Proposal for Board Sizes

[Redwilde]

The 'official' 2.2+ board size is clearly a point of friction for several different groups of players. While I am strongly of the opinion that a 30" board (or a close approximation thereof) is the ideal size for 40mm wide bases, any number of sizes can work. For some groups of players they may even have a logistical demand to use 24" boards simply because they only have 24" wide tables to play on and no room to smoosh them together.

While it is certainly possible for players to use whatever size board they like (witness those of us who have been using 30" boards for many a year both for home and conventions), in the interests of removing the point of friction I would like to suggest that a range of board sizes be officially adopted so that everyone feels like they are still playing by the standard rules. If this simple change helps bring more groups into the fold, then wahoo!

Along the lines that 'flexible options are good', my proposal has several layers of options. The basic proposal supports a variety of square sizes.

And if we're going to embrace flexibility, then hey -- let's join go join the moonlight dancers ;)

The next layer provides a new option for supporting rectangular boards as well. We're already used to rectangular boards in BBDBA. For players who regularly play on tables narrower than 30", this allows for enjoying wider flank space on the battlefield. Rectangles support the 2.2+ preferred flank space while accommodating practical tabletop limitations for some groups.

For super-epic looking games with 6mm or 15mm figures, I place (4) 40mm side bases on 80mm sabots and double all distances. But for playing space, using a 48"x60" board is much more convenient than 60"x60". This size has proven to work quite well. These games don't feel like they are playing differently than regular games on a 30"x30".

A sneaky final layer is that by mentioning the suggested dimensions for 80mm wide bases also opens up an avenue for a future 'official' base option for 28mm and larger figure scales. (Folks who have squeezed 28s onto 60mm bases, fear not -- there's no need to rebase! You can keep playing on 60mm bases if you like.)

And so, the proposals:

***************
PLAYING AREA
The exact size of the playing area, “the battlefield”, is not critical. Players should agree on a size before the game. Tournament organisers should announce ahead of time the size to be used for throughout that event. For armies with figures mounted on 40mm wide bases, battlefield sizes can range from 24”x24” to 36”x36”; 30”x30” is the preferred size these amendments were designed for. For figures on 60mm wide bases, sizes can range from 36”x36” to 48”x48” (or larger if you have the space); 48”x48” is the preferred size. For 80mm wide bases(using 4 regular 40mm wide stands on sabots, or special basing for 28mm scale figures or larger), 48”x48” to 60”x60” (or larger if you have the space and very long arms).

Games can also be played on a rectangular board if players wish to have better flank room available, but are limited in the size of a square battlefield that could be set up on the tables they are using. For 40mm wide bases, 24” deep by 30”-36” wide works well. For 60mm, widths of 48”-60” work well. For 80mm wide bases widths of 60”-72” work well; solely for practical space reasons a 48"x60" is more likely to be preferred than a 60"x60".


DEPLOYING ARMIES
Elements are deployed on their side of the battlefield, not closer than 8MU to the centerline of the battlefield and not closer than 4MU from the side edges.


SPECIAL RULES FOR RECTANGULAR BATTLEFIELDS
Terrain is placed by the defender and adjusted by the invader according to the rules for square tables. The invader then chooses which long side will be their base edge and the defender uses the opposite long edge.

[Pavane]

I like what you are proposing. My only reservation is that even with the 2.2+ terrain placement modifications, terrain on rectangular battlefield is usually symmetrical and, thus, boring.

[Rich Gause]

I like it and agree with everything in suggestion. The rectangular board idea sounds very interesting to try out. It may be simpler for the purpose of line edits to do something along the lines of: Players may play on any size board they agree to; the default play surface 2.2+ is designed for is a 30" by 30" square.

[Dangun]

I may have forgotten...
But why don't we specify a size or range of sizes in MU?

(Or is the idea not to make consistent the 15mm and 25mm board sizes)

[Redwilde]

I may have forgotten...
But why don't we specify a size or range of sizes in MU?

Lumber and furniture sizes. MUs are an impractical unit when making the hardware.

[Dangun]

Is MU x 20mm really that hard?

[Redwilde]

For a simple line edit that allows for any other board sizes than the stated ones, the deployment rules need to be defined from the centerline as noted in the proposal.

Philosophical thought on rectangular boards: if the goal is to provide the best game possible, what is the best suggestion for players who have to use a board smaller than 30" deep? Is it better to recommend a smaller square board, or a wider board? The strength of the 30" board is the flank size more than the depth.

Pavane, I haven't had a chance to use rectangular boards for single or BBDBA with the new terrain rules yet. The option to rotate pieces should help reduce symmetry. While symmetry can't really be outlawed, we could include a footnote that expresses disdain for it as a routine practice :)



Is MU x 20mm really that hard?

If you are making boards from plywood, foam sheets, ceiling tiles, or whatever that come measured by the foot and half foot units -- yes.

[david kuijt]

WADBAG tried 24x36 rectangular boards for a year or two before going to 32" square. 32/30" square just work much better; the inability to rotate rectangular boards leads to linear (bilaterally symmetric) terrain, which is even uglier (more gamey) than radially symmetric terrain.

[Pavane]

WADBAG tried 24x36 rectangular boards for a year or two before going to 32" square. 32/30" square just work much better; the inability to rotate rectangular boards leads to linear (bilaterally symmetric) terrain, which is even uglier (more gamey) than radially symmetric terrain.
I agree. The 2.2+ BBDBA terrain rules are an improvement, but any system that allows one player to choose their battlefield side after terrain is fixed encourages symmetry. Keeping players on the side they are currently sitting encourages a non-symmetrical layout, but a mechanism has to be in place to prevent the defender from loading the terrain to their benefit. This is usually done by semi-random placement with the Invader possibly altering or laying terrain as well. This is well beyond the scope of 2.2+ at this time, IMHO.

[Redwilde]

I quite agree that if you have the table depth to use a 30-32" square, that is better than a rectangle. If you only have 24" depth, is a 24" square better than a rectangle?

For my quad sized games, I've found the 4'x5' (equivalent of a 24"x30") board works better than a 4'x4' board (equivalent of a 24"x24"). I don't have room to place a 5'x5' board on top of the dining room table here. That and it's much easier cutting a 4'x5' board out of a 4'x8' sheet of plywood than it is cutting out a 5'x5' :silly

But, since I've only used this for home play, cheesy gamey setups haven't been an issue.

With the option to rotate pieces, that should really help undo lateral symmetry. A rectangular defender used to have a great incentive to place symmetrical alleys to define the engagement zones as desired. Rotating the allies' bumpers now gives a narrow and wide openings to the alleys, and the attacker then has choice of starting side. So hopefully this will greatly dis-incentivise symmetrical allies in the first place.


Overall though, the most important part of the proposal is giving official nod to other square sizes at least and consequently defining deployment from the center. Whether or not y'all want to come dance in the rectangular moon beams if you don't have room for the ideal squares is a separate issue.

[Pavane]

With the option to rotate pieces, that should really help undo lateral symmetry. A rectangular defender used to have a great incentive to place symmetrical alleys to define the engagement zones as desired. Rotating the allies' bumpers now gives a narrow and wide openings to the alleys, and the attacker then has choice of starting side. So hopefully this will greatly dis-incentivise symmetrical allies in the first place.
Only if you roll 1's and 2's. I seem to roll them during game play and not at setup.

EDIT: Perhaps on rectangular boards the odds of rotation/movement should be increased in favour of the Invader.

[Redwilde]

Or perhaps for any board: if all terrain pieces have been diced for and all the rolls have failed, then the invader may move or rotate any one piece.

[Xavi]

I like the table size flexibility thing. I believe it changes nothing from the game and comes out to be better overall :) I prefer the table to be kept square, though.

Reports of yesterday's battles when I have the pictures. Some great stuff, some mixed impressions on others.

Cheers,
Xavi

[Rich Gause]

Or perhaps for any board: if all terrain pieces have been diced for and all the rolls have failed, then the invader may move or rotate any one piece.

... of the defenders choice.