Bigger Tables, New Questions: Our First Thoughts on Building for 72”x48”
We had one of those very Warhammer moments recently: someone drops a table size in chat, and suddenly the whole army-building discussion changes.
72”x48”
And honestly? We are going to be very happy with that.
Up to now, we’ve usually been playing on 44”x30”, so seeing 72”x48” immediately made us stop and recalculate everything we thought we knew. At first glance it just sounds “bigger”, but when we started comparing it to what we normally use, it became clear this is a completely different kind of battlefield.
As Michał pointed out in the chat, if it were simply “twice as big” in the intuitive sense, we’d be looking at something like 60”x44”. Instead, this is even larger: 12” more in one direction and 4” more in the other. That is a lot more room to cross, screen, redeploy, and generally make mistakes in.
Suddenly, mobility matters more
The first reaction on our side was immediate and very relatable:
Maybe cavalry after all…
And yes, that really does feel like the kind of table where fast units start looking much more attractive. On a smaller board, some units can get away with being a bit clunky because the action comes to them quickly enough. On 72”x48”, though, movement starts to shape the whole game much more clearly.
That means we’re already looking at army lists a little differently:
- faster units gain value,
- board control becomes more important,
- long-range pressure changes in character,
- and deployment decisions probably matter a lot more.
A bigger table doesn’t just mean “more space”. It means more turns spent maneuvering, more opportunities to threaten flanks, and more chances for parts of the army to end up too far away from where they’re needed.
Even artillery has to think differently
One of our favorite little observations from the chat was this:
One Deathshrieker won’t cover the whole board.
That says a lot.
On a smaller battlefield, certain shooting pieces can feel like they influence nearly everything. On a larger one, that reach starts to feel less absolute. The threat is still there, of course, but it no longer dominates every corner by default. That opens up some interesting design space for lists and for actual gameplay.
We really like that. It suggests a game where positioning matters more, and where ranged tools still matter, but don’t automatically dictate the entire table all at once.
Scenarios already published? Great news
Another thing that immediately got us excited: the scenarios are already available.
That’s a big help when thinking about army-building, because it means we’re not building in a vacuum. We can look at what the missions actually ask us to do instead of just guessing what might be important.
And naturally, our first thought was simple:
We can play all three.
That’s exactly the kind of thing we like. A small set of published scenarios gives us a clear framework for testing lists, seeing what works, and figuring out whether our first instincts about the larger table are actually correct.
Don’t forget the baggage train
And then came the practical reminder that immediately shifts list-building from “interesting theory” to “right, we actually need to prepare for this”:
You need to have a baggage train.
That’s the kind of requirement we love, because it makes the whole event or scenario pack feel a bit more grounded and characterful. It also means army-building isn’t just about maximizing raw efficiency. Sometimes you need to remember the specific scenario elements and make sure you actually have what the game expects.
So yes: alongside all the excitement about movement, artillery reach, and cavalry, there’s now also a very real note on our hobby to-do list:
sort out a baggage train.
First impression: this should be fun
Our very first reaction to the 72”x48” tables is simple: this sounds great.
It feels like the kind of setup that should reward movement, planning, and proper scenario play. It also nudges us toward asking different list-building questions than we usually do on smaller boards.
Will cavalry become more tempting? Quite possibly. Will artillery feel less all-seeing? Also possible. Will we overthink all of this and then just throw models forward anyway? Extremely likely.
Either way, we’re excited. Bigger tables, published scenarios, and baggage train requirements are already enough to get us talking lists before the first game even starts.
We’ll report back once we’ve actually played through the scenarios and seen which of our early theories survive contact with the table.