Table Size

[BrianC]

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to confirm table sizes for the various standard point games. I have done a search and can find the 1st two but not the last.

1. 600 points (starter armies) 3 x 5 feet
2. 800 points 4 x 6
3. 1,000 points 4 x 6 ?

Also regarding terrain. You have a set number of pieces depending on the type of territory. Do you vary the number of pieces if you are playing on a 3 x 5 table compared with a 6 x 4 table or larger or do you play with the number of pieces listed in the chart on page 139 regardless of table size?

Thanks

Brian

[Omar]

Where did you find these standards?

[BrianC]

Where did you find these standards?

I searched through other threads where people mentioned various game sizes. I'm not sure how standard they are but I was hoping on finding out here. Also I think the tournament sites also have the points and table size and it seems to generally be 800 points for a 6 x 4 table and I think it was Hammy that indicated that a starter size army should be played on a 3 x 5 table if I remember correctly.

Brian

[Omar]

The only thing I could find was in the rulebook that said 6' X 4', which is way too big.

I asked about 4'X4' myself, I think that should accommodate starter armies (600-700). Will be interested in seeing the replies.

[hammy]

Essentially the width of the table needs to be related to the point level and the depth of the table is related to the time it takes to play the game.

While the game can be played on a 4 by 4 or even 4 by 3 table it would be quite cramped with any more than a 600 point starter army.

5 by 3 is IMO a good size for starter forces up to certainly 650 and possibly 700 points

6 by 4 will happily cope with 800 or 1000 points without major problems.

If you are playing in 25mm then I would not use more than 800 (and sensibly no more than 700) on a 6 foot wide table.

[Blathergut]

For our 25mm battles we have been using 4' x 6' for 600pts and 4' x 8' for 800 or so. The game at MigsCon was on a wider table...probably 5'...it just meant it took more turns...I prefer the 4'...gets you into things right away.

Dan T.

[berthier]

We have used 4x6 for comps and games ranging from 600-800 APs here in the American South. Table width hasn't seemed to be an issue. Personal hygenie, maybe. But table width, no.

[hammy]

We have used 4x6 for comps and games ranging from 600-800 APs here in the American South. Table width hasn't seemed to be an issue. Personal hygenie, maybe. But table width, no.

The 'problem' I have foundwith 6' wide tables at 600 points is that it is too much space for light horse archer armies to play in. I have played several starter army games on 6 by 4 and in general they work well but if one army is horse archer and the other isn't then you have a real missmatch. Using a 5 by 3 table for 600 or 650 point games seems to have evend things out again.

[Probert]

Every miniature game should be played on the biggest table you can fit in your house.

[BrianC]

Probert I would agree with you a number of years ago, but my back these days doesn't like tables 5 feet across unfortunately .

Good info Hammy on the width and depth, logical reasoning. I am doing another playtest with a starter army in a couple of weeks and will try the 3 x 5 feet table size. I think that could be why our games too so long in the past. It just seemed to take hours to get the lines fighting. Then once it did the game really started to move for some reason, its a really strange progression. I'm amazed how long it takes to move into contact. Hopefully playing on a shorter table will alleviate that.

Would these suggested table sizes be something you could add to the FAQ? I would add your explaination for width and depth if so. I make this suggestion because I was always playing on the 6 x 4 table even with starter armies, this could help shorten games for new players.

What about the second part of my question? Can I assume that table size has no bearing on the number of terrain pieces?

Thanks for all the replies

Brian

[hammy]

I will see about adding the 5 by 3 option for 600 point armies to the FAQ but I am not sure if it should be there or not.

As for terrain when running on a 5 by 3 table I reduce the maximum number of picks by 1 so each player gets one compulsary and 2-3 optional ones. You also need to make sure that all the terrain you choose is less than 10" in at least one dimension otherwise if you roll a 5 or 6 for placement it is impossible to get on the table.

[BrianC]

I will see about adding the 5 by 3 option for 600 point armies to the FAQ but I am not sure if it should be there or not.

As for terrain when running on a 5 by 3 table I reduce the maximum number of picks by 1 so each player gets one compulsary and 2-3 optional ones. You also need to make sure that all the terrain you choose is less than 10" in at least one dimension otherwise if you roll a 5 or 6 for placement it is impossible to get on the table.

Thanks for that Hammy,

I'll try reducing the number of terrain picks by 1 for our next game and see how it goes, good idea.

Regarding table size and FAQ, unless I read the forums on here I would play on 6 x 4 for any sized army, so I just thought it might help other new players get quicker games in. Probably most of our games that didn't complete were because we were playing on boards too big. I know this is why some local gamers dropped FOG after one game.

Brian

[hammy]

Regarding table size and FAQ, unless I read the forums on here I would play on 6 x 4 for any sized army, so I just thought it might help other new players get quicker games in. Probably most of our games that didn't complete were because we were playing on boards too big. I know this is why some local gamers dropped FOG after one game.

I suspect that anyone dropping a game after one play would not be likely to have their opinion changed by using a smaller table.

Perhaps what might make more sense would be to have a few example scenarios that people could put together with starter armies.

[Omar]

Might look into getting some 5X3 tables made up and covered in felt. Thanks!

[CrazyHarborc]

WE are still fielding "Starter Armies". We didn't like the lack of room on a 4 by 6 foot table. We now use a 4 by 8 table. It's the size we have been using for over 30 years. We do like to use 9 or 10 pieces of terain....Well 8 or 9 is safer to say. About half the time, terrain pieces number 9 and 10 don't fit where the random die roll says they should be placed. We are using 25/28mm minies with 1 & 1/2 inch MUs.

[jhs]

WE are still fielding "Starter Armies". We didn't like the lack of room on a 4 by 6 foot table. We now use a 4 by 8 table. It's the size we have been using for over 30 years. We do like to use 9 or 10 pieces of terain....Well 8 or 9 is safer to say. About half the time, terrain pieces number 9 and 10 don't fit where the random die roll says they should be placed. We are using 25/28mm minies with 1 & 1/2 inch MUs.

So, if you were to use 1 inch MU's, that would be, what, around 2.7' by 5.4'? A bit more room on the sides, but faster contact in the middle then 3x5? Does that work well? I like the faster contact idea. This whole topic is interesting.

[Omar]

Really? 4' X 6' was a HUGE amount of space for a 15mm starter army. Way too big. 4' X 4' seemed to work, but still big.

Of course, we were using no terrain.

[gozerius]

So far we have been using 4x6 tables for 600-650pt armies and have not had too much trouble. I do hate when people use round terrain though. Square terrain upsets me too, unless it's a man made feature like fields or a village. Of course I'm sure there are those out there who would strongly object to some of my terrain with very irregular outlines.

[Omar]

So far we have been using 4x6 tables for 600-650pt armies and have not had too much trouble.

For 15mm or 25/28mm?

[madmike111]

table size is also related to the type of army, 800pts of knights doesn't take up much space but 800ts of cheap units fills up the table from end to end.