Extending the Field of Battle

[sirrouga]

My local group have been looking to build a larger game table, either a 6x5 or 6x6. Mainly for multiple side games (3 way or 4 way battles) which are fairly popular in the group but the standard table size doesn't work fully well for those games. Often cramming armies into tight corners or set in the middle on the other two players, the extra space helps those problems.

However that isn't what I want to talk about really. But I did get to thinking, what if we played standard games on such sized tables. Giving more room for those more adept to long range shooting and spreading out objectives even more. What armies do you see getting the best and worst out of playing on a larger board? Any new tactics do you see opening up? Any other thoughts?

[gwensdad]

When designing a table like that, just think of how easy (or hard) it might be to reach a unit right in the middle of the board.
On a 6x6 board, you need to be able to reach in 3 feet, measure, and move a figure without affecting the terrain or any other mini on the board. If you can do that, then go for it.

[privateer4hire]

Tau, esp. Mech Tau, will benefit greatly from this. We play on 5 x 5 tables at one venue. Even though the deployment zones on long edges are 18" in, that gives another long range shooting turn and additional movement room for Tau and other shooty armies. Footsloggers don't do well even with cover saves because you've now added additional range for them to be shot through and for them to cover----esp. challenging if the opponent is as mobile as mech Tau (including their fields of 4+ cover saves for anything shooting more than 12" away).

[Lerra]

Privateer brings up a good point. Changing the board size does impact the balance of the game, although sometimes it's for the better - it's fun to change things up, at least temporarily. Larger tables encourage the use reserves, especially deep striking. Infiltrate becomes a lot better, too. If you want an approximation of how the play changes on a 6x6 table, try playing on a standard 6x4 table using the short table edges as your deployment zone.

[DarkLink]

Privateer brings up a good point. Changing the board size does impact the balance of the game, although sometimes it's for the better - it's fun to change things up, at least temporarily. Larger tables encourage the use reserves, especially deep striking. Infiltrate becomes a lot better, too. If you want an approximation of how the play changes on a 6x6 table, try playing on a standard 6x4 table using the short table edges as your deployment zone.

Bike armies and mech eldar would particularly shine if the restriction of the table edge is removed. No one would be able to touch them, they're just too crazy fast.

[Melissia]

My Orks... well, depends on the setup, but they'd probably lose from having a longer board-- even shooty Orks are very short ranged.

My Guard probably would gain from having a longer board-- more shooting time with their heavy weapons, basilisk, and russes.

My Sisters suffer from having larger gameboards against shooty enemies, but really don't gain or lose much from assaulty enemies.

[entendre_entendre]

Mel, i'm going to pose the obvious question here: you play something other than Sisters?

[ggg]

I love the idea of different shaped boards - it would really change the balance of armies' strengths as noted above. I think a deeper table would also allow creative terrain set ups - and a different feel to a game. At my local store they use 4 by 4 boards (due to space) and it prompts intense, bloody games. At home I lke to use a 4 by 8 board as it allows me more space for more toys and terrain. I believe that games really benefit from diversity and variety otherwise we slide a bit towards chess - and as well as mission and deployment rules, I think you have really hit something with different board sizes. I think i'll give 6 by 5 planet strike a go as soon as poss.

[ColCorbane]

It definitely makes the game more tactial, with a normal game you tend to have lots of troops close to each other, so it's easy to change the game plan if things go wrong. With a large table, your forces a spread further apart, so it really forces you to think about your battleplan.

It's really worth trying, in the past I've had some great games on an 8'x6'.

[Herald of Nurgle]

Mel, i'm going to pose the obvious question here: you play something other than Sisters?
Shocking, isn't it?


I'll admit that I haven't tried that many different table sizes - excluding 12x4' but that was for Apoc ofc and somehow it was me vs. 4 other people lol. But... it intrigues me.

Too bad I don't have facilities for that lol. :(

[Melissia]

Mel, i'm going to pose the obvious question here: you play something other than Sisters?

I've quite frequently made references to my Ork and Guard armies, both on the blog AND on the lounge. Not that you'd notice, being a troll and all that.

[entendre_entendre]

I've quite frequently made references to my Ork and Guard armies, both on the blog AND on the lounge. Not that you'd notice, being a troll and all that.

oh yes, and i currently stalk you around the site(s) because i have absolutely nothing better to do than listen to the exploits of the the Great Melissia on the internet, so i should have known that. I'm sorry, my bad.


jeez, i make an attempt at humour, and the person in question calls me a troll... what's the world coming to? next there'll be newfangled things called autocars and a talking rat will have his own amusement park...


now if you'll excuse me, there's a bridge i need to lurk under, and there better not be any Canaries!

... hate Canaries... (you get a cookie if you get it ;) )

[mysterex]

I used to regularly play on 4 x 8 tables although it didn't make a lot of difference unless deploying in corners.

I have played non-apocalypse games on deeper tables and it can work really well but then I tend to use lots of of smallish pieces of terrain about half of which would block line of sight to troops. Consequently the table has a city fight feel to it and facing an opponent with long range shooting is not as debilitating.

[Squirrel_Fish]

now if you'll excuse me, there's a bridge i need to lurk under, and there better not be any Canaries!

... hate Canaries... (you get a cookie if you get it ;) )

Hellboy II?

On the topic, as stated by the other posters, a larger board really favors long range shootier armies or faster armies (to get to the enemy quicker before getting shot to death). I know that my Eldar would have a blast, while my Salamanders would probably not enjoy the 3-4 turns of driving before reaching enemy lines.

Another thing you might want to keep in mind is missions. I'd suggest creating some houserule missions in order to help balance things out. For example, change the victory conditions like adding more objectives in seize ground or changing up deployment rules to not completely screw over certain armies. Granted, given that it's a multi-sided battle anyways, you might already be considering this...

[DarkLink]

Hellboy II?

On the topic, as stated by the other posters, a larger board really favors long range shootier armies or faster armies (to get to the enemy quicker before getting shot to death). I know that my Eldar would have a blast, while my Salamanders would probably not enjoy the 3-4 turns of driving before reaching enemy lines.

Another thing you might want to keep in mind is missions. I'd suggest creating some houserule missions in order to help balance things out. For example, change the victory conditions like adding more objectives in seize ground or changing up deployment rules to not completely screw over certain armies. Granted, given that it's a multi-sided battle anyways, you might already be considering this...

And using LOTS of terrain. LOS blocking terrain. Everywhere.

[Lord Azaghul]

I've quite frequently made references to my Ork and Guard armies, both on the blog AND on the lounge. Not that you'd notice, being a troll and all that.

WHAT!!! you play other armies!!!???!!???
Who'd've cared.

[Duke]

I have tried playing on different sized boards... Ive even played on some odd-shaped boards too (triangles for 1 v 1 v 1.) Obviously the board size changes things, but I generally wouldn't add more than 1' on each the short side or it gets hard to reach across the table (unless you lower the height of the table as well).

Duke

[Melissia]

WHAT!!! you play other armies!!!???!!???
Who'd've cared.
Noone, I would think-- but apparently people care enough to comment at any rate :P

[Lord Azaghul]

Noone, I would think-- but apparently people care enough to comment at any rate :P

Only because you mentioned you had other armies (in a tone I took to mean "What! How could one not know I messilia play guard and orks...") ...I was quite shocked to learn you had something other then sisters!:D

[Duke]

I don't like traffic lights when they are red.

... Sorry, I just thought I would post that since we seem to be going off about things people don't care about (and are off topic).

Duke

[entendre_entendre]

Hellboy II?

Cookie for you sir!

ookay... now to be on topic for once, for odd sized tables, the real limitation (as mentioned by others) is how far you can reach into them, obviously this might be easier if you're an NBA player than if you're Gary Coleman ;)


And using LOTS of terrain. LOS blocking terrain. Everywhere.

this.