|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 21, 2013 18:53:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 21, 2013 18:55:14 GMT -5
some more pics, including some of the purple tau and what was a destroyed landraider (with assault marines bailing) |
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 21, 2013 18:56:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 21, 2013 18:57:40 GMT -5
The blue building is an energy plant, the rhino is popping smoke, and the last picture is when my reserves started coming in. |
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 21, 2013 18:58:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrik on Jul 22, 2013 4:20:21 GMT -5
nice looking table, but why it's "odd" size? doesn't the 5 foot depth change gameplay a lot?
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 22, 2013 16:28:22 GMT -5
The table is 5 by 7 because that's as big a table as I could fit in my car at the time  I like a bigger table for a number of reasons: You get more room to deploy, maneuver, and deepstrike. If you play with lots of points on your team, you can fit stuff in easier. Weapons with long range can actually take advantage of that range (likewise it's easier to float outside of medium range guns). One can lay a lot more terrain on a larger table, which means more cover saves and LOS issues. Overall, I find the extra terrain and more spacious setup makes battles seem more tactical, cinematic and realistic. With modular terrain pieces I've made some pretty cool looking boards. One might say that the longer distances might hurt choppy armies. With the added cover I haven't noticed much difference. The marine player usually runs a mechanized list with assault marines, and he actually prefers the larger board. |
|
|
|
Post by dougeye on Jul 23, 2013 14:54:49 GMT -5
is it not technically a small apoc battle if its larger than 6x4? not that it realy matters if your just having fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by treadiculous on Jul 23, 2013 17:25:03 GMT -5
large boards definitely make better games!
looks like an interesting table... great scenery!
|
|
|
|
Post by hendrik on Jul 24, 2013 5:36:08 GMT -5
interesting! what point games do you usually play on them? 1000-1500 or more 2000-3000 pts games?
doesn't it limit the games more to either everyone sitting on his objectives, or deepstriking/outflanking since footslogging to the other side will take 3-4 turns?
|
|
|
|
Post by littlemac on Jul 24, 2013 21:23:09 GMT -5
Usually we play with a total of 4000 points worth of units on the table. So 1 on 1 is 2000 per side, 2 v 2 is 1000. But we vary it up a lot too, usually depending on how much time we have. As for footsloggers, I haven't noticed much of a difference. Really a 5x7 isn't that much bigger than a 4x6, although it can look and feel that way. Think of there being an extra six inches on all sides. So, if you want to slog it out, deploy right up to the edge of your deployment; you'll only have at most a 6 inch longer slog than usual. With the new variable assault rules, it's hardly noticeable. And at any rate, if you're trying to snatch an objective that is 4 turns worth of movement away and you *don't* have a transport delivery system, you're doing it wrong  |
|
