Topic: It really is more cramped now

[Zygmund]

One thing I noticed in a recent 1800pts game was that the new base sizes really make the units wider and the gaming space more cramped.

On two occasions at least my unit that was rolling for panic or break test was outside of the General & BSB bubble - just one or two inches. Being so used to the classic base sizes I didn't check the distance when positioning, measured by eye, and this happened. Not that it mattered at all, I rolled well in one case and would have needed snake eyes in the other. It's just something I noticed while playing: the larger bases really eat up space.

Also, I had to deploy my army partially in two ranks. With some terrain pieces, it was occupying the whole table width. Again, I had several scouting skirmishers I put to the fore, so my actual deployment zone wasn't too cramped. But had I had just one more r&f unit in my deployment zone, I would have needed to deploy behind my front rank.

This also emphasizes the role of cavalry compared to infantry. The wider the deployment, the more incapable the infantry is to respond and support each other.

Also Veteran troops start to look good when you need to consider that one or two units more than in the classic editions need to operate outside of your command bubble. For example, Empire warmachines can buy the Veteran rule. I thought is was very odd, but now it seems a good idea to buy the upgrade for one artillery piece.

These observations are related to non-elite Empire, and probably to any horde army. At 1800+ pts armies need to be elite, or deploy some units in marching columns, to avoid cramped deployment. Whereas in the 6th ed 2000pts armies fit without a problem.

Does the cramped space perhaps push players to build tighter, more elite armies? Or is the larger allowance for characters and special units usually taking care of this problem?

-Zyg

[Dazgrim]

I agree deployment zone seem cramped, but this seems to be mitigated by most people running close to the 50% hero allowance.

[Skyros]

I think the larger base sizes for infantry and cavalry incentivizes monsters, which generally didn't get a base size increase.
Your 250 point monster takes a lot less room on the board than a 250 point unit of knights or infantry.

[lcmiracle]

I agree deployment zone seem cramped, but this seems to be mitigated by most people running close to the 50% hero allowance.

Sure, be that as it may, until the meta shifts to mass infantry combat again but not the base size. It really is as Rick had said on that one dude's Youtube channel:

https://youtu.be/jbHQazUvWVg?t=3444

Guy's right on this, no mistake, I will brook no quarters

[Clymer]

It does seem much more cramped. You wouldn’t think that 5mm a base would make such a difference, but it does. Not just in deployment, but in maneuvering around the table.

[Dazgrim]

I agree deployment zone seem cramped, but this seems to be mitigated by most people running close to the 50% hero allowance.

Sure, be that as it may, until the meta shifts to mass infantry combat again but not the base size. It really is as Rick had said on that one dude's Youtube channel:

https://youtu.be/jbHQazUvWVg?t=3444

Guy's right on this, no mistake, I will brook no quarters

Randomly emphasising words aside. I'm really not sure what your point is. You linked to the back end of a video discussing early (1st - 3ed) 40k, I'm not seeing the relevance to a discussion of how the increase in base sizes impacts congestion in the deployment zone in TOW, a different game in a different setting released 25 years after the release of 3rd ed 40k.

[lcmiracle]

I agree deployment zone seem cramped, but this seems to be mitigated by most people running close to the 50% hero allowance.

Sure, be that as it may, until the meta shifts to mass infantry combat again but not the base size. It really is as Rick had said on that one dude's Youtube channel:

https://youtu.be/jbHQazUvWVg?t=3444

Guy's right on this, no mistake, I will brook no quarters

Randomly emphasising words aside. I'm really not sure what your point is. You linked to the back end of a video discussing early (1st - 3ed) 40k, I'm not seeing the relevance to a discussion of how the increase in base sizes impacts congestion in the deployment zone in TOW, a different game in a different setting released 25 years after the release of 3rd ed 40k.

So watch it. Prestly expertly described why a larger model takes up more footprint on the board and changes the game entirely. Comprehension, do you even?

Larger base changes gameplay, deal with it

[Dazgrim]

Nobody was saying that larger bases don't change game play.

You're being very combative in an arena where everyone seems to be in agreement with you.

[Rodman49]

To be honest I think the base sizes are fine - the units rank up better, look better on the tabletop and require less dudes to take up more space which means painting goes faster.

To be honest the games even feels really good at 1250 points - which model wise is pretty close to 5th edition at 1750 per models required.

I think the combo of increased point limits, lower cost per model, and larger base size is what makes the boards feel cramped - playing at a lower points value gives you a more similar experience to prior editions I believe.

[Warlord]

I feel like some bases should have changed which didn’t, and some didn’t but should have.
Night goblins should still be on 20x20, but River trolls should be on 50x50 like minotaurs.
Gors should be on 30m bases.
The steam tank should be on a longer base.
Boar chariots should also be on a bigger base.

There are a bunch more, but it makes me question what rule did they use to apply base size changes.

[sedobren]

I played the breaking point scenario last night and it was a mess. Definitively no space to place my units, despite running an all cavalry list!

I like the new base size though, my knights would just not fit together otherwise. I think people should start playing on longer tables, closer to 72" than 60. Mine was a 44" deep one so not exactly the right one for 2000 pts

[LiberadoWoj]

Isn't the standard game board for 2000 points 72x48? Why do you play on 40k tables?

[Zygmund]

To be honest the games even feels really good at 1250 points - which model wise is pretty close to 5th edition at 1750 per models required.

I think the combo of increased point limits, lower cost per model, and larger base size is what makes the boards feel cramped - playing at a lower points value gives you a more similar experience to prior editions I believe.

All true. I personally see no reason to play higher than 1500-1800pts games.

I feel like some bases should have changed which didn’t, and some didn’t but should have.
Night goblins should still be on 20x20, but River trolls should be on 50x50 like minotaurs.
[--]

There are a bunch more, but it makes me question what rule did they use to apply base size changes.

Agree here too. The base size increase sometimes serves a purpose, but sometimes doesn't. Night Goblins especially look quite orphaned on the bigger bases. Although a blanket 25mm is understandable from another point of view.

The FAQ clarified that the standard table size is 72"x48". The table sizes listed in the book are minimums, and they're such because GW knows it has sold these size gaming mats/sheets to people (AoS, Warcry).

-Zyg

[commandant]

I remember in 6th ed the standard size was either 1999 or 2999 where I played. I play on a 72 inch table and that got very crowded at 2000 points. Now admittedly I had a lot of infantry deployed in wide detachments

I wonder are people deploying wider as well. Like in 6th I deployed 4-5 wide with 3-4 wide detachments.

Now I am deploying 6 wide with 6-8 wide detachments. I suppose in 8th people deployed 10 wide (sometimes even with detachments deployed 5 wide or so)

I think 1250-1500 or so might be a sweet spot for games or maybe make the boards bigger if you go to 2500-3000 points

[GamesPoet]

This thread makes it seem like there are some good reasons to play smaller point total games.  All that 2000 point stuff could be less ideal.

It'll eb interestign to see what point totals that GW uses for their tourneys.

[commandant]

Though GW will likely try and make tournaments as big as possible. They want players playing higher point totals to push model sales

[Zygmund]

I wonder are people deploying wider as well. Like in 6th I deployed 4-5 wide with 3-4 wide detachments.

In the 6th I usually deployed my main fighting blocks 5- or 6-wide. In TOW I've deployed 6- and 7-wide. My detachments - if I bring them - vary between 3 and 6 wide, which they did in the 7th already (between 4 and 6 wide in 6th).

So going wide might explain 1" of the cramped feeling.

But the extra inches come more from the increased base size. Even a 6-wide regiment with a 3-wide detachment is now more than 2" wider than earlier.

And this is multiplied everywhere in the deployment. What used to take 10" of space is now taking 12". It's like playing on a 5'x4' table instead of 6'x4'.

-Zyg

[commandant]

Certainly the increased base sizes are the prime factor but they might not be the only factor

[Clymer]

There are a bunch more, but it makes me question what rule did they use to apply base size changes.

I have a hunch that base sizes have more to do with GW's future plans than they do with just updating old models. Who knows what we'll see, but I'll put $20 on it that the updated base sizes will be standard for future releases.

[Warlord]

Thing is, like I mentioned above, so things should just be on bigger bases, and aren’t. Its silly.

[The Peacemaker]

There are a bunch more, but it makes me question what rule did they use to apply base size changes.

I have a hunch that base sizes have more to do with GW's future plans than they do with just updating old models. Who knows what we'll see, but I'll put $20 on it that the updated base sizes will be standard for future releases.

They stated a long time ago about the manufacturing of newer plastic models does better when they increased the scale. Stuff Like better detail and better strength on thin pieces.
Thats why they did base size increases - the scale is bigger and oversized models on small bases do not look great.
It's all about aesthetics.

[Warlord]

Hence why river trolls should be on 50x50…

[Eashamahel]

Greetings all.

I've got a dozen games in of Old World currently, all using my Warriors as it stands, starting at about 1200 points and moving up to 2000 with 2400 painted for the next time out.

Isn't the standard game board for 2000 points 72x48? Why do you play on 40k tables?

I think the table size suggestions from the core rulebook work perfectly fine.  Even playing 1500pts on a 4'x4' table felt fine.  I've got a 30 man Warrior unit (so between 30cm and 48cm depending on how I've deployed them) mid board most games and it does take up space, which feels good.  As a huge unit it moves like a huge unit, and thinking about cheaper options or my Empire stuff actually being on the table being able to control board space with unit bases will be a wonderful change.

This thread makes it seem like there are some good reasons to play smaller point total games.  All that 2000 point stuff could be less ideal.

It'll eb interestign to see what point totals that GW uses for their tourneys.

All of my lower point games were very fun, with the one issue being that the classic Lord type characters, especially the monstrous ones, are a bit overbearing at lower points values. 

2000 is about the minimum for what feels like an army on the board, my 2400-2500pt force feels very rounded, but I'm expecting 3000pts to really play well, and my group is excited to get that going.

[The Peacemaker]

Nobody was saying that larger bases don't change game play.

You're being very combative in an arena where everyone seems to be in agreement with you.

Lol. Reminds me of the Montey Python skitt where the guy goes looking for an argument.

[Mike Stockin]

Lol. Reminds me of the Montey Python skitt where the guy goes looking for an argument.

No it doesn't.