Post by jason on Jul 8, 2019 17:02:19 GMT
I am curious how the 4' x 4' recommended board size has worked out for everyone.
I have been playing on a 3' x 4' (deploying on the long edges with a 6" deployment zone) as that is what fits on my table.
One thing that I have noted, is that if the objectives are spread out, the game tends to end up being 2-3 mostly separate engagements because movement speeds mean that a unit lined up to claim a point on one spot of the battle area, is to far away to really impact the other side of the battle area.
So if you ignore the deployment areas (IE everything deploys right on the edge). you have a 2' by 4' area.
Normal move and shoot speeds are 6", which means the field is 4 activations forward, but 8 across. rushing halves that. Charges are more variable, because of needed a target to charge, but could be faster then rushing if the attacker killed on the charge (12" charge + 3" post charge move, very unlikely to get that exact situation, but is there).
so if I sent a unit on the first round to cap a point on one edge of the battle field, I don't see any good way for it to get to a place were it is impacting the other size of the field, unless the initial point is uncontested, so round 2 can be a rush toward the other side.
I realize the map size, movement and weapon ranges are all interplay with each other, however, at the 4' x 4' size, seems to be pushing the combats toward multiple more separated conflicts instead. I will say, that there are some weapons that would cover nearly 100% of a battle map if it was much smaller and to much smaller could cause issues with the ambush special ability (as a spread out group could make it hard to get 9" away from the enemy.