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.

Good evening fellas,

I wanted to test the water with an idea me and a friend had last time we played. Long story short, our armies are both growing in number & strength and our table is getting narrowereverytime. As we want to play with our full minis collection (~3000pts), we thought on playing on the floor on a, let's say, 5mx5m surfacemaximum, with plenty of scenery.

We think that it would add more tactical flavour to the game as we would have to plan very carefully our moves. It would also represent a real battle better, with perhaps more sub-battles in various places of the battlefield. But, we're also conscious that 40k was not designed for such scale; we would play longer, issues would certainly raise and tbh, we really don't know what could or could not work rulewise.

What do you think about this? Do you think it could work? What would we have to expect in term of gameplay?
Help would be very much appreciated

If you have the space and terrain to do it well I think it would improve the experience.

The longest ranged units which currently don't really benefit after they reach 3'-4' would see more value. Positioning and force concentration would become more important.

You would have to think ahead more as most armies couldn't mass react to threats unless balled up and that could lead to problems in and of itself. (Though the pointy eared rich would get richer in this scenario)

I think once you start getting to 3k~4k points and higher its recommended to increase the board size.

I have played a couple apocolypse level games where we would just slide one or two 6x4 tables together. It works really well. In the one where it was 4 tables combined, there was actually a little too much board to cover because we deployed hammer and anvil meaning the board edges were 12 feet apart. We probably should have moved up the deployment zone.

But I have seen a good dawn of war deployment setup using 2 6x4 tables put together on their short edges. So this made a 12x4 table. make the 12' edges your deployment edges and that gives you a very long area to deploy everything, but also puts you the same distance away from your enemy.

So I would encourage you to increase the board sizes as you go. I would also encourage you to try and vary deployment areas and reserve rules.

That can make things interesting when everyone deploys half their army first, and then everything comes in automatically on the 2nd turn. the board goes from sparse to packed immediately.

You would have to think ahead more as most armies couldn't mass react to threats unless balled up and that could lead to problems in and of itself. (Though the pointy eared rich would get richer in this scenario)

That may be a problem but I tend to think that it would actually add more fluff to our games. He's playing Eldar, I play IG. I'll certainly be outmanoeuvered by antigrav and DSing WK but it's actually like this Eldar are expected to fight.

That can make things interesting when everyone deploys half their army first, and then everything comes in automatically on the 2nd turn. the board goes from sparse to packed immediately.

Yeah, we actually hate when we are assaulted on turn 2 due to board size... But what about the range difference between weapons? If distances get greater, ordnance and heavy weapons like Prism Cannons would become a very big threat. Would short ranged infantry and assault units become useless? Would they always die without doing nothing?

 Icculus wrote:
I think once you start getting to 3k~4k points and higher its recommended to increase the board size.

I have played a couple apocolypse level games where we would just slide one or two 6x4 tables together. It works really well. In the one where it was 4 tables combined, there was actually a little too much board to cover because we deployed hammer and anvil meaning the board edges were 12 feet apart. We probably should have moved up the deployment zone.

But I have seen a good dawn of war deployment setup using 2 6x4 tables put together on their short edges. So this made a 12x4 table. make the 12' edges your deployment edges and that gives you a very long area to deploy everything, but also puts you the same distance away from your enemy.

So I would encourage you to increase the board sizes as you go. I would also encourage you to try and vary deployment areas and reserve rules.

That can make things interesting when everyone deploys half their army first, and then everything comes in automatically on the 2nd turn. the board goes from sparse to packed immediately.

This. For large games, we usually slam the short edges together, then play 10x4, giving each player a 1' edge for their books, dice, etc.

I've never understood why the width of the table never seems to be as important as length. If you have the space, why not try a 6x8 instead of a 12x4? It'd certainly make maneuvering your forces a more important part of the game.

I think any size playing surface can work so long as you get no dead zone where you can not reach to move models.

Play on the floor! Use the whole room!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
HG Wells would agree.

I have always had this dream...play an entire room floor, with full terrain. Run 8-10k points on a side. Run over a week or so. It would be about pure tactics! Sure it may take 3 turns to run and flat out your troops to where you want them, but it would make cover and strategy actually important. Running from cover to cover! Short run roll? Your guys didn't get to cover fast enough! Plus imagine having a squadron of Basilisks sitting mid field, trying to shell enemy infantry, while fliers come I. And try to blow up the arty! Some day, I home, I can make this happen.

I'd recommend extending the length of the playing area, but keep the width at 4'. If you want a wider board, just make sure you're deployment zones are still 2 feet apart. That's a crucial part of the game, IMO. Extending the deployment zones can be crippling to certain armies.

Seems like an aweful idea for an IG army. Eldar with their jetbikes and spiders will be on objectives turn 1, while IG will probably fail to do it. So its like giving an extra free turn to the eldar player. Something they totaly do not need to win vs IG.
I hope he doesn't also use deep striking units though. Then it could get realy bad for IG.

Play on the floor! Use the whole room!

That's what we will do yes ! He has whole room dedicated to 40k and it's pretty big.

Seems like an aweful idea for an IG army. Eldar with their jetbikes and spiders will be on objectives turn 1, while IG will probably fail to do it. So its like giving an extra free turn to the eldar player. Something they totaly do not need to win vs IG.
I hope he doesn't also use deep striking units though. Then it could get realy bad for IG.

I already know this and I wanted to play like this only for fun and realism. Plus I think I will be able to keep up with the pace. Jet bikes are quick but not quicker than an 120'' Earthshaker salvo. I will also have DSunits, Valkyries and Chimeras and I'll make sure he will have to be careful too with my superior ordnance. It will be hard but it's a friendly game and I don't mind losing to a buddy.

 infinite_array wrote:
I've never understood why the width of the table never seems to be as important as length. If you have the space, why not try a 6x8 instead of a 12x4? It'd certainly make maneuvering your forces a more important part of the game.

The practical issue is moving the models at the center of the table (you can't reach them). In my basement gaming, I have a 6x4, a 6x5, and two 4x4's. we usually put the two 4x4's together to make a 8x4, and this is much, much easier to play on than to play, for instance, on a 6x8. We've tried, that, and when the shortest distance to your model is 3' from the edge, you need gorilla arms to move them

I think that the widest *comfortable* table is 5', and the widest playable table (unless you have mutant players) is 6-6.5' -- and that is including any lip.

If you play on the floor, of course, you have the advantage of stepping onto your gaming surface. But be very careful...

Oh, the other practical issue with a large table with thousands of points per side is that you better have a day or two to play it, because the turns literally take forever Or, you can play with "1 h limit / turn" but I hate that. What's the point of thousands of points, if you don't get to play them!

Oh, the other practical issue with a large table with thousands of points per side is that you better have a day or two to play it, because the turns literally take forever Or, you can play with "1 h limit / turn" but I hate that. What's the point of thousands of points, if you don't get to play them!

Ahah sure. Apocalypse is sooo well-designed. Me and my friend put a limit at 3000 precisely because we don't want to play for a week. I think 3000 and a 3x greater terrain would be a good trade-off.

 RazgrizOne wrote:
Good evening fellas,

I wanted to test the water with an idea me and a friend had last time we played. Long story short, our armies are both growing in number & strength and our table is getting narrowereverytime. As we want to play with our full minis collection (~3000pts), we thought on playing on the floor on a, let's say, 5mx5m surfacemaximum, with plenty of scenery.

We think that it would add more tactical flavour to the game as we would have to plan very carefully our moves. It would also represent a real battle better, with perhaps more sub-battles in various places of the battlefield. But, we're also conscious that 40k was not designed for such scale; we would play longer, issues would certainly raise and tbh, we really don't know what could or could not work rulewise.

What do you think about this? Do you think it could work? What would we have to expect in term of gameplay?
Help would be very much appreciated

I think 5 meters x 5 meters might be a bit too big for 3,000 points. But larger battlefields can be a lot of fun and allow for more flexibility.

A couple house rules you might consider:

- units that run always move 6" so that infantry units can make up some ground and not be left out from a couple bad run rolls
- allow reserves to move on from any edge originally bordering your deployment zone, so units aren't moving on from the boonies, this lets them cheat a little further up the table and gives them more viability.

 RazgrizOne wrote:

You would have to think ahead more as most armies couldn't mass react to threats unless balled up and that could lead to problems in and of itself. (Though the pointy eared rich would get richer in this scenario)

That may be a problem but I tend to think that it would actually add more fluff to our games. He's playing Eldar, I play IG. I'll certainly be outmanoeuvered by antigrav and DSing WK but it's actually like this Eldar are expected to fight.

That can make things interesting when everyone deploys half their army first, and then everything comes in automatically on the 2nd turn. the board goes from sparse to packed immediately.

Yeah, we actually hate when we are assaulted on turn 2 due to board size... But what about the range difference between weapons? If distances get greater, ordnance and heavy weapons like Prism Cannons would become a very big threat. Would short ranged infantry and assault units become useless? Would they always die without doing nothing?

Changing the board size does indeed change the effectiveness of certain units. Its inevitable. It makes units like Deathstrikes much better because it buys them a little more time and distance. It also makes units with infiltrate, scout, outflank and deep strike a little more effective. But footslogging infantry takes a hit, although footslogging infantry is already a tough unit to run.

I once played a 6000 per side Apoc game on a pair of tables with a couple of bridges between them. I had a 4x8 and a 4x6 table. Biggest problem was not enough terrain.

A lot of people simply 'extend' the battlefield. E.g. Tack on more distance with more tables etc.
I don't find that a very fun way to increase the table space. Armies get further apart and there's more wasted time and it further benefits armies that either have better range or higher mobility.

To add more variety and fun whilst keeping the balance (hah, balance), there is a really creative way to get more table/ battle space whilst keeping the actual distances down.

Have a 'city' table, your usual table size.
Have a second table as the 'underground'; sewers, chambers, basements, tunnels etc.
Allocate certain areas to allow you to transfer between the City and the Underground such as Man-hole covers, collapsed buildings, stairways etc.
As an example - an Infantry Squad on the surface is being hunted by a tank, so they rush to the nearest manhole and drop into the Underground before traversing the subway and a turn or so later climbing up the subway stairs to the surface.
It adds so much more tactical variety and flavour to the game.

When placing objectives, it's best to split them between the City and the Underground so that you're enticed to have fights on both levels.
For added fun you can decide with your opponent whether you deploy; only in the city, only in the underground, split between both or one person in the underground and the other in the city. Etc. Etc. So many different ways to change it up.

If you want to increase the amount of table space even further - you can add more levels even deeper underground.

Just my £2 (my opinion is worth more than everyone else's 2 cents xD)

I have never played on anything wider than 4'. I have actually never played cross table before. Just the roll of the dice I guess. More than 4' seems like it could be pretty fun though. Might have to give it a go one day. Maybe if I decide to get a 2nd gamemat to make a 6 x 8 rather than a 12 x 4.

I would think playing on a wider table would be fine (considering long range shooters) you just need a ton more LOS blockers (trees, buildings, etc., taller hills/walls)

It would also make maneuvers extremely important and where/how to move your foot sloggers to get them where you need them when you need them.

Would make for a very challenging and tactical game.

 Otto Weston wrote:
A lot of people simply 'extend' the battlefield. E.g. Tack on more distance with more tables etc.
I don't find that a very fun way to increase the table space. Armies get further apart and there's more wasted time and it further benefits armies that either have better range or higher mobility.

To add more variety and fun whilst keeping the balance (hah, balance), there is a really creative way to get more table/ battle space whilst keeping the actual distances down.

Have a 'city' table, your usual table size.
Have a second table as the 'underground'; sewers, chambers, basements, tunnels etc.
Allocate certain areas to allow you to transfer between the City and the Underground such as Man-hole covers, collapsed buildings, stairways etc.
As an example - an Infantry Squad on the surface is being hunted by a tank, so they rush to the nearest manhole and drop into the Underground before traversing the subway and a turn or so later climbing up the subway stairs to the surface.
It adds so much more tactical variety and flavour to the game.

When placing objectives, it's best to split them between the City and the Underground so that you're enticed to have fights on both levels.
For added fun you can decide with your opponent whether you deploy; only in the city, only in the underground, split between both or one person in the underground and the other in the city. Etc. Etc. So many different ways to change it up.

If you want to increase the amount of table space even further - you can add more levels even deeper underground.

Just my £2 (my opinion is worth more than everyone else's 2 cents xD)

This is one of the best ways to add tactical depth to the game, but it can get really confusing what with all the book-keeping. It's very much worth it though if you've got some like minded people - and can be made even better if you bring Zone Mortalis stuff into various areas.

@ TheSilo

I like your ideas! Maybe Infantry should be allowed to run 6+D6 and vehicules go flat out 12+D6, it would make them more mobile and more survivable perhaps?

@ Icculus

I did not even think about Deathstrike. I never use it so why not? Regarding footslogging infantry, well, modern wars do not include mass charges for a reason, so I'll figure out how to get cover for it

@Otto Weston
This is the best idea I have heard so far to add tactical depth. I'll definitly have to try it !

 infinite_array wrote:
I've never understood why the width of the table never seems to be as important as length. If you have the space, why not try a 6x8 instead of a 12x4? It'd certainly make maneuvering your forces a more important part of the game.

Because it makes move models around the middle of the board a pain in the butt

Pretty much all of the games I play are 3k and up, and normally lengthways on a 4'x8' and 4'x10' table. With a good amount of scenery you can still move smaller units up the board in relative safety, I find it representative of RL, you just need more scenery, particularly tall stuff that can block LOS for large models.

As others have mentioned wider tables are difficult to move stuff in the middle. I'm also not a fan of playing on the floor, risky for treading on stuff and painful for moving large blob units.

 Looky Likey wrote:
Pretty much all of the games I play are 3k and up, and normally lengthways on a 4'x8' and 4'x10' table. With a good amount of scenery you can still move smaller units up the board in relative safety, I find it representative of RL, you just need more scenery, particularly tall stuff that can block LOS for large models.

As others have mentioned wider tables are difficult to move stuff in the middle. I'm also not a fan of playing on the floor, risky for treading on stuff and painful for moving large blob units.

Same here. Though at just 3k we usually leave it at 4x6 but over that 4x8 etc.