on round bases as in the picture, you would need a larger table to fit an army, since they now take up so much more room spaced out. That or terrain is going to be like one tree per table corner to fit your guys on.

It seems like something they would do. make the game 6x8 for the extra room for your new round bases you buy to redo your models, and oh hey, you can buy a unique larger sized fat mat from them too!

GW sells their own gaming board that you can buy extra tiles to make the battle field larger

6x8 would be way to huge for regular games, it would be a massive disadvantage for the attempt at sale if people needed a playing surface of that size.
I honestly don't think GW would even try and make that a standard.
Unless they come up with a tool to reach into the middle of the table.

Once upon a time (read 3rd/4th edition) the standard table size was 4x8. GW changed it to 4x6 because most stores didnt have space for the 4x8. Unfortunately, the game plays very poorly at 4x6 at the standard pts sizes (1500-2500) and would benefit greatly, gameplay wise, from increased table space or reduced points values.

The current game does nicely with an 8' table, you start to have a bit of space to try and flank things, plus mobility pays off more.

Extra depth is ok, but needs one of two things:
1. keep the deployment areas with a 24" gap between the forces

or

2. Add an extra turn or two to the game.

Depth works better for some armies than others, but isn't the handicap it was before the longer random charge ranges came in, can help gunlines though so care is needed.


What does work very well though.. a 5'x8' table - with a 6'x4' area marked out in the middle, space at the ends for models and at the sides for dice and ahhhh 'overhang' without squashing anything.

Can't see GW increasing the table size, in fact can see making a 4' square table more viable (fits better with the smaller stores they now have for basic games)

Apple fox wrote:
6x8 would be way to huge for regular games, it would be a massive disadvantage for the attempt at sale if people needed a playing surface of that size.
I honestly don't think GW would even try and make that a standard.
Unless they come up with a tool to reach into the middle of the table.

I'm not sure GW care about the practicality of actually playing a game any more.

Plus not many houses in the UK actually have enough room for a 6x8 table lol

I think the perfect size in an ideal world would be 6'x8', then you have the space to really notice the impact of range and speed, have the space to properly outmaneuver, and have to risk units getting isolated from the main force.

On the question, no gw wouldn't do that, you play a game size that fits the space you have, and the points systems supports that approach.