Home Forums Fantasy Burning Sands Map Size

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #167933
    Kevin Deming

    So I was originally planning on using 36inch by 36inch (upsizing to take into account larger models and greater movement distance) maps for my 28-32mm scale games, but the one I really wanted to use is not going to be available. There is, however, a 22inch by 30inch version available – this seems smallish but then I realized I won’t be using a lot of models, and when I was playing a lot of the Monolith Conan game the boards were 24inch by 28 inch, so same area – and there were some scenarios with MANY miniatures.  Movement could be altered to fit the map better as well I suppose. And smaller maps make for easier storage AND shipping.

    So…..what do we think on map size? I might just go ahead and buy the map and use it for playtesting, but if there are reasons against that I am not taking into account…


    Not sure, maybe?

    Means less buildings and terrain, but if the scenario works?

    Andrew Beasley

    I do not mind a field where the figures are close together (esp in fantasy) but the two things I needed to think about when going to a 30cm x 30cm ‘board’:

    1) Do any weapons have significantly different ranges to others that will change the balance of forces significantly?

    2) Do you have enough movement space to allow for flanking attacks / general moves or is it only large enough for a straight line charge?


    Kevin Deming

    Thanks guys, good input. I am leaning toward larger map size, but then also considering the idea of truly solo scenarios using just one hero and no followers or co-op players for small maps. That still might limit scenery but it might be more action packed.

    Andrew Beasley

    …also considering the idea of truly solo scenarios using just one hero and no followers or co-op players for small maps. That still might limit scenery but it might be more action packed.

    That actually sounds neat – I tried it with SoBH but the heroes died quickly due to me pushing their luck too often! 15mm is a great scale (size) for this as you can get a small village or a fair number of scatter bits in the table size you are looking at but I’ve played a fair few 2×2 28mm games and been happy. Oddly enough I find square better than rectangular tables but never thought why – maybe flanking actions are easier on the square. Fantasy wins out over SciFi or ‘real’ due to shorter weapon ranges.

    A key thought here is how much will the terrain play in the game? It’s OK putting lots on the board but if all fighting takes place in the one or two open areas then why clutter the board???

    I’ve seen tables at shows and videos etc where the tables look ace but are impractical to stand figures up level, move units through the streets or worse you miss moving a few troops as they are out of site behind houses (not that I’ve EVER done that – blush). Mordhiem was a real pain for this – first one to step into the open areas got jumped on or more normally shot to pieces… This often gave very boring games as you tried to get the opposition through windows / gaps before they did the same.

    I have blue tacked string down to denote the table edges before now – maybe give that a try and see if size really matters? Sorry – just been watching Sarah Millican…

    Kevin Deming

    First off, I love Sarah, she is always so great on WILTY!

    More good info to contemplate as well! I think I have decided to just stick with the 36 by 36 map – I was so enthralled with a map design that when told it probably isn’t going to get made in that size that I just tried to find a way to stick with it. Working on making that map happen (with some minor customizations) with some other options instead of changing all the other things. We barbarians aren’t always successful in acting wisely rather than on impulse!

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.