Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > House Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-12-2016, 07:50 AM
Richard Lee's Avatar
Richard Lee Richard Lee is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Draganovo, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
Posts: 562
Question Rectangular (non-square) Boards

Just thought that I would ask here first. Has anyone much experience in using rectangular boards? I am thinking in terms of 800mm by 600mm (about 32" by 24") for normal non-BBDBA using 15mm figures.

I know that most people who found the 24" square boards a bit restrictive went for 32" or 30" square boards. I don't believe that the extra depth is necessary. Some of the tables that I can use for DBA are 30mm deep, but the coffee table is only about 24" deep.

Of course, you can only dice to enter on the 2 longer sides rather than all 4, but that is what happens with BBDBA.

I would be very interested to hear of any experiences, or opinions.
__________________
Supporter of 2.2+
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-13-2016, 01:23 PM
Bobgnar's Avatar
Bobgnar Bobgnar is offline
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ann Arbor Michigan
Posts: 2,165
Default

I have done some games on 32 by 24 inch battlefields. This is good for long battles such as Foronovo. This is not an open game, but fixed battle so entry is predetermined.

By the way, with DBA 3, the invader can pick which side he wants, with no dice.
__________________
I am moving to new Forum. http://fanaticus.boards.net/forum
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-13-2016, 02:56 PM
Richard Lee's Avatar
Richard Lee Richard Lee is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Draganovo, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
Posts: 562
Default

Thanks for your reply, Bob.

I am interested in the wider boards for solo play because the 24" (600mm) square boards don't have a lot of space on either side if you deploy everything in one long line, and expect to try and get mount troops to attack the enemy flanks and rear. Fortunately, a lot of my armies are mainly infantry, often with Warband or Spear, which tends to get deployed in two ranks for the rear support, reducing the total width of the deployment.

At the moment I am thinking mainly about DBA, although it would be convenient to use the same playing area for Hordes of the Things. I seem to remember Alan Saunders suggesting that larger square boards were not ideal for HotT because the extra depth made it harder to contact the enemy stronghold. He suggested that rectangular boards would be a better option for HotT.

I believe that some people were at least experimenting with rectangular boards in the late 1990s. The 'Battlemaker' campaign system that I tried recently also supported rectangular boards.
__________________
Supporter of 2.2+
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-13-2016, 11:32 PM
Redwilde's Avatar
Redwilde Redwilde is offline
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,793
Default

We frequently do double-army battles on rectangular boards. Like full BBDBA, the attacker can choose which long-side for deployment.
__________________
"Hasta la vista, Baby!"
Battlecry of the Velites
-----------
Goblinhall
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2016, 02:10 AM
Richard Lee's Avatar
Richard Lee Richard Lee is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Draganovo, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
Posts: 562
Default

Thank you for your reply, Redwilde. It sounds as if they work okay for you.
__________________
Supporter of 2.2+
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2016, 05:13 PM
Chris Brantley's Avatar
Chris Brantley Chris Brantley is offline
Imperator
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland
Posts: 2,896
Default

Several years ago..WADBAG experimented with 32x24 boards extensively for a while..with defender choosing base edge from the two long sides. Worked fine...and in some ways I felt defender did better (i.e. more game balance) with the choice of two long sides rather than having to role die for which of four sides was home edge.

Also driven by the desire to avoid the "edge of the world" syndrome, we also experimented with 32x32 boards. 32x32 in 15mm scaled more accurately to the 48x48 used for 25mm. But ultimately, tournament logistics prevailed and we went to 30x30, because the tables used at HMGS-East events are exactly 30 inches deep. On a 30x30, we changed the deployment line so that armies still were able to start the same distance apart as on a 24x24.
__________________
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina

-------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2016, 02:34 AM
Richard Lee's Avatar
Richard Lee Richard Lee is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Draganovo, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
Posts: 562
Default

Thanks for the reply, Chris. I suspect that a lot of tables are 24" or 30" wide, so given the choice of a 30" square or a 32" square, I would go with 30" for convenience every time. In fact, I do have a 30" square board that I have used a fair bit. I am tempted to bring my new 32" by 24" board into play for my new HotT campaign.
__________________
Supporter of 2.2+
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.