6ft by 4ft play area.

[novista 6]

Alright all?!

I was wondering whether a decision or general consensus had been reached regarding 6 by 4, as talk was previously referring to moving up to this size, come the 400 point revolution. I know the rules for Sullust were for 6 by 3 play area. Any road before I go shelling out for snazzie mats, any ideas?

[Green Knight 9,746]

6x3 is, and will remain, the standard play area.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Yup. The only time I move up to 6x4 is why I play 600 points.

[Edsel62 306]

A slow ship (looking at you VSD) has a hard time making it to the battle if you play with greater than a 3' width to cross.  Or at least by the time he gets in to good firing range the enemy has managed to maneuver to the point that the VSD is marginalized in its effectiveness.  Personally if I were playing a larger game, like the 600-point game Lyraeus mentions, I'd be more inclined to add more width than depth, say an 8'x3' with wider deployment areas.

 

By the way I notice that Gale Force 9 is about to start selling their "epic" mats, 3'x6' game mats.  Since they are vinyl (much more easily produced than mouse pad material) it makes sense they would be one of the first to start producing 3'x6' mats in the US market.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Edsel62

[Vogons 195]

I went ahead and bought a 6' x 4' and it's made for a lot like the extra space. I can always mark off of each side for 3' x 6' when I need it. 

Seems to give bigger ships a chance to throttle up, and gives rebel small ships room to maneuver. Only downside I've run into was when I took B-wings and had to wait for battle to get to them.

[tgall 796]

Having tried it a few times, frankly I think a game not bound by 6 rounds, plays much better on a 6x4 mat. Having both the extra room to maneuver and place obstacles, it gives you the space to use more tactics that the constrained 6x3 space starts to take away.

For the 6 round tournament play tho 6x3 makes sense just to get rid of sitzkreig type play.

As more objective cards are released I do hope we see play space officially expand. I could easily see objectives tuned to play area size/points.

[VanorDM 11,599]

I'd say this much...

If you're going to build a table, you really should make it 4x6 and then mark off a foot on each side. Having that extra space for cards, dice, tokens, ect... is just too handy to not do it.

[machinebede1 99]

I still think we are missing out on the feel of round tables and play areas. A 5ft round has similar play area and captures the feel of a situation table as seen in the movies.

[n815e 106]

You could compensate for the extra deployment distance by allowing ships to go that the full ruler's length in.

[stuh42asl 183]

I have a 4' x 8' piece of 3/4" inch plywood(good on one side) I am trying to get space in my game room to set it up. That to me is the best size for the epic games I play (1000 pts +). Now to sand it , paint it black , add star features and have a very nice area for maneuvering. As for the B-wings and others. I settled for the squadrons to be held in ship until ready to deploy. It is a good concept and provides fog of war to both sides............." Does that squadron have a carrier, and if it does what is the squadron composition?". Squadron minis are held off board on the ship cards they are assigned to. And squadrons are launched as an order on the command dial. Squadrons can launch but cannot attack that round. I assign 3 squadrons to medium  base ships and 5 to large base  ships. Plus an additional if the have the expanded hangar modification.

[n815e 106]

I like that idea of launching and landing.  It would add a whole new level of tactical consideration.

[Bestkeylar 2]

Launching from carriers is a great house rule. I would add that they can attack when launched by command, which would make a CAP squadron a must.

[Green Knight 9,746]

If there is interest I could create some 6x4 maps for Vassdal.

Or even 8x4.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Green Knight

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Launching from carriers is a great house rule. I would add that they can attack when launched by command, which would make a CAP squadron a must.

The problem is that this significantly alters how good squadrons are, so it would change the balance of how much they should cost.

[TTC 114]

I'd say this much...

If you're going to build a table, you really should make it 4x6 and then mark off a foot on each side. Having that extra space for cards, dice, tokens, ect... is just too handy to not do it.

Or mark off 6 inches on each side, unless you're trying a 6x2 playing area (which I do recommend if you're running ISDs). 

[Vogons 195]

Regarding the "Carrier" house rule, shouldn't ships carry fighter squadrons equal to their squadron value? I'm basing this on expanded hangers adding 1 to the squadron value