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.

Has anyone tried playing games on 6' x 4' tables recently? If so, how does the extra space work out in 9th?

My various aeldari armies feel like they're too confined to use their speed to kite/outmaneuver the enemy, instead turning their high Movement into a tool exclusively for flying straight at the enemy. Plus, a lot of the complaints I see are directed towards things like multimeltas whose limited reach would be more of a liability on larger tables.

I get that 8th edition was rough on melee armies and that the smaller tables were partially meant to address that, but perhaps the 9th edition primary objectives already offer enough incentive to scoot your models forward rather than going full gunline?

I particularly love the new table sieze. Probably because I also like the mission structure. And 9th edition has rules for imaginary blind spots.

All in all I am quite happy with 9th edition.

My regular opponent is an ork. So games VS them are always up in your face.

Bigger tables are always better, personally (and I play footslogging Death Guard that would benefit from being confined ).

More maneuvering space, less aura bubbling, more deployment decisions than selecting one lane of advance, transports can actually be relevant for armies other than Drukhari as well, weapons don't necessarily reach all the way across the field and so on. As battlefields go, it's still a very small brawl at a pub corner, but it still looks and feels better for casual play and narratives. I never play below 4'x4' if I have a choice, even with 1k forces.

Why stop at 6x4? 8x4 should be standard. Make weapon ranges and melee unit deployment relevant.

I love the new table size as I mostly play at home or friend's homes since covid, and 6'x4' is hard to fit.

I'd rather decrease points budget, like playing 1500 points games, than playing on larger tables if I feel that 44'' x 60'' tables look too crowded after deployment.

I haven't played 6' x 4' since 7th.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Has anyone tried playing games on 6' x 4' tables recently? If so, how does the extra space work out in 9th?

Yup.

Deployment matters more, movement matters more. Guns don't have range to everything at will so you can even cover some by simply being out of range. Fun.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Has anyone tried playing games on 6' x 4' tables recently? If so, how does the extra space work out in 9th?

My various aeldari armies feel like they're too confined to use their speed to kite/outmaneuver the enemy, instead turning their high Movement into a tool exclusively for flying straight at the enemy. Plus, a lot of the complaints I see are directed towards things like multimeltas whose limited reach would be more of a liability on larger tables.

I get that 8th edition was rough on melee armies and that the smaller tables were partially meant to address that, but perhaps the 9th edition primary objectives already offer enough incentive to scoot your models forward rather than going full gunline?

It plays well for the most part, stops it being a clumped up mess of models fighting over the middle quite so much. I would say if you're a melee army going into a ranged force, anything deploying on short edges still gives the "oh I guess you'll just shoot me while I try and make it over to your back line" feeling a little bit if the abuse the extra depth, but obscuring terrain and the objectives do help a little. I got my world eaters army shot apart by an ork gunline that kept moving back but had a clear victory on points for example.

I thought the 'new table size' was just a minimum table size, in case people didn't have proper 4'x6' tables available.

 Nurglitch wrote:
I thought the 'new table size' was just a minimum table size, in case people didn't have proper 4'x6' tables available.

Players will often gravitate towards a standard, especially if they have best access to mats and board sizes that fit that standard.

We find the game does Improve with the 6x4, but we also modify buildings rules and a few other things if we do play.

Apple fox wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
I thought the 'new table size' was just a minimum table size, in case people didn't have proper 4'x6' tables available.

Players will often gravitate towards a standard, especially if they have best access to mats and board sizes that fit that standard.

We find the game does Improve with the 6x4, but we also modify buildings rules and a few other things if we do play.

The insane thing is, even if players have access to a dozen literally custom-made 6x4 and 8x4 tables, with a matching dozen 6x4 mats, they will STILL play on the 'minimum' table size because following along with the 'tournament standard' (and complaining about how gakky it makes your game) is preferable to doing the easier thing and just using the table as it was built and designed for a better game.

Well, and to be fair, playing on a smaller table is easier than playing on a larger one (in terms of pre-game and external logistics), so as soon as the minimum recommended size shrank, so too would the tables.

I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

Movement should matter more with weapon ranges and more terrain to block sight.
We find it’s way more movement on our board, also with the bigger units they have room to manoeuvre around far more.

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

It's literally the opposite.

All I'll say is the game plays differently and you need different considerations ( e.g. more screening units ). Some armies benefit more from a larger table. There is no other info I can give, because not enough games are played on such tables to define what armies would really look like.

Still so many people act as though this "minimum sized board" had anything to do with game play...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, and to be fair, playing on a smaller table is easier than playing on a larger one (in terms of pre-game and external logistics), so as soon as the minimum recommended size shrank, so too would the tables.

As soon as you start putting down tape to mask off sections of your (no doubt very expensive) 6x4 mat, I think you've lost the plot though.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, and to be fair, playing on a smaller table is easier than playing on a larger one (in terms of pre-game and external logistics), so as soon as the minimum recommended size shrank, so too would the tables.

As soon as you start putting down tape to mask off sections of your (no doubt very expensive) 6x4 mat, I think you've lost the plot though.

truth

 Sim-Life wrote:

It's literally the opposite.

"Literally the opposite" even though you actually need skill to win now instead of autowinning against most armies on the back of broken mechanics like Eldar jetbikes/planes/fleet or Tau double move? Wot?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As soon as you start putting down tape to mask off sections of your (no doubt very expensive) 6x4 mat, I think you've lost the plot though.

Maybe if all you care about are fluffy narrative and crusade games, but a lot of people want to be better at the game (because they enjoy challenge or play in tournaments or whatever) and the only way to do that is knowing how the army plays on 'official' tables, not houseruled ones. 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?

 Irbis wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

It's literally the opposite.

"Literally the opposite" even though you actually need skill to win now

Let me just stop you right there.

Apple fox wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

Movement should matter more with weapon ranges and more terrain to block sight.
We find it’s way more movement on our board, also with the bigger units they have room to manoeuvre around far more.

I would disagree and agree, Eldar are a movement based army with short weapon ranges, but given the state of their codex, they feel the heat. Playing on a board with sufficient terrain, most games are close run and weapon ranges matter less. More space means more movement of course, but that extra space gives you the margin for error that I previously mentioned. Personally, larger units should be hindered by terrain, that's what it's there for as well as blocking LoS.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

It's literally the opposite.

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

Adding an edit to say that I agree with Irbis, not all armies require a whole lot of skill to win with, but winning on a regular basis with that army given the size of the board and the lethality of the game is a skill in itself. It is why you have regularly top placing players at events.

 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".

 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.

"Literally the opposite" even though you actually need skill to win now instead of autowinning against most armies on the back of broken mechanics like Eldar jetbikes/planes/fleet or Tau double move? Wot?

Oh no, who ever heard of manouver winning battles!

They will never go through the Ardennes, it's impassable!

I don't think I've ever played on anything smaller than 6x4(other than Necromunda(not enuff terrain) & Titanicus(not enuff titans).

If anything I prefer an 8x4 with both sides starting touching the table edge

 Tyranid Horde wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

Movement should matter more with weapon ranges and more terrain to block sight.
We find it’s way more movement on our board, also with the bigger units they have room to manoeuvre around far more.

I would disagree and agree, Eldar are a movement based army with short weapon ranges, but given the state of their codex, they feel the heat. Playing on a board with sufficient terrain, most games are close run and weapon ranges matter less. More space means more movement of course, but that extra space gives you the margin for error that I previously mentioned. Personally, larger units should be hindered by terrain, that's what it's there for as well as blocking LoS.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
I really feel the minimum board size is the way to go. It forces you to play better and not just sit back and kite an assault army for days. Now, you know an assault will come, it's just a matter of prepping for it and knowing what you can do to mitigate it.

I'm playing Eldar, and while it's tougher on a smaller board, I think I'm a better player for it. Movement matters in an army where movement is their shtick. I have played on 6x4s in this edition and it's not the same experience, there's more wiggle room and margin for error.

It's literally the opposite.

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

Adding an edit to say that I agree with Irbis, not all armies require a whole lot of skill to win with, but winning on a regular basis with that army given the size of the board and the lethality of the game is a skill in itself. It is why you have regularly top placing players at events.

That just isn’t something I see, not on our table or in battlereps. Being that both players have the bigger area, it should just add more interesting ability to move.
But.. I say this also as we have 10 large buildings that make anything GW has for terrain look stupid small. So we can utilise the space way more interesting than the standard rules. So eh, who knows.
More space shouldn’t open up any more margins for error, as any real advantage you get is lost by being push more out of position.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, and to be fair, playing on a smaller table is easier than playing on a larger one (in terms of pre-game and external logistics), so as soon as the minimum recommended size shrank, so too would the tables.

As soon as you start putting down tape to mask off sections of your (no doubt very expensive) 6x4 mat, I think you've lost the plot though.

truth

or putting down tape on mats that are supposed to be collectively owned by the group...grouch grouch grouch.

If you want to play on the standard napkin you can play on the standard napkin, just dont require everyone else to as well by putting tape on it or cutting the mats up.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Has anyone tried playing games on 6' x 4' tables recently? If so, how does the extra space work out in 9th?

Short answer: Yep. Works fine.

Longer answer: What extra space? The range of my guns didn't change, the speed of my models didn't change, my Monolith aside the size of 99.9999% of my models didn't change. My tape measure didn't change....
My opponents stuff didn't change.
The size of our average battles hasn't changed (2k pts)
The terrain on my shelves? Well, I've built some more over the past year. So I have even more options on top of "plenty".

The only thing that's really changed? The exact pts value of various models have fluctuated up/down. In some cases that means a force is a few models smaller than it was before pts went up. I don't know about you, but I don't count the area those missing models used to take up as now being "extra space"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

While I'd love an 8x4 table there IS a practical limit to what'll comfortably fit within my game room. :(
So 6x4 will have to suffice & we'll just have to not get any fatter in 2022....

I find it hard to respect the people that hacked up their perfectly good 6x4 table mats to play tournament standard 40k/AoS.

I just got and cut up two pieces of wood about an inch or two thick, to put overtop of the mat. It's cut to the right size to section the board down to 60x44 or whatever the new dimension is I don't recall off the top of my dome.

Makes for a nice side-table too, to put books/dice/dead models on, rather than just making a smaller table.

 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...

One of the things that surprises me about the discussion so far:

Because of the way maps are designed in 9th ed missions- generally mapped from the center line out wards, playing on a bigger table without modifications to the map doesn't change the theatre of battle by much- it just makes the deployment zones bigger. If you drop an onslaught map onto an 8x4, all of the objectives will still be clustered in the center of the 90x44, which will be in the center of the 96x48.

It's easy enough to make the modifications to the missions to increase the distance between objectives, or from the inner edge of your deployment zone to the objectives... But it is a process.

Personally, I like big tables when I can get them, but I most often play at people's houses or apartments, so 6x4 is challenging. and 8x4 is almost impossible.

I use 15x15 tiles, so six of them gives me 30X45- fine for combat patrol games and literally sita comfortably on the coffee table. I can add 3 tiles to get 45X45, which I find WAY better for Incursion than trying to squeeze that into the small board. My design allows me to have 4 table sizes rather than 3 like GW's cardboard- 4 sizes of game, IMHO SHOULD have 4 sizes of board, not 3.

I think Combat Patrol on a 6x4 might feel too empty; on an 8x4, I think it would feel too empty for sure... Although if both players made use of transports for a custom narrative scenario, either could be cool.

Incursion and Strike Force would feel good on a 6x4. Onslaught is the only size that I think really justifies 8x4.