New Board Size (44x60) - How will it impact AOS?

[InSaint]

This new table size (44x60) has been confirmed during the Dominion Unboxing video with the new AOS 3.0 rule book.

I don't play 40k but several of my gaming group members who also play 40k on the new size since the new edition gave some general feedback about the smaller board size.

• Overall pointage increase across ALL units - this is to counteract the effect of a smaller board to prevent overcrowding
• More close combat oriented as units get into glorious melee more quickly - traditional long range shooting armies becomes unplayable
• Huge base sizes have a harder time positioning - terrain and meatshields can easily crowd out hot combat zones
• Less opportunity to outflank/deepstrike - smaller board makes it easier for players to protect their rear and flanks

For those playing both gaming systems, what are your experience with 40k on the smaller board that you think will probably be emulated in AOS?

 

[PainfullyMediocre]

It'll mean units like those LRL Archers will have more threat projection unless terrain somehow changes to mitigate LOS ignoring shooting.

You lose 2" from the width and 12" from the length, so it'll make outflanking a bit trickier as you'll have less room to position. Objectives will be closer together as well for the same reasons.

I'm really intrigued to see how this will change moving forwards, I hope it pushes more combat focussed armies up in viability.

[Greybeard86]

Point reductions have been widespread since 9th started, so I am not sure armies are smaller in 40k.

[Dankboss]

I marked out the new dimensions on my game board, and looking at it, there was a lot of space on the extremities that was simply not used with the old dimensions.

This will slightly help melee armies that tend to be slower; fast armies were reaching you turn one anyway, so this makes no odds to them, but does help less maneuverable armies.

AoS is a fundamentally melee orientated game, while 40k is fundamentally shooting, so a smaller boardsize benefits AoS while changing the nature of 40k to a greater degree, positive or negative.

I for one am happy with the change, at least the board size at a glance. I can't speak for smaller armies.
 

If you know, how much smaller did 40k armies get?

 

[AaronWilson]

Anyone know any companies that are producing 44x60 mats suitable for AoS?

[AaronWilson]

https://www.gamemat.eu/en/battle-mats/44-x60-battle-mats/44-x60-sands-of-time.html

This looks like the right size I think?

[RuneBrush]

I reckon the biggest impact will be one none of us are aware of, and that's more people playing on their dining tables at home 😁

[Neverchosen]

26 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I reckon the biggest impact will be one none of us are aware of, and that's more people playing on their dining tables at home 😁

This is my favourite part, I live in a condo with limited space but we have a decently sized table/island in our kitchen. It is a little more narrow on the lower dimension and a touch wider on the longer dimension. But overall it will allow for something close to an appropriate sized game... no more need to go to a gaming club or friend's house or stick to skirmish sized games at home. 

[RuneBrush]

1 minute ago, Neverchosen said:

This is my favourite part, I live in a condo with limited space but we have a decently sized table/island in our kitchen. It is a little more narrow on the lower dimension and a touch wider on the longer dimension. But overall it will allow for something close to an appropriate sized game... no more need to go to a gaming club or friend's house or stick to skirmish sized games at home. 

My brother is in a very similar situation and I'm not going to complain about not having stuff overhanging when I play!  Means for you (and my brother) no more clubs or trying to scale battleplans down to fit your table!  Lovely thought really!

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

With Zoom League we’ve accidentally been playing close to this with a 48”x58” set up.  The points increase to reduce models would be a variation on our general tendency to play elites but what I am more curious about is whether there will be a change in objective control zone (I.e. down to 3” vs current 6”, feel this almost destined since I went out and got the 6” templates…) or more particularly in the deployment zones?

Smaller table size definitely made it a lot easier to screen off board edge ambushes, even with smaller unit sizes.

[Skreech Verminking]

It will not really have much of an impact at all, at least from a fun/club/friendly perspective of my live.

the size won’t change much for my friends nor in the club I’m a part of.

The size have always stayed 72x48 inches, and as much as I know myself and the answer from my friends, we will very like not chance it at all.

Tournaments or events might have a small impact though.

Considering that, deepstriking might get a bit harder, as well as keeping your heroes in the back corner, or an army that has a range of 36 or more, will likely have a hard time staying away from the enemy at some point.

same for ko’s fly high ability, which might have a harder time, flying from one corner to another, although how much that will have an impact on them might have to wait, till we are able to play on such a small table size

[Dankboss]

For reference, this is what I've done for my board. It provides an area for dead models/ dice.

[The Red King]

15 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

It will not really have much of an impact at all, at least from a fun/club/friendly perspective of my live.

the size won’t change much for my friends nor in the club I’m a part of.

The size have always stayed 72x48 inches, and as much as I know myself and the answer from my friends, we will very like not chance it at all.

Tournaments or events might have a small impact though.

Considering that, deepstriking might get a bit harder, as well as keeping your heroes in the back corner, or an army that has a range of 36 or more, will likely have a hard time staying away from the enemy at some point.

same for ko’s fly high ability, which might have a harder time, flying from one corner to another, although how much that will have an impact on them might have to wait, till we are able to play on such a small table size

No change? But think how much easier it's going to be to literally cover the board with our glorious rat swarms! The enemy can't capture an objective that they physically can't even reach. 😎

[NinthMusketeer]

I think it will be completely different than for 40k. The reality is that in AoS those 6×2" strips are almost exclusively used for bringing in units that enter from reserve via battlefield edge. They will be coming in closer to the action in theory but also more likely to be restricted by the presence of enemy models.

And that's about it.

[Charleston]

The impact of the new board size is actually quite forseeable:

• Shooting Units with a long range profit from more targets beeing in range
• Repositioning Units, summoned units and reserves will suffer from less free boardspace. With 48x72 there is always a place to put down that arkanaut frigate, with 44x66 it is more easy for your opponent to place models in a way that obscure them
• Meele units may be happy about less travel until combat. This might end up feeling quite boring/nasty when thinking about high velocity armies like IDK, Slaanesh, Orruks (moving twice).
• Ranged units with shorter range profit from more targets to pick from within range, meanwhile they will be easier bound in combat
• Objective games get more accessible for armies with slower units as it should become easier to travel between objectives. For the same reason it may become harder to hold an objective. 

I can't tell if the new board size will speed games up or slow them down. Less "yeah I move my dudes there" actions in early stages but instead more actuall rolling for shooting/charges.

[Popisdead]

2 hours ago, InSaint said:

This new table size (44x60) has been confirmed during the Dominion Unboxing video with the new AOS 3.0 rule book.

For those playing both gaming systems, what are your experience with 40k on the smaller board that you think will probably be emulated in AOS?

Have they said "minimum size" or "Defacto" ?  In 40k they said minimum and everyone freaked out  (because there was change and gamers love and hate change).

A buddy who played lots of 40k said it gave him room for stuff on the side of his table which is a nice feature for those of us with a 6'x4' table.

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

Point reductions have been widespread since 9th started, so I am not sure armies are smaller in 40k.

5 point grots.  If one were to create a modern 40k religion this should be sin #1.  STILL 5 POINTS.  Even at projected T3.  So i'm not buying "widespread".  

[Landohammer]

Based on my experience in 9th edition: 

Its hard to quantify the overall impact since 40k had sizeable point increases to coincide with the decrease in size as well as significant rule changes (most notably secondary objectives). But I did note a sharp drop in castling armies and more focus on units that could both shoot and fight, (rather than dedicated shooting units). Terrain became even more important since it would often times be your only defense against faster units. Games definitely see combat faster since there is just simply less square footage to avoid it. 

From a practical standpoint its good IMHO, since it allows more room for more tables at events and makes home games a lot easier to manage. Its also pretty close in size to the Blasted Hallowheart and Moonbase Klassius "board in a box" sets and I find those super convenient.

Note, when if first came out a lot of people on the internet screamed that "its just the MINIMUM table size, not the official table size" but I have seen the smaller table pretty much unanimously adopted by all events I have witnessed or attended. So I wouldn't expect a sizeable part of the community to stick to the old size. The smaller table WILL be the status quo going forward.  

[Dankboss]

2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Based on my experience in 9th edition: 

Its hard to quantify the overall impact since 40k had sizeable point increases to coincide with the decrease in size as well as significant rule changes (most notably secondary objectives). But I did note a sharp drop in castling armies and more focus on units that could both shoot and fight, (rather than dedicated shooting units). Terrain became even more important since it would often times be your only defense against faster units. Games definitely see combat faster since there is just simply less square footage to avoid it. 

From a practical standpoint its good IMHO, since it allows more room for more tables at events and makes home games a lot easier to manage. Its also pretty close in size to the Blasted Hallowheart and Moonbase Klassius "board in a box" sets and I find those super convenient.

Note, when if first came out a lot of people on the internet screamed that "its just the MINIMUM table size, not the official table size" but I have seen the smaller table pretty much unanimously adopted by all events I have witnessed or attended. So I wouldn't expect a sizeable part of the community to stick to the old size. The smaller table WILL be the status quo going forward.  

A minimum size without a max dictates a universal standard, so it makes sense most would adopt the minimum size.

[Enoby]

Can anyone say if distance between armies will change, judging from 9th? If it remains 24" standard then I can only see this benefitting shooting as there are fewer places to hide (unless terrain helps this).  

Edited June 2, 2021 by Enoby

[Greybeard86]

35 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

Have they said "minimum size" or "Defacto" ?  In 40k they said minimum and everyone freaked out  (because there was change and gamers love and hate change).

A buddy who played lots of 40k said it gave him room for stuff on the side of his table which is a nice feature for those of us with a 6'x4' table.

5 point grots.  If one were to create a modern 40k religion this should be sin #1.  STILL 5 POINTS.  Even at projected T3.  So i'm not buying "widespread".  

I don't know anyone taking grots, but I know plenty of other units got point reductions. From bullgryns, to the majority of custodes units.

[Saturmorn Carvilli]

2 hours ago, InSaint said:

• Overall pointage increase across ALL units - this is to counteract the effect of a smaller board to prevent overcrowding
• More close combat oriented as units get into glorious melee more quickly - traditional long range shooting armies becomes unplayable
• Huge base sizes have a harder time positioning - terrain and meatshields can easily crowd out hot combat zones
• Less opportunity to outflank/deepstrike - smaller board makes it easier for players to protect their rear and flanks

I see anything GW does with points as less a points increase and more a points reset. When it comes to 40k, many of the units are just being returned  to what they were at the start of 8th.  I fully expect many of these points cost to drop as the game is tweeked in the years to come.  I think the same will likely for Age of Sigmar.  Take Chaos Warriors which are 90? points right now.  I really do think the AoS designers want Warriors (and Liberators) to be a 100 pts and only shaved their costs in an attempt to balance them with where the game ended up.  The only true way less models are going to be placed on the table is if the players do it themselves.

 

Board size along really isn't going to affect speed of most units getting into combat.  No Man's Land (the area between two armies) hadn't really changed in 40k generally still being about 24" away.  My experience for both 40k and AoS is few close combat fights happen in a player's deployment zone.  Even less deep in the deployment zone.  And most are from units deep striking or flanking reserves in.  Both of which are kinda hard given it is much easier to prevent any areas that are 9" or more away.

 

Again, pure table size has some effect, but the active part of the table has always been No Man's Land which has largely seen minimal loss of square inches.  Terrain density (along with movement rules going through terrain) have a much bigger impact. My personal preference is always been for denser terrained tables. It's the WWII gamer that plays way too many rattenkrieg missions which I think lends itself very well to 40k.  At the same time, with AoS I want a more open table as I still imagine the game being a mass battle just not with models representing 1-for-1 all the time.

 

This has been the biggest effect I have in encountered in 40k with smaller table sizes followed by a distance second of artillery units being slightly more vulnerable.  At 2000 pts with lots of LoS blocking cover, it is very easy to screen out deep strikers to at least Turn 3.  Which combine to forlorn hope 9" charges has made combat deep striking very situational.  It is one smaller part why Genestealer Cults really don't work in 9th (though, they have much, much bigger issues than this).

 

Honestly, I don't see shrinking tables affecting AoS (or at very least my armies) nearly as much as it did in 40k.  A lot of times the area being cut out was dead space in terms of game use.  That said, I am opposed to it largely as I think it presents a poor looking aesthetic to the game with everything all bunched up.  Again, this is more a 40k issue than AoS.  It also just feels very off to me to have a company/platoon sized game on such a small area.  But maybe that's just me not liking change, or the fact that I have created enough themed terrain sets to easily fill a 6'x4' to a dense to very dense level and don't want that effort wasted.

[stratigo]

5 hours ago, InSaint said:

This new table size (44x60) has been confirmed during the Dominion Unboxing video with the new AOS 3.0 rule book.

I don't play 40k but several of my gaming group members who also play 40k on the new size since the new edition gave some general feedback about the smaller board size.

• Overall pointage increase across ALL units - this is to counteract the effect of a smaller board to prevent overcrowding
• More close combat oriented as units get into glorious melee more quickly - traditional long range shooting armies becomes unplayable
• Huge base sizes have a harder time positioning - terrain and meatshields can easily crowd out hot combat zones
• Less opportunity to outflank/deepstrike - smaller board makes it easier for players to protect their rear and flanks

For those playing both gaming systems, what are your experience with 40k on the smaller board that you think will probably be emulated in AOS?

 

The reduction in long range shooting was missions requiring taking and holding for an entire turn objectives. This boosted melee a lot because a melee unit get an extra move and can then steal an objective, very strong for scoring. The best a shooting unit can do is return an objective to neutral.

 

Shooting can still be super deadly, but without a strong melee component, you will lose on objectives.

5 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Point reductions have been widespread since 9th started, so I am not sure armies are smaller in 40k.

 

They always do this. And it is annoying.

 

3 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I think it will be completely different than for 40k. The reality is that in AoS those 6×2" strips are almost exclusively used for bringing in units that enter from reserve via battlefield edge. They will be coming in closer to the action in theory but also more likely to be restricted by the presence of enemy models.

And that's about it.

I agree with this.

 

AoS is super dominated by teleportations and ultra mobility and other ways to nullify the effect distance has on the game, so a smaller board doesn't have the same effect in AoS as it does in 40k.

 

 

[Xil]

My thoughts, not rehashing the already mentioned predictions:

With the information about the shooting phase from today we might see more short ranged shooting aswell if there isn't a significant change to melee armies/units. Quiet a lot of units lose the "Lookout, Sir!" rule, which buffs shooting also.

 

The biggest impact will have the shortend board sides. Losing 12" means harsh buffs and nerfs.

We will be in hero and terrain auras more easily. Armies that rely on deepstrike and special setups have a harder time getting past screens (e.g. Nighthaunts, Summoning Demons, KO)

Spell ranges are buffed indirectly. Board wide effects have a marginal reduced effect.

 

If terrain changes to a style like 40k, movement will be much harder for huge blocks of units, leading to MSU lists.

[Joseph Mackay]

6 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I don't know anyone taking grots, but I know plenty of other units got point reductions. From bullgryns, to the majority of custodes units.

Things like Custodes got cheaper because every new codex seem to be getting statlines and weapons that are similar or better than theirs, so they need to be cheaper until their new codex puts them back into the super elites they should be (examples being Heavy Intercessors - a Troops unit with similar stats and better guns than Custodes Elite units and cheaper, and the new Sisters Paragon warsuit things although they’re more expensive)

[Maddpainting]

Going through this with 40k. A few things, I might have missed some too, but after playing on smaller tables for many games in 40k and trying to play the scenarios in my head for AoS this is what I concluded. 

1. No man zone is the same
2. Some missions your Deployment zones were a lot smaller
3. Points went up to compensate but not by enough, roughly 15% and table smaller by 24%
4. Makes coming from Reserves, summoning, teleporting, etc.. much harder and easier to screen out.
5. They added a rule to always come in on your table edge even if the enemy screened you out and are within engagement range, AoS will most likely do this too.
6. Slower armies can react to missions/objectives a lot easier. Slower armies gets a boost
7. Faster armies are still at an advantage in some areas, but smaller tables means harder to move and use that speed, some super fast units don't need all that speed anymore and just gets bodied, or can't heavily flank as well.
8. Objectives are mostly still same distance when its 2-4, but 5+ Objective and they get tight, easy to move from 1 to another a lot of the times.
9. Bomb spells are much more effective, losing not only 2" back Deployment but also 12" side deployment.
10. Deployment is but also isn't as heavily important. You can moving into a better position much easier, but AoE spells will hurt even more if you are castle to hard (which is easier to do)
11. Less possible terrain on the table over all
12. Depending on new terrain rules, Faction terrain will be harder to use (this is a big problem for 40k, Forts are almost impossible to use)
13. Mid to long range shooting becomes stronger and harder to stay away
14. Retreating is actually harder now too, smaller tables mean less space to move
15. Larger based unit are much harder with more terrain and units being tighter to move, but are also easier to multi combat, this could go either way depending on new terrain and engagement ranges

NOTE: 2 things will make or break army compositions going into new 3.0 1) Points and 2) Engagement Ranges. If points don't go up much and Engagement range stays 3" tables are going to feel very small. 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Maddpainting