yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, that's him. I guess he was involved. I hadn't seen that video before.
Kinda confirms what I was saying, though. They have some tournament players involved, but none of those players in the video are top tournament names. There's no Siegler, Lennon, Cheema, Nanavati, Vijay, etc type guy who is at the very top of the competitive scene. I don't mean that in an insulting way at all, btw. Lawrence is a good, solid player. But he himself would be the first to tell you that their main focus is narrative and fun games, not super competitive stuff.
True, but he does competetive fairly well and has a long history of being very open on what needs fixing in the game.
And just because they don't have the very top players working it doesn't mean the game is automatically DoA. We just need more info to see if they really fixed the game or not.
I don't think anyone has claimed doa , but healthy scepticism is imo advised what with the remaining rules Block that carries over.
Which honestly could've done with a bit of consolidation?
yukishiro1 wrote: I edited my post. A few of the other guys in that video are top tournament players. Not top, top, but very good ones.
It definitely isn't DoA either way. We'll obviously have to wait and see. But there are definitely reasons to be worried about the table size change.
There are an infinite number reasons to be worried, but until we know more I choose to not be.
Most of us will keep playing on 6x4s anyways, so it looks more like it's biggest impact will be on ITC since Reece seems to feel the smaller board is a good shift for their tournament scene.
bullyboy wrote: I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.
Perfect is a bit of an overstatement, but honestly? Dealing with fights in the center of the table will be easier. Less knocking things over, and more accurate measurements.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.
There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.
I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.
Did you notice the previewed Kill Team scenario is the long deployment. So at the minimum suggested size, the battlefield is 30" wide with each player having a 10" deep deployment zone. Is it more crowded? yes. But a player wanted to deploy deep isn't losing that much space.
That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.
Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.
And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.
There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.
It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.
Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.
And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.
There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.
It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.
Then maybe you shouldn't play highly competitive games of Combat Patrol? And maybe parts of the rules you haven't seen yet have some impact on the game? And maybe your opponent isn't going to make his Combat Patrol consist of few enough units for you to punk him with one unit making a double move and charge.
The possibilities are endless. Why don't we wait for the full game before deciding their decisions are dumb? They may be dumb, or there may be genius you can't yet see.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.
Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.
And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.
There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.
It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.
Do they ignore overwatch, whatever terrain rules that are upcoming, and also perform objective/secondary actions while in melee?
Also, it's 18 attacks that hit on 3's and wound on 4's, living on a 4++, right? Is that even going to wipe 10 intercessors.
If Harlequins and Genestealers and all that get a solid boost from this and actually can start playing the game a bit, that'd be great. They are among the worst armies atm to begin with.
Though I don't see the dumb Tau/AdMech/Marine/Gun-Castle game really going away, especially if you cannot tag (those few non-Fly) tanks in combat anymore.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?
Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.
I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?
Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4
Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.
Their min sizes have nothing to do with common table sizes. They're literally determined by blocking up the 22"x30" Kill Team set folding maps next to each other in progressive amounts.
Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?
Back when me and my friends started playing 40k we just threw some green felt we bought from the fabric store on our dining room table and that was our game table... it was never really official play surface since the table was never 48in wide or 6 ft long. As we got more into 40k we bought plywood and put that over the Table so we could have an official table... I guess new players don’t need to do that anymore. Which is a good thing..
If I had to guess the new table sizes Including killteam boards are for new players to easily get into and easier to play games... It’s easier for tournament organizers to just use folding tables instead of placing plywood boards on top. It’s just an easier and more convienant size. We will see how it’s adopted but logistically it helps a lot of players.
You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..
yukishiro1 wrote: That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.
Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.
And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.
There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.
It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.
Then maybe you shouldn't play highly competitive games of Combat Patrol? And maybe parts of the rules you haven't seen yet have some impact on the game? And maybe your opponent isn't going to make his Combat Patrol consist of few enough units for you to punk him with one unit making a double move and charge.
The possibilities are endless. Why don't we wait for the full game before deciding their decisions are dumb? They may be dumb, or there may be genius you can't yet see.
I don't disagree in principle. But there is no way, even in theory, to balance a game for 500 points on a 44x30 table, and also balance it for 2000 points on a 44x60 table, with identical points values and rules. It just can't be done.
And that's fine. Hopefully the idea that you can play 500 points competitively is just PR spin, and they're smart enough to focus on keeping 2000 competitive, rather than trying to split the baby in a way that harms both sizes. I don't really care if 500 points games are a joke in competitive play.
Also, it's 18 attacks that hit on 3's and wound on 4's, living on a 4++, right? Is that even going to wipe 10 intercessors.
24 attacks hitting 3s, S4, -2AP, 2 damage each, fighting twice, in the most common masque. After firing 6d6 haywire shots.
But it's not nearly the nastiest 500 point list you can make. That's kinda my point. It was just one thing that immediately came to mind. Something like swarmlord + genestealers is going to be even more oppressive at that bracket.
The point was just to illustrate that things that are balanced for 2k on a 4x6 board aren't going to be balanced at 500 points on a 44x30 board. They can't be.
gungo wrote: Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?
Neither. Kill Team tiles got made to fit into the standard boxes sizes that GW make. It's entirely mundane and entirely practical.
gungo wrote: You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..
They're not really making new RoB tiles, but boy are the making new KT-sized boards.
Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.
gungo wrote: Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.
No, it was a practical decision. Same applies to the slightly less than 1x1 Necromunda tiles that came out with the Newcromunda starter box. You literally cannot put 1' wide tiles in that box*.
*Flat, obviously you can angle tiles to fit, but that's not how the boxes are packed.
gungo wrote: Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?
Neither. Kill Team tiles got made to fit into the standard boxes sizes that GW make. It's entirely mundane and entirely practical.
gungo wrote: You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..
They're not really making new RoB tiles, but boy are the making new KT-sized boards.
Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.
I hope the table sizes are minimums and that the standard will remain 6x4 for bigger games and maybe 4x4 for 500 pt games.
Smaller tables with current move charge strategies shenanigans is ... well, maybe movement and weapon ranges will be reduced across the board too.
Regardless, I hope that people resist and set their own standard for larger tables.
It seems that GW is trying to make everyone with a credit card happy in a disposable way.. 40K is now a luxury convenience product for apartment dwellers with enough cash to pay 10$ for a single infantry model and almost 100 for a tank, but that don’t have space or money for a proper table and rather must play on the dining room table...
At least now I understand why some people seem so happy that the game should be more streamlined abstract and play faster. Because they have to finish in time for dinner, because people will need to eat on the game table.
I still like to think it was the powerful folding table lobby.
"Hey, if you make your game fit on our tables, we would definitely need to find someone to be the key note speaker at the next Folding Table Manufacturers Association convention. There's an honorarium..."
I don't think its really much of a mystery on why tournaments would favor small tables. One, they'd need less terrain to make good tables, logistics would imply less things needed is good. Also, space if you squeeze games a bit and make it more compact you can fit more people in an area or for distancing it makes it easier to space out and keep up numbers.
Smaller boards are good for space concerns and that is a consideration for a tournament.
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
I mean I get the concerns of table size from a competitive stand point. That said I’m not a competitive player and having a game that fits on a standard dining table and not having to have a special table or a gigantic banquet style dining table is a boon to most of the players that play the game.
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new sales of terrain/mats at this specific size.
Chamberlain wrote: I still like to think it was the powerful folding table lobby.
"Hey, if you make your game fit on our tables, we would definitely need to find someone to be the key note speaker at the next Folding Table Manufacturers Association convention. There's an honorarium..."
My folding tables are 4'x2', so three make a perfect 6'x4'.
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?
ITC has said they will be cutting boards down for the events they host, but they aren't making it a rule for ITC events being hosted by others to do so. That alone with keep the incentive around for people to keep playing on 6x4s.
Not to mention most stores and clubs have pre-existing tables set up specifically to be 6x4. They aren't going to run out and change that just because you can play on a smaller table.
Rule of 3 was largely adopted because it affected balance across the game and prevented spam lists from ruining every game, casual or otherwise, people played.
This table size? All it means is that your table needs to be that size or bigger to have a balanced game, and if your table is bigger, why not use it as is?
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?
The big problem is that none of the lengthwise deployments work on a 30" board. Every single weapon and most melee units and most psychic powers will be in range turn 1 every game. Even if they go down to a 9" deployment zone or w/e everything in 40k is either so fast, so long range, or both that there's really not any room to out deploy on the smaller widths. Even cramming your army into a corner will see your opponent in full effective range immediately.
Hopefully people just continue to do 6x4 as always for tournaments and use the (imo much gakkier) smaller table options for beer and pretzels games in someone's dorm room.
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?
ITC has said they will be cutting boards down for the events they host, but they aren't making it a rule for ITC events being hosted by others to do so. That alone with keep the incentive around for people to keep playing on 6x4s.
Not to mention most stores and clubs have pre-existing tables set up specifically to be 6x4. They aren't going to run out and change that just because you can play on a smaller table.
Rule of 3 was largely adopted because it affected balance across the game and prevented spam lists from ruining every game, casual or otherwise, people played.
This table size? All it means is that your table needs to be that size or bigger to have a balanced game, and if your table is bigger, why not use it as is?
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.
Resistant to change?
Obviously, otherwise so many people wouldn't be so adverse to getting rid of IGOUGO for a more tactical game experience
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.
Resistant to change?
Obviously, otherwise so many people wouldn't be so adverse to getting rid of IGOUGO for a more tactical game experience
I was thinking about how the community has been freaking out everytime GW says they're changing something and how it'll ruin the game forever (or so I've been told).
Personally I just don't think AA is the magic patch everyone says it is, but each to their own on that hill. I don't feel like dying on it today.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
(hope I have the right person attributed here)
The LVO, ITC, and so on? While big names in the competitive scene, they're just a small fraction of the overall 40K experience and GW's aiming at bringing in a lot of new players for this edition, so giving minimums that focus on the average dinner table or folding tables in a garage is *extremely* smart.
My local store uses 8' X 4' boards for bigger games (such as 2K), scaling down to 6' x 4' for 1500. It's not what everyone uses, but you get used to it.
If your focus is more on "I want to travel the tourney circuit!" then you need to practice on tables matching what they use.
If your focus is more on local games, then you can use smaller tables *if you want*, but it isn't required.
This just makes the minimum size a bit more firm.
It's seriously not a big deal. The sky's not falling. Just vreathe, play locally, and wait for the major tournies to release what size they'll be using, then shift gears to practicing for that. There's no point getting worked up on this one.
Kick back, relax, crack open a beverage, and focus on enjoying the game for a month or two. Training mode's down the road, you know?
I'm totally cool with lowering the table size in the abstract, it's the doing it without reworking threat ranges thing that makes me worried. This and a lot of other stuff I'm seeing makes me think we're going to have a really rough first year or so of 9th until they get codexes out that fix the game for the new ruleset. I don't buy for a minute the idea that the PA books were set up to create a seamless transition.
The game will "work" using 8th edition numbers and books, but I doubt it'll work very well.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm totally cool with lowering the table size in the abstract, it's the doing it without reworking threat ranges thing that makes me worried. This and a lot of other stuff I'm seeing makes me think we're going to have a really rough first year or so of 9th until they get codexes out that fix the game for the new ruleset. I don't buy for a minute the idea that the PA books were set up to create a seamless transition.
The game will "work" using 8th edition numbers and books, but I doubt it'll work very well.
There is a day one errata, so hopefully it addresses some of that stuff, if the core rules don't.
yukishiro1 wrote: I hope so, though I doubt that any day 1 errata is gonna go so far as to update movement statistics, stratagems, psychic powers, and the like.
I suspect what we're going to see is a big FAQ 3 months down the road that nerfs a lot of stuff.
But we'll see, maybe it really will work as well as they're saying. It'd be a first, but there's a first time for everything!
We've seen a bigger playtesting team for 9th than 8th had, with far more tournament player support. I sincerely hope all that extra manpower wasn't wasted in getting that stuff pointed out and corrected.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
I started on a dining room table too. My parents' dining room table just happened to be 6x4 feet though. LOL. All you needed was a green tablecloth and we were good to go.
Another benefit of smaller tables is that my gut won't be knocking over as much stuff now when I'm measuring distances in my opponent's deployment zone.
Why would you shave the tables? Now everyone will have a foot of space to place reserve and/or dead models, as well as books, bags, drinks, nachos, etc.
Or they can continue use same size as before and if model counts drop enjoy game where movement matters more than before
Chamberlain wrote: There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.
Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.
Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.
Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables
That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.
For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.
Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".
Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?
It might be new standard for new boards built and bought. Nobody will cut existing ones since deployment maps don't require. You can play combat patrol on 10x9' and it works
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oaka wrote: Another benefit of smaller tables is that my gut won't be knocking over as much stuff now when I'm measuring distances in my opponent's deployment zone.
Tables where you play aren't set for easy access to other side? With deployment zones like hammer and anvil that is fairly essential. Heie we can so quick walk around solves it.
Speaking of deployment zones noticed gw abandoned one tool they had that had weakened alpha strike. Defender picking deployment map and where they deploy.
Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
The hilarious part is that first the company promotional theme was ”9th is more like 8.5, it will be a smooth transition, everything old will work” and now it’s going to minitables, moving through models, no overwatch, tanks shooting in melee, every competitive first turn assault hitting home, GK smites all being in range turn 1 except from the couple units you can put in the corner, deep strikers really becoming unscreenable properly since you have no depth to create a layered defense, etc. And finally the transition will be so smooth you’ll go cutting your game mats.
And it wasn’t even GW who flat out said people should cut their game mats and forget everything with range higher than 36 because it’s never needed, it was Reece, who needs to sell something and fit more customers at his events. Nobody asked for this, but I’m sure there will be plenty of bullgak how dumbing down your game is actually good for you (read: him).
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
No, i call bs, we know what rules carry over and unless gw significantly lowers availability of movement shenanigans and the movement statistics that isn't going to happen.
Massed non fly melee will still suck and anything that has fly and other shenanigans will still be "smashing" fun.
I feel like there will be a lot of core stuff that is likely the same, but a lot of details are changing, but who the heck knows anymore. It's clear we don't have enough detail to know what hasn't changed since the only thing GW really has shown us is what has changed.
I mean, the change or removal of 1-2 rules could completely change how we play the game, I already see lots of things that push for different list building which allow will make huge changes.
GW pushing a new board size based solely on what size tile they can cram in a box is the first truly disappointing thing about 9th.
And they certainly consider it the cherry on the cake that it will screw over all those evil third party game mat producers.
That the biggest tourneys are already bending over and sticking their bums up is even more disappointing.
I'm fairly sure that they explained multiple times that the driving force behind the KT board size decision was being able to fit it onto a regular table anywhere.
lord_blackfang wrote: GW pushing a new board size based solely on what size tile they can cram in a box is the first truly disappointing thing about 9th.
And they certainly consider it the cherry on the cake that it will screw over all those evil third party game mat producers.
That the biggest tourneys are already bending over and sticking their bums up is even more disappointing.
Screw them over? It's a boon for them, now they can sell a new mat to a lot of players who already have one and feel that they must play on the "correct" size.
Let's say you bought a 6'x4' mat from FLG and you're happy with the quality. If you're a tournament player, would you rather cut it to size (or mark the extra inches off) or buy a new one, that fits more easily on tables and takes up less room?
Same goes for tournament organizers: it's more convenient to buy new mats in order to fit more people in the room/conference hall/... than to continue using the old ones and have less participants. It's a large investment upfront but it allows for more money coming in down the line.
help a metric guy to understand the new board size
common size is 6 x 4 = 72" x 48" = ~180 x 120 cm some games use 6x3/72x36/180x90
new size for 40k is:
500/1000p => 30 x 44 = 76 x 110 cm (75x110)
2000p => 60 x 44 = 150 x 112 cm (150x110)
3000p => 90 x 44 = 228 x 112 cm (225x110)
is this calculation right?
so the new size give you od numbers as long as youi don't use inch and all your existing mats/tables are of the wrong size now
and as GW defines the standard, it won't take long until people adapt to it as those only playing 40k without a mat or similiar now and/or starting fresh will use those sizes
(same as the Star Wars Legion players use 6x3 because it is the standard size, altthough the game allows 6x4)
strange thing about size is now that 2k points are on played on a smaller table as old 1500-2000points and on a similar size as SW Legion uses for 800 points
I have to say, I like the scaling from other games more
SW Legion which uses 72x36 for standard size and 36x36 for skimrish
or Warpaht that starts with 24x24 and 48x24 for Deadzone, expands to 48x48 for FF and 72x48 for the big game
because they fit standard metric sized better
no problem to get a 60x60cm (24x24" or 90x90cm (36" plate from hardware stores to use as base to make your own table
while 75x110 or 75x55 would need you to buy larger plates and cut them down
also 60x60 plates are easier to store than 75x55
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?
It's the same guy people believe writes a better competitive mission pack and environment than GW (missions would include table sizes and deployments worth nothing).
Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.
I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.
sieGermans wrote: Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.
I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.
Welcome to Dakkadakka!
But yeah, overall the changes look positive and I'm optimistic about the new edition.
I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.
Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.
Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.
sieGermans wrote: Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.
I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.
You're free to do so. You could start your own if you wish to. People are free to their own opinions on here. I hope your optimistic view of what the new edition could be turns out to be reality aswell. Then we can get back to complaining about the pricing instead.
Galas wrote: I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.
Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.
Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.
It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.
(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)
kodos wrote: help a metric guy to understand the new board size
common size is 6 x 4 = 72" x 48" = ~180 x 120 cm some games use 6x3/72x36/180x90
new size for 40k is:
500/1000p => 30 x 44 = 76 x 110 cm (75x110)
2000p => 60 x 44 = 150 x 112 cm (150x110)
3000p => 90 x 44 = 228 x 112 cm (225x110)
is this calculation right?
so the new size give you od numbers as long as youi don't use inch and all your existing mats/tables are of the wrong size now
and as GW defines the standard, it won't take long until people adapt to it as those only playing 40k without a mat or similiar now and/or starting fresh will use those sizes
(same as the Star Wars Legion players use 6x3 because it is the standard size, altthough the game allows 6x4)
strange thing about size is now that 2k points are on played on a smaller table as old 1500-2000points and on a similar size as SW Legion uses for 800 points
I have to say, I like the scaling from other games more
SW Legion which uses 72x36 for standard size and 36x36 for skimrish
or Warpaht that starts with 24x24 and 48x24 for Deadzone, expands to 48x48 for FF and 72x48 for the big game
because they fit standard metric sized better
no problem to get a 60x60cm (24x24" or 90x90cm (36" plate from hardware stores to use as base to make your own table
while 75x110 or 75x55 would need you to buy larger plates and cut them down
also 60x60 plates are easier to store than 75x55
From the Community post:
Of course, these are only the minimum size requirements for your battlefields, so whether you’re using a 6′x4′ table with a Realm of Battle board, linking two, four or six 22″x30″ Killzone boards together according to the battle size you’re playing, or just using a dining room table, you’re good to go. In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!
If you have 180cm by 120cm set up and you prefer playing at that size of table, keep on playing on that size of table.
I would say most of the issue is caused by GW dragging this out for if roumers are true a release date of 25 July and a pre order date of 11th of July which is when apparently the App drops, how that all work's etc and people trying to get acess to the books they already own during that two weeks will probably keep the hype up for the preorder.
But they have to drag out telling us very little for another 25 working days that's a very long time to tease people who as most people are still in some form of social distancing/lockdown can't play.
People with little else to be able to do on their hobby are going to devour the information and trying to guess as they have little else to do now.
Galas wrote: I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.
Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.
Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.
It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.
(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)
I know maybe for you it is not a problem. As you have said multiple times, you don't even use the rule of three. But at least for me, playing in FLGS and clubs, what the big tournaments do IS how I play. This deflection about "If you don't like it DONT use it!" when people is saying that for most people thats NOT an option is tbh infuriating and patronizing. We KNOW nobody is forcing us to play like that. We also know for most of us theres no other option.
But you are right. I'll stop whining. I apologize for discussing about the small information GW is droping us each day. We can go back to talk about... hmmm... those primaris with swords and shields sure are cool eh?
Gaming stores aren’t suddenly gonna chop a foot off their tables. There really is a lot of fretting over this for little real reason. Minimum =/= only possible option.
Of course, these are only the minimum size requirements for your battlefields, so whether you’re using a 6′x4′ table with a Realm of Battle board, linking two, four or six 22″x30″ Killzone boards together according to the battle size you’re playing, or just using a dining room table, you’re good to go. In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!
If you have 180cm by 120cm set up and you prefer playing at that size of table, keep on playing on that size of table.
same as 6x4 is a suggestion in 8th and it is nearly impossible to get people playing on a differnt sized table as "this is the official size"
At home I can do what I want, as soon as you play in a Club/Store/Event or other people trying to use housrules is a pain
I know maybe for you it is not a problem. As you have said multiple times, you don't even use the rule of three. But at least for me, playing in FLGS and clubs, what the big tournaments do IS how I play. This deflection about "If you don't like it DONT use it!" when people is saying that for most people thats NOT an option is tbh infuriating and patronizing. We KNOW nobody is forcing us to play like that. We also know for most of us theres no other option.
Is this club or whatever composed of people? Talk to them, If enough of them like the bigger tables, then you can agree to use those. The deafeatis attitude, "but the community won't let me use FW/Legends/bigger tables," is just sad. Especially as there is a good chance that other members of the community think the exact same thing, but just silently assume that no one would agree.
But you are right. I'll stop whining. I apologize for discussing about the small information GW is droping us each day. We can go back to talk about... hmmm... those primaris with swords and shields sure are cool eh?
They indeed are! I am wondering if the Enforcer shields would look good on them if one wanted to tone down the gothicness a notch?
sieGermans wrote: Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.
I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.
Define optimistic?
I mean I'm fairly confident it won't give me cancer.
Mildly confident it will be better rules-wise than Rogue Trader or 2nd Edition.
From a practical/physical standpoint, reducing the minimum table width for a 2000 point game from 48" to 44" has no impact. The standard dining table width is 30" - 40", with most 6-8 seater tables being around 36", so you would still need a custom board/mat.
willb2064 wrote: From a practical/physical standpoint, reducing the minimum table width for a 2000 point game from 48" to 44" has no impact. The standard dining table width is 30" - 40", with most 6-8 seater tables being around 36", so you would still need a custom board/mat.
I guess GW has different ones:
In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!
I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?
I personally like that it is 5 feet instead of 6, solely because now a 6 foot table leaves a foot for minis.
I highly doubt most people will stop playing on 48 width, just because that is the dimensions of the tables they already have. Since everything is measured from the middle anyway it’s just an extra 2 inches in each deployment zone.
Personally I like that it is a bit smaller, I know in some games it was super annoying that it was literally impossible for me to catch some models and it makes fliers easier to deal with.
Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed
For anyone who has Realm of Battle boards and is blind to the word "minimum" I am buying full sets for $50. Better to make a few bucks than to set them on fire on Youtube!
judgedoug wrote: Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed
your first GW game?
there is no optional/minimum/suggest rule, as soon as there is a number in the rulebook it is set and everything else is a houserule that will call for arguments that one is not playing the game as it is supposed to be
there are always some rules the community ignore that are not optional, while other stuff that is just a suggetion is followed as strict as possible
but hey people are now happy that the board size is smaller as they now have more space for minis/books/dice, although there was no rule that said we must play on 72x48, so using smaller tables was always possible
judgedoug wrote: Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed
For anyone who has Realm of Battle boards and is blind to the word "minimum" I am buying full sets for $50. Better to make a few bucks than to set them on fire on Youtube!
It's really not this simple.
One of the main tourny organizers, FLG, has already stated they are moving to the minimum suggested table size for their events. This will have pretty large ripple effects across the community.
It's not as simple as people misinterpreting it, putting something like that in the rule book will cause effects across the community like I pointed out.
But the rule is not you MUST use this size it is, if indeed you could even phrase it this way, your gaming table MUST be AT LEAST this size. Again, it is not GW's fault if tournament organisers take the more flexible approach set out in the rulebook and turn it into a hard and fast thing in their tournaments. GW have to cater to the casual gamer who might not have a 6x4 table by letting them know 'hey its OK you don't need one but if you already have one that is cool too!'
One of the main tourny organizers, FLG, has already stated they are moving to the minimum suggested table size for their events. This will have pretty large ripple effects across the community.
It's not as simple as people misinterpreting it, putting something like that in the rule book will cause effects across the community like I pointed out.
See below:
Necronmaniac05 wrote:I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?
puma713 wrote: Here is a visual representation of the new board size with the first mission they previewed set up.
Spoiler:
Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space. What ever will we do? (Thank you for posting the visual, puma.)
Is it really that much? I guess it does leave less area to hide from units (close combat or low weapon range) and make it easier to zone out parts of the board from deep strikers.
Wait! Are those bugs or features of a smaller board?
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
There was/is a leaked image of the necron codex cover doing the rounds which i think we can assume is genuine based on the fact everything else leaked so far has been bang on the money. I think we can safely assume they will be very soon after the starter box lands but if i recall correctly neither the death guard codex or marine codex dropped day one when dark imperium was released?
I mean we know nothing about the psychic phase, how deep strikers will work. We already know there are multiple changes to how reinforcements will arrive. Heck we have no idea how the nuances of combat will work, I can see them getting rid of wrapping/model locking as a possibility(I hope, it just felt gamey doing it).
We don’t know how targeting rules will work, hopefully they make characters less obnoxious going forward.
Too many unknowns to say anything definitive about anything in regards to how it will impact things overall can just look at it in the context of what we know. I personally like the smaller length because if people keep using the same tables they have then playing/deploying the army will be easier. I have broken a lot of models as a result of having no place to put em.
I don’t see anyone having a real problem with maintain the 48 width because everything is measured from the middle anyway.
The board is 75% of the size it was before. That is a very significant difference in size.
There are plenty of argument as to why this is a good change (at least once threat ranges are rebalanced), but "you won't notice the difference anyway, going from 24 square feet to 18 is not a significant difference" is not one of them.
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?
That's why i said it wasn't involving claims of balance so it had some plausibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Nope. They'll have Shadowspear booklets in the box for the each faction.
alextroy wrote: Is it really that much? I guess it does leave less area to hide from units (close combat or low weapon range) and make it easier to zone out parts of the board from deep strikers.
Wait! Are those bugs or features of a smaller board?
No, it simply makes it easier for the person with the first turn get all weapons in range to hit the opponent. Yeah that's a pretty big bug.
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Yeah, we know they are the first two dexes, but we don't know when they are supposed to be out.
We've already been "Leaked" the huge Necron release that follows, so I imagine that's going to at least be a bit after 9th drops.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?
That's why i said it wasn't involving claims of balance so it had some plausibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Nope. They'll have Shadowspear booklets in the box for the each faction.
You're going off the notion of a broken clock being right twice a day, except it's most likely one of the other times right now.
alextroy wrote: Is it really that much? I guess it does leave less area to hide from units (close combat or low weapon range) and make it easier to zone out parts of the board from deep strikers.
Wait! Are those bugs or features of a smaller board?
No, it simply makes it easier for the person with the first turn get all weapons in range to hit the opponent. Yeah that's a pretty big bug.
Terrain and smaller army sizes means this is unlikely to be a big deal for ranged weaponry that requires LOS.
What I am more worried about is the interactions with units with either (1) huge melee threat ranges, particularly since these tend to have the fly keyword and are therefore mostly immune to terrain, and (2) indirect fire. Indirect fire is already borderline overpowered in 8th, and reducing the size of the board and adding more terrain only makes it even more powerful.
The uber-cheese Eldar EC/MS indirect fire list that takes 3 spinners and 9 weaver platforms is already an abomination in 8th; I think it is likely to be the first overpowered list in 9th, unless they really increase the points values by a huge amount with the 9th edition release.
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Yeah, we know they are the first two dexes, but we don't know when they are supposed to be out.
We've already been "Leaked" the huge Necron release that follows, so I imagine that's going to at least be a bit after 9th drops.
GW has said FW books and Deathwatch where high on the list for releases.
Chances are that cover we saw is for the Necrons minidex from the starter.
Not Online!!! wrote: Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.
Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....
Oh wait
Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.
It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.
You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?
That's why i said it wasn't involving claims of balance so it had some plausibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
Nope. They'll have Shadowspear booklets in the box for the each faction.
You're going off the notion of a broken clock being right twice a day, except it's most likely one of the other times right now.
I'm going off the notion that he's done his job and actually played some 9th ed games and has more insight into the new game than I do.
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Yeah, we know they are the first two dexes, but we don't know when they are supposed to be out.
We've already been "Leaked" the huge Necron release that follows, so I imagine that's going to at least be a bit after 9th drops.
Where was the new marine codex announced? All I've seen is talk of Deathwatch.
I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Yeah, we know they are the first two dexes, but we don't know when they are supposed to be out.
We've already been "Leaked" the huge Necron release that follows, so I imagine that's going to at least be a bit after 9th drops.
Where was the new marine codex announced? All I've seen is talk of Deathwatch.
They mentioned a new marine book on one of the daily streams somewhere, although that might well be a crusade supplement which contains the new units perhaps.
Wait, why is everyone freaking out over the “new table size”? It’s a minimum size to play games on, and isn’t a must. I imagine most people will continue to play on the normal board size because that’s how big all the mats are. It hasn’t changed anything at all, other than making it slightly easier for people who don’t have a dedicated gaming table and use their dining table or whatever.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wait, why is everyone freaking out over the “new table size”? It’s a minimum size to play games on, and isn’t a must. I imagine most people will continue to play on the normal board size because that’s how big all the mats are. It hasn’t changed anything at all, other than making it slightly easier for people who don’t have a dedicated gaming table and use their dining table or whatever.
Because ITC events are on the new minimum size and will no doubt make mats that size, but with people being people, that means ofc they have to do the same or they won't be as... cool...
Tiberius501 wrote: Wait, why is everyone freaking out over the “new table size”? It’s a minimum size to play games on, and isn’t a must. I imagine most people will continue to play on the normal board size because that’s how big all the mats are. It hasn’t changed anything at all, other than making it slightly easier for people who don’t have a dedicated gaming table and use their dining table or whatever.
The competitive format will all change over to the smaller size, at least in America; even though the ITC isn't mandating it, almost all the big events have already announced they're switching, and that means the smaller events basically have to follow as well.
Whether we like it or not, this is happening - unless when people try it it turns out to be such a complete disaster that people go back to the old sizes because they have to for a decently balanced game.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wait, why is everyone freaking out over the “new table size”? It’s a minimum size to play games on, and isn’t a must. I imagine most people will continue to play on the normal board size because that’s how big all the mats are. It hasn’t changed anything at all, other than making it slightly easier for people who don’t have a dedicated gaming table and use their dining table or whatever.
The competitive format will all change over to the smaller size, at least in America; even though the ITC isn't mandating it, almost all the big events have already announced they're switching, and that means the smaller events basically have to follow as well.
Whether we like it or not, this is happening - unless when people try it it turns out to be such a complete disaster that people go back to the old sizes because they have to for a decently balanced game.
I don’t understand why events are changing though. It clearly states in the article that it’s a minimum size and not a standard. I don’t go near tournaments luckily, but I can see why that would get some heckles up now.
As a semi related note, I feel like ranges across most weapons should get reduced. Would prevent alpha strike a little better and help melee, and make movement and positioning more engaging. Don’t know why tournament events would want to reduce the play area, perhaps to make room for more tables, meaning more people and more money?
Not likely to be Day One, but GW's said that a new Marine codex would be out Soon. Pretty much everyone assumes that Necrons will be right behind it to take advantage of the new players it brings in.
Yeah, we know they are the first two dexes, but we don't know when they are supposed to be out.
We've already been "Leaked" the huge Necron release that follows, so I imagine that's going to at least be a bit after 9th drops.
Where was the new marine codex announced? All I've seen is talk of Deathwatch.
They mentioned a new marine book on one of the daily streams somewhere, although that might well be a crusade supplement which contains the new units perhaps.
That was a "rules in box" discussion in stream. All the rules for models in the starter will be in the starter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think anybody will lose money betting on Marines being one of the first two codexes. 9th edition 40k is still 40k, folks.
Tiberius501 wrote: I don’t understand why events are changing though. It clearly states in the article that it’s a minimum size and not a standard. I don’t go near tournaments luckily, but I can see why that would get some heckles up now.
Mostly because it's easier to get multiple tables for that size and when 25% table space saved adds up when you need to provide space for 50+ players to play.
It's not just that. It's also that there's been a massive push with 9th to unify competitive 40k as a format. For the first time, GW bent over backwards to solicit input from all the major tournament formats and to entice them all to get on board with GW's official missions. For the time in god knows how long, we're likely to have the vast majority of competitive 40k events all running the same mission packs (at least initially - if turns out to be a disaster I'm sure there'll some pressure to ditch them; the same goes for the table sizes). There's a ton of effort being expended by everyone right now to create a unified format, and that extends to stuff like board sizes as well. For better or for worse, they seem to have got all the major players on board the official train for 9th.
I have heard that the tourney organizers were involved in the table size discussion and were aware of this particular change; they were just waiting for GW to announce it so they could in turn announce going to the new size. That changes the dynamic of the situation considerably, if true.
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
There was/is a leaked image of the necron codex cover doing the rounds which i think we can assume is genuine based on the fact everything else leaked so far has been bang on the money. I think we can safely assume they will be very soon after the starter box lands but if i recall correctly neither the death guard codex or marine codex dropped day one when dark imperium was released?
Not the full version, but there were mini-codexes for the two factions in the box to cover the new units IIRC. Could be the same thing.
Alpharius wrote: Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…
With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?
There was/is a leaked image of the necron codex cover doing the rounds which i think we can assume is genuine based on the fact everything else leaked so far has been bang on the money. I think we can safely assume they will be very soon after the starter box lands but if i recall correctly neither the death guard codex or marine codex dropped day one when dark imperium was released?
Not the full version, but there were mini-codexes for the two factions in the box to cover the new units IIRC. Could be the same thing.
Smaller tables of course means fewer terrain pieces will fit. Doesn't mean less terrain though, as all you care about is enough terrain for the area you will be playing on. Which on theory could perfectly fine stay constant.
Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space.
yeah this the horror, as why anyone ever do that at all?
and the other point is how the models in this pictures are placed, and what terrain is used (as those are bulldings without windows, the new terrain rules would still need you to replace your old windowed buildings I guess)
Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space.
yeah this the horror, as why anyone ever do that at all?
and the other point is how the models in this pictures are placed, and what terrain is used (as those are bulldings without windows, the new terrain rules would still need you to replace your old windowed buildings I guess)
Replace?!
Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.
And those units are deployed in one of the standard 8th edition deployment types dating back years. 4 corners circle in the middle. Just look at the dice! Jeesh.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That terrain kit has been available from gamemats since I don't know when. They have nothing to do with shift in terrain rules. Why are everybody feverishly mental about every little sentence GW releases about 9th.
Replace?!
Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.
of course, house rules for terrain are common in 8th, but GW promissed that the new terrain rules are better and LOS blocking is a thing now
but looking at that table, if actual los blocker are needed the big change is not there and you still need a house rule that windows don't count.
this is just not what i expected from better terrain rules
Was the area outside the tape ever really used in top tables?
Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. Use of the margins of the table is a huge part of competitive 40k.
Now that doesn't mean this change is necessarily going to be a disaster...but it is simply objectively true that if you just took the current 8th edition ruleset and reduced the table size, there would be very significant implications for competitive 40k. It is simply not accurate to act like that space didn't matter anyway. It absolutely does matter, and it matters hugely.
Replace?!
Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.
of course, house rules for terrain are common in 8th, but GW promissed that the new terrain rules are better and LOS blocking is a thing now
but looking at that table, if actual los blocker are needed the big change is not there and you still need a house rule that windows don't count.
this is just not what i expected from better terrain rules
That's not house ruling. That's ruling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "oh so you see the tail spike of my Hive tyrant through a window in that terrain piece? Cool you don't have LoS. What on earth is the issue with this.
The extra space mattered for deepstriking stuff, or placing objectives further from one another, among other things. I firmly believe less space less tactics.
Perhaps it fits in the complete ruleset oh 9th but I am worried... i just don’t see this as a good sign at all.
If the competitive venues find that its too little space they'll just modify their rules packs as they already do. The suggested board size is only that from GW - a suggestion. We all know its tied to product not to rules/balance.
But, but, but, 4" makes a huge difference to my experience...
(That's what she said).
Seriously though, most if not all long range heavy weapons were already within range at end of turn 1 even on a 48" wide table so I don't see the panic. 24" no mans land will still exist for some missions meaning that models will have to move the same distance to get those guns into range to shoot, just like currently.
Not to mention the majority, probably the VAST majority, of 40k players are casuals who play at home or play in a store that doesn't copy the major tournament scene and actually thinks for themselves (shock and awe I know) so they will continue to play on 48x72" tables. The manager of my LGS already plans to keep using 48X72 tables. If your store TO or manager wants to change table size than that is a "him" issue, not a GW issue.
Overread wrote: If the competitive venues find that its too little space they'll just modify their rules packs as they already do. The suggested board size is only that from GW - a suggestion. We all know its tied to product not to rules/balance.
It is tied to a product, but hopefully GW has put in the legwork, along with the testers, to balance the mechanics around the minimum sized boards.
We still don't have the full picture how terrain works after all.
It is literally the smallest size they say you could possibly have a game of 40k on.
If tournaments decide to keep the 2000 point limit, maybe it will work. But this table isn't the most optimal for the game, it's literally the smallest you could actually play a game on in their opinion.
1st it was CP and detachments, now it's table size.
Always rely on the internet to complain about everything new.
IMaybe I'll get with some friends this week and try 2k games on new board size using the new sample missions shown. I know it won't be accurate because of other changes being made we don't know about (terrain rules, morale, etc) but I doubt it's going to be as big of an issue as people are making it out to be.
And if I do enter a tournament that uses a 44" table then that's an extra 2" for my gut to hang over and not knock over my lovely painted models.
It is literally the smallest size they say you could possibly have a game of 40k on.
If tournaments decide to keep the 2000 point limit, maybe it will work. But this table isn't the most optimal for the game, it's literally the smallest you could actually play a game on in their opinion.
I’m waiting for Monday’s announcement from GW: maximum sizes of tables for 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 pts.
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
Maybe the official GW stores will stick with 6x4 tables. Seems hard to picture every store just abandoning all of their 2x2 Realm of Battle table setups.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?
Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.
willb2064 wrote: From a practical/physical standpoint, reducing the minimum table width for a 2000 point game from 48" to 44" has no impact. The standard dining table width is 30" - 40", with most 6-8 seater tables being around 36", so you would still need a custom board/mat.
Well guess 40k has no movement importance anyway so in that sense no effect. If you pretend 40k movement and tactics matter this reduces those
judgedoug wrote: Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed
For anyone who has Realm of Battle boards and is blind to the word "minimum" I am buying full sets for $50. Better to make a few bucks than to set them on fire on Youtube!
It's really not this simple.
One of the main tourny organizers, FLG, has already stated they are moving to the minimum suggested table size for their events. This will have pretty large ripple effects across the community.
It's not as simple as people misinterpreting it, putting something like that in the rule book will cause effects across the community like I pointed out.
Well luckily that's mostly us thing. Itc has been joke for competive 40k anyway
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?
Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.
If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.
This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.
I "trust" that Reece saw an opportunity to sell a whole bunch of neoprene mats. As many people as I've seen claiming GW made the change for financial reason, I'm surprised I've only seen one or two people bring up that FLG also sells gaming mats.
EnTyme wrote: I "trust" that Reece saw an opportunity to sell a whole bunch of neoprene mats.
At a size compatible with ones he already sells at that. If Reece was as opposed to it as he says, he wouldn't have immediately and pre-emptively declared they were lockstepping with GW the day that information went public.
Yes, because you can pretty much ignore the word for competitive play. Everyone will go to the new standard - it would be a complete mess to have competitive 40k played on different size tables in different tournaments.
If you don't play competitively, why would you care anyway? Everything is always optional in non-competitive play, whether the rules technically say it or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.
It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.
It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".
And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.
No one is ignoring it, it's just irrelevant for a huge section of US players since pretty much every single meta, TO, and store in the US adjusts to ITC rules. It's literally the reason I moved to home gaming.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.
It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.
It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".
And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.
This pretty much. Games Workshop, and those directly affiliated with it, have an incentive to promote the new edition. On top of not being allowed to say anything negative about the state of the game (only ever in passing as a fixed solution), you can see where it could arise. The only thing you can do is trust your own opinion to be as objective as possible when information comes out, and find a few reviewers whom you genuinely trust, who are not affiliated with Games Workshop, to give an honest opinion.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?
Yeah, absolutely!
very much so. if tournies go to the bare minimum table size that's not GW's fault. tournies should, IMHO be he;d to a higher standard then "bare minimum of effort"
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?
Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.
If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.
This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.
That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?
Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.
I don't see much point speculating about motive. What we do know is that the at this point semi-official voice of GW (though he'd obviously deny it), and the only party to tell us the reasons behind the change, has told us that it is 100% about the dimensions of the Kill Team boards. That's it. Not about tournaments, not about good gameplay. Just about uniting GW's product lines.
One thing we can be pretty sure of is that with how closely he's working with GW these days, he would not have offered this explanation if he had been told not to by GW. So it is safe to say this is either the real reason, or the reason GW is comfortable with people being told. Which is interesting - they are not even trying to say it's about good gameplay.
This doesn't mean it'll be a disaster. It could turn out well, despite the original motive. But it does seem clear that creating a better game was not the reason for the change.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?
Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.
If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.
This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.
That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?
Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.
especially as ITC has made far larger modifications to 40k then "yeah we're using X size for our tables"
Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.
Actually I see nuanced civil discussion up until folks like you decide to paint the entire discussion in a broad stroke and blasting the entire forum, as if dakka was one entity and not individuals.
Whats more ironic is the guys like you that pop in and complain about what they perceive as complaining. With zero substance or relevance to the discussion.
I think that's fair, but I also think it's fair to point out that the ITC folks did not used to collaborate so directly with GW. GW has made a big deal in 9th of pulling in a bunch of people they previously more or less ignored and getting them on board with their new edition. You can characterize that as selling out, or as people genuinely trying to help to make the game better. But things are legitimately different now than they were before.
It's the same reason that ITC is adopting the new missions, even though they are not exactly what they wanted - there is a massive push right now to adopt uniform standards. I personally think it's far too cynical to interpret this as just shilling and selling out, but either way - there is a spirit of cooperation right now that didn't exist before. You're going to see TOs more willing to go with the official GW line, at least initially.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't see much point speculating about motive. What we do know is that the at this point semi-official voice of GW (though he'd obviously deny it), and the only party to tell us the reasons behind the change, has told us that it is 100% about the dimensions of the Kill Team boards. That's it. Not about tournaments, not about good gameplay. Just about uniting GW's product lines.
Did you miss the part where they adopted the new size for all their hosted events? It doesn't matter if it happens to be kill team board dimensions or not, or even if GW had the idea initially because when you tell the public you opposed of the implementation of the new standard upon playtesting, but then adopt it for your events do to space saving and logistics immediately it creates a real stinking situation. Period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I think that's fair, but I also think it's fair to point out that the ITC folks did not used to collaborate so directly with GW. GW has made a big deal in 9th of pulling in a bunch of people they previously more or less ignored and getting them on board with their new edition. You can characterize that as selling out, or as people genuinely trying to help to make the game better. But things are legitimately different now than they were before.
It's the same reason that ITC is adopting the new missions, even though they are not exactly what they wanted - there is a massive push right now to adopt uniform standards. I personally think it's far too cynical to interpret this as just shilling and selling out, but either way - there is a spirit of cooperation right now that didn't exist before. You're going to see TOs more willing to go with the official GW line, at least initially.
Where are you getting that idea from? Reece and Mike Brandt have been on the play testing team since 8th. Furthermore the leaked missions are NOVA/ITC missions with different wall dressings. If Reece is suggesting he didn't want those missions, which are based off his in a heavy way, that is extremely odd.
Not Online!!! wrote: I don't think anyone has claimed doa , but healthy scepticism is imo advised what with the remaining rules Block that carries over.
Which honestly could've done with a bit of consolidation?
I mean, there is a thread in the 40k general section literally titles "9th is DOA!"
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.
And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.
Resistant to change?
Obviously, otherwise so many people wouldn't be so adverse to getting rid of IGOUGO for a more tactical game experience
I was thinking about how the community has been freaking out everytime GW says they're changing something and how it'll ruin the game forever (or so I've been told).
Personally I just don't think AA is the magic patch everyone says it is, but each to their own on that hill. I don't feel like dying on it today.
You're missing the large number of people saying they aren't changing enough and the game will remain ruined forever.
Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.
(hope I have the right person attributed here)
The LVO, ITC, and so on? While big names in the competitive scene, they're just a small fraction of the overall 40K experience and GW's aiming at bringing in a lot of new players for this edition, so giving minimums that focus on the average dinner table or folding tables in a garage is *extremely* smart.
My local store uses 8' X 4' boards for bigger games (such as 2K), scaling down to 6' x 4' for 1500. It's not what everyone uses, but you get used to it.
If your focus is more on "I want to travel the tourney circuit!" then you need to practice on tables matching what they use.
If your focus is more on local games, then you can use smaller tables *if you want*, but it isn't required.
This just makes the minimum size a bit more firm.
It's seriously not a big deal. The sky's not falling. Just vreathe, play locally, and wait for the major tournies to release what size they'll be using, then shift gears to practicing for that. There's no point getting worked up on this one.
Kick back, relax, crack open a beverage, and focus on enjoying the game for a month or two. Training mode's down the road, you know?
Man, people can't have it both ways in GW product design. They can't just cater to old faithful whales that will shell out for every price increase and then try and "entice" new people into paying THEM more money. GW's attempts to get new players seem more like "Man realms of battle aren't selling a lot. But we're making some flimsy cardboard products and that can undercut the actual well made neoprene and get us more money". The quality of the kill team boards? It's bad. They won't survive regular club use.
sieGermans wrote: Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.
I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.
Sir, this is DakkaDakka, where the beardiest of neckbeards come to complain about the game changing too much, not enough, in the wrong way, or what have you, to be countered by another collection of neckbeards who derive enjoyment from telling the first group that everything is perfect, nothing is wrong, and the first group are just whiners.
It is distilled internet.
Iunno, try reddit? Or discord. Most folks are unsure of the table size changes.
Galas wrote: I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.
Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.
Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.
It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.
(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)
The people playing tournaments don't have a real choice.
And I warrant the people playing in GW shops (So a very large proportion of the US community) Will also not have a choice.
What really bothers me is that the game I play the most is entirely reliant on 4 by 4 tables, and if GW stores do away with that base size, I'm gonna have difficulty playing LotR.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think anybody will lose money betting on Marines being one of the first two codexes. 9th edition 40k is still 40k, folks.
A year or less since the last one too. Man if I was actively playing my marines, my head might explode.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.
It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.
It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".
And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.
This pretty much. Games Workshop, and those directly affiliated with it, have an incentive to promote the new edition. On top of not being allowed to say anything negative about the state of the game (only ever in passing as a fixed solution), you can see where it could arise. The only thing you can do is trust your own opinion to be as objective as possible when information comes out, and find a few reviewers whom you genuinely trust, who are not affiliated with Games Workshop, to give an honest opinion.
The funniest part.... actually I noticed in some responses to questions, Reece's wording seemed a bit... well... mad about the change.
But he can't actually be vocally against GW. They're his revenue. He can't alienate GW and a mass exodus hurts him financially. So, no matter what GW does, Reece is pushed pretty hard to present it in the best way possible. He can only ever be really angry years later when GW's moved on from something.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?
Yeah, absolutely!
very much so. if tournies go to the bare minimum table size that's not GW's fault. tournies should, IMHO be he;d to a higher standard then "bare minimum of effort"
Tournies are not independent from GW. The big ones are actually quite heavily involved with, and maybe even reliant on GW support. Reece is certainly heavily involved. And, like, GW just hired one of the guys who ran NOVA to co ordinate events. Failure to adopt GW preferences could lead to GW limiting or stripping their support of an event. They don't even have to be overt or vocal about it. We see this sort of thing literally constantly in business. Like, crunch. The company never has to tell you you'll be fired if you don't sleep under your desk, but man do your fellow employees and your boss keep giving you dirty looks when you dare go home at a reasonable hour.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again
after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on
I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?
Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.
If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.
This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.
That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?
Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.
In the relationship between reece and GW, GW is much MUCH stronger. He can be mad about something all he wants, but he'd have to be stupid to let being angry jeopardize the relationship he bases his business on. I am not going to ask Reece to sacrifice his well being, and the well being of his employees, to spite GW over board sizes. That's be remarkably selfish.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think some people are missing the darker side of GW becoming far more savvy at marketing. Where old GW arrogantly sat on its plastic throne and barely deigned to notice the peons playing its game, new GW is super involved with the community.
And this means they have a say in what parts of the community get brought on the inside. Who gets to be playtesters. Who gets previews of new products. Who gets GW staff to show up at their events and sell their very lucrative product. And who doesn't. It's basic marketing to manage a wide network of "influencers" (to borrow a gaming term). They aren't directly employed, but their business is reliant upon GW's. And GW can make or break some of these businesses.
Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.
Yes because a large tournament runner saying that the minimum size would become the size used for those events doesn't alter anything in the average players games. Of course not, much like those " optional " rules for tournaments stayed just in those places eh ? Oh wait, they became the standard. People will take the minimum as the standard if they are pushed in tournament games and it feels very much like they want to try and standardize 40k. So sure if you play at your house with reasonable people, do what you want. However, for most people who play in events or against people who play events that suggested minimum that's being pushed as standard will be the de facto way to play.
The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.
There’s a significant difference between adopting a suggested tournament rule designed to curb broken unit spam, and deciding it’s impossible to play on a 6x4 table anymore and you have to throw our your mats/saw a foot off your table. One is adopting a simple, practical rules hot fix (that ain’t perfect but that’s for another thread). The other is not remotely comparable.
Yes because a large tournament runner saying that the minimum size would become the size used for those events doesn't alter anything in the average players games.
You are indeed correct, it doesn't.
Of course not, much like those " optional " rules for tournaments stayed just in those places eh ? Oh wait, they became the standard. People will take the minimum as the standard if they are pushed in tournament games and it feels very much like they want to try and standardize 40k. So sure if you play at your house with reasonable people, do what you want. However, for most people who play in events or against people who play events that suggested minimum that's being pushed as standard will be the de facto way to play.
Why would I want to play with unreasonable people? That just sounds like asking for trouble. And if you have a problem with ITC ruling, then tell it to them. Reece is not some sort of a king, he only has tournament because people attend them.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.
Well, this is a little naive, too. Because in fact, GW has gone out of its way this edition to bring in the TOs and get them on board, through various inducements. So to say it's not GW's fault if TOs go along with the suggestions set by GW that GW has spent a huge amount of time and energy getting them to buy into...seems a bit silly. If someone offers you a lot of money to punch somebody in the face, and you do it, the fault may primarily be yours - but to say they had nothing to do with it is not very convincing.
I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.
jeff white wrote: I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.
This is maybe a little hyperbolic, but I do think it cuts to the heart of the issue: this was not a change that was made for better gameplay, it was a change made (essentially by GW's own admission) in order to unify their product lines.
It could still end up well, but it's not surprising that people are going to be skeptical of a change that is clearly motivated by commercial considerations rather than gameplay considerations.
If they had done the same thing but articulated a carefully thought out rationale for why this was better for the game - especially if it was genuinely the reason they were doing it - I think a lot of the hostility would be diminished. There would still obviously be a few people complaining, but the tenor of the reaction would have been different.
Ok, you all can live in the fantasy land where the tournament scene doesn't change the game for a great many people. Wish I could believe that, but I've seen it. If you play with people who compete at events most of them want to do it all by the book in all the ways. That means following the specific victory conditions, board sizes to be used, etc, etc.
Much like how Legends is the kiss of death for many units. People will deny to play against them because " They aren't in tournaments they are broken ! " Same will happen with board size. " That's the right size any changes to that aren't balanced ! " " Why would I play on a board other than the size I'll have to play at events with ? " Insert all the reasons you like.
Group think is huge, larger than I wish it was in this game or in life in general. This minimum size talk will be the standard and anyone thinking it won't be are silly.
That said, if you only play at friends houses, and with people who don't care about these events then just keep playing the game as usual as really none of this will flow your way, maybe. Unless the powers that be say the size is just better for reasons then you may see it bleed over.
jeff white wrote: I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.
We have no information on how GW decided on the table sizes for the various points limits, so it's a bit disingenuous to call them 'purely arbitrary' at this time without seeing how they actually work.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.
Well, this is a little naive, too. Because in fact, GW has gone out of its way this edition to bring in the TOs and get them on board, through various inducements. So to say it's not GW's fault if TOs go along with the suggestions set by GW that GW has spent a huge amount of time and energy getting them to buy into...seems a bit silly. If someone offers you a lot of money to punch somebody in the face, and you do it, the fault may primarily be yours - but to say they had nothing to do with it is not very convincing.
It is not Naive to say that there is nothing in the rules that requires tournaments to use the minimum table sizes. Nothing. That is why they are called MINIMUM, as in that is smallest your table needs to be not it cannot be any bigger. Again, you are blaming GW for the decisions of tournament organisers. That is an irrefutable fact, not naivety.
And it's also an irrefutable fact that GW has worked extremely hard this edition to get the biggest TOs on board ahead of time. They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play (as they should - if they are going to make this change, it makes no sense for it to be piecemeal, when it comes to competitive play).
Nothing in the rules ever require TOs to do anything. They could say the game must be played on proprietary GW mats while wearing proprietary GW pajamas, that wouldn't mean TOs couldn't decide to do otherwise. But if in 10th GW decides to do that and gives special perks and access to all the TOs to get them to go along, it would be pretty silly to only blame the TOs and say GW had nothing to do with it.
Well to be fair the original 6 x 4 table size wasn't chosen for gaming reasons either, it just happened to be the standard size of a sheet of hardboard a the builders merchants of the day
so table size was chosen to fit an arbitrary size determined by convenience, just as the new size is going to be now
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well to be fair the original 6 x 4 table size wasn't chosen for gaming reasons either, it just happened to be the standard size of a sheet of hardboard a the builders merchants of the day
so table size was chosen to fit an arbitrary size determined by convenience, just as the new size is going to be now
Sure. But the current rules are built for the 6x4 size. If they were redoing all the threat ranges of everything in the game with the 9th release, I don't think people would care nearly as much. The big concern here is that they have made a piecemeal change to the size while explicitly stating that they are not doing a comprehensives rules update.
It is possible that the rules they are changing will mitigate the impact of the change. We'll have to see. But it's reasonable to say "hey, wait a minute, you're making a commercially motivated change to the board size and telling us it's going to work out fine even though we're still using the old numbers, that seems unlikely."
Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?
If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
There wouldn't be any ? Why would they make a claim like that ? Better to push those they aid to make it so, like Reece. Then they can just be like " Well isn't it nice you love the new table size so much. " For all we know they did tell him they wanted that and who is he to deny ?
As was said, GW is becoming self aware and can much more effectively use its muscle to guide things in a path they want them to go and this may well be one of the signs of that.
Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?
If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
ITC doesn't need GW's command to make bad rulings that are detrimental to the game, they have a history of making far worse on their own.
As for GW's wishes, if they stop selling their current Realm of Battle boards, then I might believe you.
The chances of GW stopping selling anything before they run out of stock is roughly equivalent to your chances of winning the lottery without buying a lottery ticket.
Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?
If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.
Fair enough. And I will be absolutely shocked if it isn't the "minimum" size announced there - unless of course it is such a disaster in the meantime that they do a U-turn on it.
MaxT wrote: Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.
I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.
No one is ignoring it, it's just irrelevant for a huge section of US players since pretty much every single meta, TO, and store in the US adjusts to ITC rules. It's literally the reason I moved to home gaming.
ITC don’t have a magical license from GW that means only they are allowed to run events. If ITC go to the new minimum, other tourneys and TO’s may stick to 6by4. Let the free market decide based on what the public want and is popular. Variety is the spice of life after all
MaxT wrote: Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.
I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.
I expect 6 months minimum, but tickets my go up much sooner than that, which is my feeling. And you get the rulespack when tickets go on sale.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.
I think your last sentence is a matter of opinion, and that fuels some of the hate (or whatever you want to call it; maybe frustration would be a better word). Besides what other people have said, I think a part of it might be that there are a lot of players out there that play local and semi-local tournaments. Then, they hear that there is a group of guys at Frontline Gaming making decisions about the game that they're playing without getting their input. Obviously, it is impossible for Reece and co. to survey every single tournament player across the country, but I think since 40K has always been a niche game, there are people that have personal investments of time and money in the game and they have their own opinions about the rules and how it should play. Suddenly, they are being told to play a certain way by something that is not necessarily representative of them or their local scene. Not only that, but the group at Frontline Gaming changed parts of the game that affected the meta nationwide, which affects sales and affects future updates. And before you say "Just don't use ITC," it's not practical to play local tournaments at a different format than you would play tournaments you may travel to. You want the game, at the competitive level, to be as uniform as possible so you can practice and get used to what your army can do.
So, the decisions made by Frontline Gaming cause ripples throughout the competitive 40k world, but they do not have a good way to survey the opinions of thousands and thousands of players (or, at least I haven't seen any). And, in the few times I have seen Reece actually poll people for their opinions about ITC, he has gotten extremely defensive toward their responses. He (and therefore his company, and therefore the representation of ITC) doesn't seem to take criticism well and has a "I know better than you" attitude about it when criticism does come his way.
Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?
ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.
ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.
MaxT wrote: Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.
I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.
I expect 6 months minimum, but tickets my go up much sooner than that, which is my feeling. And you get the rulespack when tickets go on sale.
Six months isn't exactly what I call 'quite soon'. It also places it in the holiday season.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.
Again, yes, it is. This is how business relations work. TOs that rely heavily on GW's good will have to maintain that good will.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?
I'm not sure. Would GW have stepped up in the absence of ITC? Who knows.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.
Sure. I'm not blaming anyone. I was just trying to give a different perspective as to some of the vitriol toward Reece/ITC, fair or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.
I thought that GW basically built Nova missions (with MVBrandt joining the team), which are modified ITC. Again, would have GW had made these changes in the absence of ITC? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm simply saying that there are gaming purists that want rules and direction to come directly from the producer, not modified by a far-flung group of players that have limited input on how their decisions affect the game for everyone playing that format.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?
I'm not sure. Would GW have stepped up in the absence of ITC? Who knows.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.
Sure. I'm not blaming anyone. I was just trying to give a different perspective as to some of the vitriol toward Reece/ITC, fair or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.
I thought that GW basically built Nova missions (with MVBrandt joining the team), which are modified ITC. Again, would have GW had made these changes in the absence of ITC? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm simply saying that there are gaming purists that want rules and direction to come directly from the producer, not modified by a far-flung group of players that have limited input on how their decisions affect the game for everyone playing that format.
People hate on Reece primarily for 2 reasons.:
1. He plays the game in a way other people thing is wrong and bad. Which is, ultimately, the core of what you said. It's just the extension of "Hardcore v casual" that is never ending
2. He's involved heavily with GW and people think he is a shill for daring to speak positively and have business ties with the company. This is silly because, like, dude's got to eat.
This really isn't about hating or liking one man. It's about the fact that he's, for good or bad a voice people listen to. So his acceptance and pressure to run the game a certain way does press people to accept and demand the game be played that certain way for many people.
I'm neutral to him, he's just a person doing his best in life. He's making the choices he needs for himself. Saying GW has no sway with him I think is false, as really anyone in his shoes would work well with the company that by little or large supports and invites him into the process.
This isn't a matter of hardcore vs casual. It's just a matter that people should be concerned of the new size as often recommendations of GW, and doubly so those supported by higher end tournaments as well, tend to become the way of game will be from that point forward.
I don't know if this will be good or bad, I will say I favor larger boards, but the normal I think will change with us. In the end only time will tell. On the bright side, uniformity is good for the game in a number of ways so this may be a blessing in disguise.
I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.
Combined with the point values going up, I don't think crowded boards are going to be the issue - overall open space vs space covered by minis will be roughly equal to what it is now. It's the threat ranges that are the issue.
OK, so ignoring the inconvenience of it all, plus the increase of visual disbelief with knights on the table etc, what actual effects will it have on the game,
1. Points increases. Depending on how drastic these are, hopefully we will see a significant reduction in the number of models on the table in general. Or we basically screw up #2
2. Maneuver. If you want this game to be more dynamic, objective based, ideally you introduce some room for models to move, outflank, etc. Current reduction in table size reduces that considerably.
3. Weapon ranges. Pretty much everything will be in range straight away. 24" weapons will now feel like 36" weapons. This will again effect #2 above and likley increase people's reliance on auras more than they do now. Instead of forcing them out into other areas to grab objectives, they can now just roll around the board like a 5yr old soccer team. The range reduction has a pretty large effect on 2 armies I play.
a. Dark Angels. Extra range in dev doctrine feels even more uninspiring, especially after the change to doctrines.
b. Harlequins. +6" range pivotal role on Shadowseer is now reduced in usefulness.
Honestly, if number one isn't a massive change, this could become ugly.
yukishiro1 wrote: I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.
Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."
Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.
solkan wrote: Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."
Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.
Take that further and then reference the result of Table 47: Range and Table Size with Table 48: Range by Weapon Type and Skill and further cross-reference that through optional tables 58A: Weapon Effects by Game Turn and Table 58B: Weapon Effects by Scenario. Heaven forbid you play without the full suite of tournament tables and their micro-adjustments to range bands of over performing weapons (for Marines only according to half the players and for Xenos only for the other half, chaos gets shafted either way somehow).
Aren’t all the missions measured from the center of the table anyway? So a two inch smaller deployment zone and narrower by 6 inches on each side? Is that what this is about?
How does it impact objectives if everything is from the middle?
yukishiro1 wrote: I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.
Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."
Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.
Well it goes without saying that you can't balance for both the 500 points table size and the 2000 points table size. I think we're all pretty much just assuming that they should balance based on 2000 points and the other sizes will just be kinda for laughs but not for serious play.
The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.
But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.
I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.
yukishiro1 wrote: The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.
But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.
I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.
Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.
The game is not better due to ITC and competitive player influence on rules and game design.
The table sizes were not changed to this so called minimum to make a better game.
My excitement for 9th Ed and goodwill for GW have both notably dropped for the fact that, rather than hold what was working and focus on changing what was done poorly this last edition which was many things, GW again insists on making unnecessary changes thereby adding to the sense of instability and unprofessional ad hoc baloney and unreliability that has been mounting with these jokers,...
It is as if everything since mid 7th has been this nuclear powered gaslighting policy... what a load of chits
Gaslighting here especially is with this table size discussion... clearly this is marketing driven drivel... to concede otherwise is to be gaslit.
Apperantly there are changes to the SHOOTING PHASE too.
If that's not a possible change to threat ranges, I dint know what is.
Plus, while I'm currently not a fan of the table change, maybe there actually WAS a gameplay reasoning?
Yes, you can say it's an economic one to match the kill team range, but why in the kill team range that size to begin with?
And with reducing rather than increasing, it's not like it's hard to adjust our existing tables, just mark a line that beyond it it's not part of the game board and mere scenery.
No one is ignoring it, it's just irrelevant for a huge section of US players since pretty much every single meta, TO, and store in the US adjusts to ITC rules. It's literally the reason I moved to home gaming.
Ah yes, good ol' Dakkaites thinking that a few dozen people on the internet, a few dozen gaming stores and a couple of tournaments represents the ENTIRE 40k player base. I bet only a single digit percentage of 40K players go to the LVO or other major tournaments. What is LVO attendance on average? 200 players? 100? I honestly don't know but assuming 200 people attend LVO that's most likely a FRACTION OF A PERCENT of 40K players in the US.
Some of the guys at my LGS never heard of this forum until I brought it up a year ago.
But let's go on pretending the vocal majority of a dozen or so members that contribute daily or weekly to this particular sub-forum here on Dakkadakka speak for ALL 40k players in the US.
If you want to play in LVO and other major tournaments you play on the new table size, if you don't like a 44" table either don't attend any tournament that uses it or get enough of the community together before the next LVO and say "hey, we refuse to enter the LVO if you change table size. With no players the LVO won't be held.
why can't protest from several dozen or more players change how a TO runs a competitive event. If I was going to host a tournament and the majority of the people signed up said "we don't like this rule you want to use" I'm changing that rule.
EDITED: Please leave current politics out of these things
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: I think our heads would spin right off if we knew how many decisions were made by commercial wants over game play needs.
I really hope I read that wrong earlier that the game is being made for elites over hordes with 9th though. Was that said aloud somewhere ?
I think it's speculation because people will have to pay a tax to multi-detach and so the belief is that smaller, elite armies with the price hikes means that min-maxing to fill the mandatory Troop slot will still exist but people will be forced to stick to one detachment.
With how certain objectives work in missions where you must forfeit your shooting phase or charge phase and instead perform "x" action armies that take lots of elite, pricey units are going to be at a disadvantage. SM armies very rarely, if ever, contain bog standard Scouts. You usually only ever see Intercessors. Well, I'd rather take a 5 man squad of basic bolter scouts to perform objective capturing actions and give up their shooting than to have my Intercessors have to skip a turn of shooting to snatch up 5 VP. I honestly think there will be more people taking more cheap Troop choices this edition.
Daemon armies aren't really too hurt by saccing an action to fulfill an objective. Plaguebearers are usually the objective holders and since they can't shoot you aren't losing anything as a Chaos Daemons player by taking Plaguebearers (unless of course you don't want Nurgle units in your soup or are playing a mono non-Nurgle daemon army.
jeff white wrote: The game is not better due to ITC and competitive player influence on rules and game design.
The table sizes were not changed to this so called minimum to make a better game.
My excitement for 9th Ed and goodwill for GW have both notably dropped for the fact that, rather than hold what was working and focus on changing what was done poorly this last edition which was many things, GW again insists on making unnecessary changes thereby adding to the sense of instability and unprofessional ad hoc baloney and unreliability that has been mounting with these jokers,...
It is as if everything since mid 7th has been this nuclear powered gaslighting policy... what a load of chits
Gaslighting here especially is with this table size discussion... clearly this is marketing driven drivel... to concede otherwise is to be gaslit.
Easy there sparky, you're clearly inhaling too many fumes.
The table size was designed to lower the bar to entry for newer players and establish a "no smaller than' table size standard for balanced games. Time will tell if they nailed it, but putting that in for those reason is the right idea. I mean some people can only get games of Kitchenhammer in and knowing what size they should play to fit the game on their kitchen table (or coffee table) while keeping it fun is a good idea.
As for your excitement and goodwill, I feel like you're cashing things in early, and with some bad faith at heart to boot. No one said you have to like every change, but waiting to see the whole picture rather than jumping to conclusions seems a bit silly. I mean it won't be too lately to go "yeah, I'm out" when you get to see the free core ruleset and decide if you really like the rules or not.
Apperantly there are changes to the SHOOTING PHASE too.
If that's not a possible change to threat ranges, I dint know what is.
Plus, while I'm currently not a fan of the table change, maybe there actually WAS a gameplay reasoning?
Yes, you can say it's an economic one to match the kill team range, but why in the kill team range that size to begin with?
And with reducing rather than increasing, it's not like it's hard to adjust our existing tables, just mark a line that beyond it it's not part of the game board and mere scenery.
I'm hoping we see Long Ranges come back. -1 to BS for shooting over half range. Not to the roll because of modifiers, but to the characteristic. Which would justify why "6s always hit' if someone gets bumped to a 6+ to hit, then suffers a -1 to their rolls....
yukishiro1 wrote: The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.
But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.
I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.
Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.
That would imply that they thought ranges and movement stats were too low in 8th and they wanted to effectively increase them by reducing the board size?
I mean, anything is possible; this is GW we're talking about. But I really don't know anybody who thinks the problem with 8th is that ranges and movement values are too low.
yukishiro1 wrote: The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.
But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.
I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.
Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.
That would imply that they thought ranges and movement stats were too low in 8th and they wanted to effectively increase them by reducing the board size?
I mean, anything is possible; this is GW we're talking about. But I really don't know anybody who thinks the problem with 8th is that ranges and movement values are too low.
I feel like it's more that they felt that they needed a "don't play this size game on a table smaller than X" so games wouldn't go super wacky since all distances are measured from the center and not board edges meaning theoretically you could try to play Onslaught on a 2x2' table if you're masochistic enough.
Hear me out. I actually think this reduction in board size is a good thing? Cautious optimism.
We all know that 8th edition was a very shooty edition. Now look what a reduction in board size does? It buffs Melee, simply because now, melee can cross the board much easier (because the board is literally smaller to begin with).
Now, if first turn charges are quite common, everyone has to plan their deployment and lists based on getting charged first turn. Even if you have bubble wrap and fodder to absorb the charge, there isn't much space for you behind your bubble wrap. Plus if your fodder gets charged by melee and destroyed in turn 1, are you have less space now to deploy with behind your fodder, then what do you do about the deep strike that is coming in on turn 2?
This means that army lists that are only pure castle gunlines will be less effective. The whole board is smaller. You can't have a pure gunline, you need to have stuff that can fight too because you WILL get charged since the board is smaller.
This is a GOOD thing. Even gunline type lists need to have counter charge melee units because one way or another, they have to plan that stuff are going to get into melee. So, after I have laid out my reasoning, can you see why I actually think this smaller board size is a good thing?
Shooting will still be good, but it will be less good now. This may actually be a good development given how much of a shooty edition 8th has been.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Hear me out. I actually think this reduction in board size is a good thing? Cautious optimism.
We all know that 8th edition was a very shooty edition. Now look what a reduction in board size does? It buffs Melee, simply because now, melee can cross the board much easier (because the board is literally smaller to begin with).
Now, if first turn charges are quite common, everyone has to plan their deployment and lists based on getting charged first turn. Even if you have bubble wrap and fodder to absorb the charge, there isn't much space for you behind your bubble wrap. Plus if your fodder gets charged by melee and destroyed in turn 1, are you have less space now to deploy with behind your fodder, then what do you do about the deep strike that is coming in on turn 2?
This means that army lists that are only pure castle gunlines will be less effective. The whole board is smaller. You can't have a pure gunline, you need to have stuff that can fight too because you WILL get charged since the board is smaller.
This is a GOOD thing. Even gunline type lists need to have counter charge melee units because one way or another, they have to plan that stuff are going to get into melee. So, after I have laid out my reasoning, can you see why I actually think this smaller board size is a good thing?
Shooting will still be good, but it will be less good now. This may actually be a good development given how much of a shooty edition 8th has been.
So the strongest faction would be the one with units that are both good at shooting and melee (even better if those units were troops). Wonder who that would be....
We haven't seen all of the rules yet. But I am sure we all agree that shooting has been by far too powerful in 8th edition. so, if this tilts the scale back towards melee or at least back to the middle where both melee and shooting are equally important, it can't be that bad a thing ...
So far, this is the first thing I have seen about 9th ed that benefits melee. Because all the other rules so far are kinda neutal to both melee and shooting. In fact, vehicles and monsters being able to shoot despite being locked in melee benefits ... shooting. So, I would say we don't know yet how it will all turn out. But I actually think the smaller boards are a help for melee and I for one am actually happy about that.
I mean, lets be honest. Is it really that fun to see who can build the shootiest leafblower list and then shoot your opponent off the table within 2 turns? We talk about tactics, and all, but there is hardly much tactics in firing priority and shooting your opponent off the table, is there?
Eldenfirefly wrote: Hear me out. I actually think this reduction in board size is a good thing? Cautious optimism.
We all know that 8th edition was a very shooty edition. Now look what a reduction in board size does? It buffs Melee, simply because now, melee can cross the board much easier (because the board is literally smaller to begin with).
Now, if first turn charges are quite common, everyone has to plan their deployment and lists based on getting charged first turn. Even if you have bubble wrap and fodder to absorb the charge, there isn't much space for you behind your bubble wrap. Plus if your fodder gets charged by melee and destroyed in turn 1, are you have less space now to deploy with behind your fodder, then what do you do about the deep strike that is coming in on turn 2?
This means that army lists that are only pure castle gunlines will be less effective. The whole board is smaller. You can't have a pure gunline, you need to have stuff that can fight too because you WILL get charged since the board is smaller.
This is a GOOD thing. Even gunline type lists need to have counter charge melee units because one way or another, they have to plan that stuff are going to get into melee. So, after I have laid out my reasoning, can you see why I actually think this smaller board size is a good thing?
Shooting will still be good, but it will be less good now. This may actually be a good development given how much of a shooty edition 8th has been.
So the strongest faction would be the one with units that are both good at shooting and melee (even better if those units were troops). Wonder who that would be....
So Orks then. I mean they have an impressive volume of shots, cheap bodies that can basically fill the board to deny deep strike, and they punch even better than they shoot....
Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.
Eldenfirefly wrote: We haven't seen all of the rules yet. But I am sure we all agree that shooting has been by far too powerful in 8th edition. so, if this tilts the scale back towards melee or at least back to the middle where both melee and shooting are equally important, it can't be that bad a thing ...
So far, this is the first thing I have seen about 9th ed that benefits melee. Because all the other rules so far are kinda neutal to both melee and shooting. In fact, vehicles and monsters being able to shoot despite being locked in melee benefits ... shooting. So, I would say we don't know yet how it will all turn out. But I actually think the smaller boards are a help for melee and I for one am actually happy about that.
I mean, lets be honest. Is it really that fun to see who can build the shootiest leafblower list and then shoot your opponent off the table within 2 turns? We talk about tactics, and all, but there is hardly much tactics in firing priority and shooting your opponent off the table, is there?
My thoughts exactly pretty much. I for one am actually excited for slightly smaller boards (and even then it’s only a minimum size recommendation as so many have pointed out, I’ll still be happy with 6x4s if that’s what happens). Also consider that a 2000 pt game in 9th is probably going to loe a lot more like a 1750 pt game in 8th (which I also prefer) given the across the board point hikes.
On a slightly different note, as much as I love 40k and that GW is supporting it as much as they are, I am absolutely sure there are going to be plenty of instances of severely over and under costed units when they release the new points cost for everything in 9th. As always, stay updated and don’t chase the meta too hard. Just gotta roll with the punches.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.
It was a joke, besides, we all know people will just game around the horde limit to avoid dealing with the blast weapon thing.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.
It was a joke, besides, we all know people will just game around the horde limit to avoid dealing with the blast weapon thing.
Kinda?
I mean, the world isn't exactly going to tremble at six ten-man units of Ork Boys.T-shirt saves and a low morale? Yikes.
They're going to need some *serious* help!
(None more than the Blood Axes, whose three tricks … gaining cover saves might not work with new terrain rules, the ability for tanks to move out of combat and still shoot when all tanks can now shoot just fine if in combat, and being able to Deepstrike any unit for 1 CP … are all given away in the new edition. They essentially have no trait at all.
When you're worse off than Renegades, you're in a bad place.
2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.
I’m just going to point out that every single table at Warhammer World (other than a couple of the extreme feature tables) is based on a Realm of Battle board, so I can’t see official GW tournaments in the U.K. using anything but 6x4.
Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?
If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...
Hopefully by "smaller is better" referred to model count. As same model count on smaller board just makes game simplified dice rolling removing further pretence of tactics mattering
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.
Combined with the point values going up, I don't think crowded boards are going to be the issue - overall open space vs space covered by minis will be roughly equal to what it is now. It's the threat ranges that are the issue.
Eh boards were too crowed already...so by cutting board side unless point cost increases aren't bigger than shown so far not only does it get negated but gets worse. Points should be at least doubled
I think it just depends on how the new rules come together. You could have less dice rolling and yet a better game. 8th edition became an extremely shooty edition. Somehow, I think that reduced a lot of the tactics in the game when it became so shooty. As I mentioned before, when you just compete to create leaf blower type lists, and tactics are reduced to fire priority and removing models off the table, how much tactics are we really talking about ?
So, if a reduction in table size will benefit melee more and reduce the power of shooting, then I am all for that.
Balerion wrote: Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway...
They're very specifically not in this instance though.
The newer boards GW make are the size they are because that's what fits into their standard box sizes. That wasn't arbitrary, that was necessary.
The min table size recommendations are the way they are because of the sizes of the newer boards GW makes. That wasn't arbitrary, it was intentional.
Of course the change was intentional. I don't think they made a mistake when writing the rules.
Boards fitting in standard box sizes is even more of a reason for a change. W\why would you make a product that doesn't fit in your standard packaging right? Making special packaging when not required is a waste of resources, isn't it?
For GW that might be the main reason. For customers (like me) it makes things easier going from one system to another. I see that as a win for both sides.
Fayric wrote: Check in here once in a while.
So people still go on about board size?
Looks like it will be a great edition if that qualifies as a "big issue"
Realistically board size and CP are the only things we actually know about atm.
Balerion wrote: 2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.
From someone who got into dakkadakka ten years ago, crying about how the game is ruined is a ritual that takes places every time whenever any part of a new edition is leaked
Balerion wrote: 2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.
From someone who got into dakkadakka ten years ago, crying about how the game is ruined is a ritual that takes places every time whenever any part of a new edition is leaked
anytime a new anything is leaked. cool new model for faction X? gotta have 15 pages of people who don't even play the faction ranting about how aweful it is.
Jadenim wrote: I’m just going to point out that every single table at Warhammer World (other than a couple of the extreme feature tables) is based on a Realm of Battle board, so I can’t see official GW tournaments in the U.K. using anything but 6x4.
But according to this thread, GW are forcing every gamer everywhere to cut a foot off their boards, so certainly they’ll do it themselves
Eldenfirefly wrote: I think it just depends on how the new rules come together. You could have less dice rolling and yet a better game. 8th edition became an extremely shooty edition. Somehow, I think that reduced a lot of the tactics in the game when it became so shooty. As I mentioned before, when you just compete to create leaf blower type lists, and tactics are reduced to fire priority and removing models off the table, how much tactics are we really talking about ?
So, if a reduction in table size will benefit melee more and reduce the power of shooting, then I am all for that.
I was initially annoyed at the idea of playing on smaller tables (an ork or an nud army barley fit into some of the deployment zones during 8th) but indeed perhaps playing melle won't be as bad now.
I think overwatch rules for 9th, and how monsters and walkers assault stuff in higher levels of ruins (will we have more than one inch to engage ?) will also be a big part of the equation of melee efficiency. Wait and see, but smaller boards alone won't help melee enough IMHO.
Perhaps point changes will also bosst melee, if pure melee units don't get as much a point increase as shooty units.
What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture
What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture
GW are spreading a finite amount of content out over a set period to get people talking about their new product up until release.
Certain members of the community are trying to rile themselves up with speculation based on a partial picture.
BrianDavion wrote: DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved
Somebody hasn't been on /tg/ I see. If all you're interested in is insulting and trolling people on here, though, then you're just as bad as those that you are accusing.
BrianDavion wrote: DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved
I agree, the negativity towards GW is well deserved.
I'd much rather read an argument going back and forth and hearing other people's opinions. Far better than some of the sycophantic drivel spewed forth on many sites and especially facebook pages.
BrianDavion wrote: DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved
Somebody hasn't been on /tg/ I see. If all you're interested in is insulting and trolling people on here, though, then you're just as bad as those that you are accusing.
As someone who has been on /tg/ the /pol/ infection is a different mess of negativity than the nonsense I've seen on this site.
What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.
40k was once played on 8*4 tables. It was suddenly in an earlier edition mentioned the min size would be 6*4 but you could still play on. 8*4 if you and opponent agreed. Anything that requires opponent agreement is frowned upon for organized play so 6*4 became the normal in practice and 8*4 was never mentioned again.
Sure realm of battle boards exist. You can make a 6*4 table out of them. The book leak lists the min sizes for each battle using kill team boards, the realm of battle board suggestion is not in that table and only works for one of the engagement sizes, in practice organized play events will use kill team board sizes - and 6*4 will be out.
MalusCalibur wrote: What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.
I do have a horse in the race as someone who is actively building a Black Templar army, but even then the vague stuff GW has given us isn't enough to really say how the game plays. Dakka as a community has a history of throwing its toys out of the pram before they chill out after the release and accept the changes. Telling people to wait so we don't have to see the toy chucking isn't an act of setting up goalpost shifting, it's being tired of the nonesense that we go through every. single. release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: thing is, keep it flat and a general negative point of view and it is more likely that the game turns out better than you expected
following the hype train that this will be the best 40k we have ever had and the chance that disppointment will follow the release is high
I agree that hype trains are a bad idea. But Dakka riding the gripe train over every tiny piece of info is tiring to watch too.
What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture
Well the release date was july as earliest from get go. There's limited amount they can reveal without revealing all(and since when movie trailers give full movie either?).
So gw has 2 options. Reveal slowly aka what they do or they would still be denying 9th ed coming. What you prefer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote: 40k was once played on 8*4 tables. It was suddenly in an earlier edition mentioned the min size would be 6*4 but you could still play on. 8*4 if you and opponent agreed. Anything that requires opponent agreement is frowned upon for organized play so 6*4 became the normal in practice and 8*4 was never mentioned again.
Sure realm of battle boards exist. You can make a 6*4 table out of them. The book leak lists the min sizes for each battle using kill team boards, the realm of battle board suggestion is not in that table and only works for one of the engagement sizes, in practice organized play events will use kill team board sizes - and 6*4 will be out.
When was 8x4 standard? At least here 6x4 has been standard for good 25 years
MalusCalibur wrote: What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.
I do have a horse in the race as someone who is actively building a Black Templar army, but even then the vague stuff GW has given us isn't enough to really say how the game plays. Dakka as a community has a history of throwing its toys out of the pram before they chill out after the release and accept the changes. Telling people to wait so we don't have to see the toy chucking isn't an act of setting up goalpost shifting, it's being tired of the nonesense that we go through every. single. release.
I concur. There is a big difference between "I'm concerned about this change" and "this change is going to ruin the game". The truth is you need to wait and see all the rules to know the impact of any one change, so anyone declaring the game is ruined is prejudging over limited information.
It's like movie trailers. A good trailer makes you want to see the movie. A bad trailer makes you forget about the movie. Neither decides if the movie is good or bad. You only know when you go see the movie.
No one is ignoring it, it's just irrelevant for a huge section of US players since pretty much every single meta, TO, and store in the US adjusts to ITC rules. It's literally the reason I moved to home gaming.
Ah yes, good ol' Dakkaites thinking that a few dozen people on the internet, a few dozen gaming stores and a couple of tournaments represents the ENTIRE 40k player base.
It's kind of like how some people thinking that a few dozen people posting their opinions on Dakka Dakka represent the entirety of the opinions on the site (A Dakka Dakka Hive Mind?) - even though, by posting what they're posting, they've already invalidated their own point!
I'm still looking forward to 9th, I look forward to learning more about the rest of the new and changed rules, and I look forward to continuing to play on a 6' x 4' table too.
alextroy wrote: I concur. There is a big difference between "I'm concerned about this change" and "this change is going to ruin the game". The truth is you need to wait and see all the rules to know the impact of any one change, so anyone declaring the game is ruined is prejudging over limited information.
It's like movie trailers. A good trailer makes you want to see the movie. A bad trailer makes you forget about the movie. Neither decides if the movie is good or bad. You only know when you go see the movie.
And yet the wait and see group is proven wrong time after time. Gw isn't complex game maker. There isn't subtle interaction to look.
Marine codex 2 coming and wait and see people kept saying its not going to be as bad as it looked. They were wrong.
8th ed. Wrong.
Wait and see people are just denying undeniable. Putting head in sand like that bird.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
I agree. With each of these Warhammer daily things, they’ve talked about the 9 things of 9th edition, and are doing the last of those next week leasing up to Saturday to show off the starter box. Possibly a pre-order the week after?
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
I think that in the UK the board size business will have not much of an effect, in my area atleast tournament play is rare with the exception of some people going to GT
Marking off the boards with tape will be just fine. Room for dice and tape measures, data cards, and VP counters.
I dont know about you but leaving all the various stratagem, psychic cards, VP cards for maelstrom, and handfuls of dice along the board means I'm constantly picking things up and moving them out of the way of models.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Yeah. I can see Pariah going up for preview this coming Sunday, which would put it at 27th June for a release. Bill a two week preview/preorder schedule in for the boxset and 9th would put it at 11th July.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Yeah. I can see Pariah going up for preview this coming Sunday, which would put it at 27th June for a release. Bill a two week preview/preorder schedule in for the boxset and 9th would put it at 11th July.
Assuming that Lumineth are not going to come out beforehand? i think we'll get a preorder for Pariah on the 27th June. Maybe a 2 week preorder for 9th edition, somewhere in July. My guess is release date for 9th will be 18th, or more realistically the 25th July.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Marking off the boards with tape will be just fine. Room for dice and tape measures, data cards, and VP counters.
I dont know about you but leaving all the various stratagem, psychic cards, VP cards for maelstrom, and handfuls of dice along the board means I'm constantly picking things up and moving them out of the way of models.
Why not get rid of the miniatures alltogether? Soon it will a perfectly balanced cardgame.
You can leave the miniatures att Home!
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Yeah. I can see Pariah going up for preview this coming Sunday, which would put it at 27th June for a release. Bill a two week preview/preorder schedule in for the boxset and 9th would put it at 11th July.
Sounds about right.
We all want it to be here sooner, but there's a pent up queue that they'll work through first...
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Theyve released on US holidays before, they dont make exceptions for US celebrations.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Yeah. I can see Pariah going up for preview this coming Sunday, which would put it at 27th June for a release. Bill a two week preview/preorder schedule in for the boxset and 9th would put it at 11th July.
Assuming that Lumineth are not going to come out beforehand? i think we'll get a preorder for Pariah on the 27th June. Maybe a 2 week preorder for 9th edition, somewhere in July. My guess is release date for 9th will be 18th, or more realistically the 25th July.
I think if we were going to see AoS stuff, that it would have been one of the last three previews. I'm thinking that AoS will now fill the gap between the 9th release and the Necron Release.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
Yeah. I can see Pariah going up for preview this coming Sunday, which would put it at 27th June for a release. Bill a two week preview/preorder schedule in for the boxset and 9th would put it at 11th July.
Assuming that Lumineth are not going to come out beforehand? i think we'll get a preorder for Pariah on the 27th June. Maybe a 2 week preorder for 9th edition, somewhere in July. My guess is release date for 9th will be 18th, or more realistically the 25th July.
I think if we were going to see AoS stuff, that it would have been one of the last three previews. I'm thinking that AoS will now fill the gap between the 9th release and the Necron Release.
There are 2 armies worth to release (elves/giants) and another blackstone expansion, a warcry warband or two etc.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
They've done more than one edition launch around the start of July. 2 week preorder with it being released first week of July is on point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tinfoil hat time: there is no new Necron codex, and the leaked cover is part of the starter box containing new Necron rules. Everything else is part of Pariah like the expanded Ad Mech were part of Engine War.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
They've done more than one edition launch around the start of July. 2 week preorder with it being released first week of July is on point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tinfoil hat time: there is no new Necron codex, and the leaked cover is part of the starter box containing new Necron rules. Everything else is part of Pariah like the expanded Ad Mech were part of Engine War.
There is a zero percent chance that there is no new Necron codex with the huge release coming. When it's coming is really the question.
If I had to guess, I'd say we are looking at 9th, followed by a few weeks of AoS releases, and then the new Necron release with the new codex.
Do you think the new Marine Codex will come out at the same time as the Necron Codex, or will they give one or the other time to breath and sell related releases before unleashing the next?
Alpharius wrote: Do you think the new Marine Codex will come out at the same time as the Necron Codex, or will they give one or the other time to breath and sell related releases before unleashing the next?
The new C:SM will come out before during and after the Necron codex, to keep the SM players happy and up to date.
erm i meant milked.
I don't think they would release two codexes at the same time, especially given that most people play marines. They will want to try to get some of those marine players to dump 1000 quid on a new necron army, and they're less likely to do that if you release their codex at the same time.
Given that practically nobody plays Necrons right now, and how hard they're going in on pushing it with this huge new model release...they have every incentive to hype it to the skies and then drop something that encourages players to switch factions. And the players most likely to switch are space marine players, both because there's the most of them, and because they're the most likely to jump ship to the next FOTM, because they are playing the current FOTM.
At the same time, lost of players will only ever play space marines, so there's a strong interest in pleasing those people too, once they've seen how many they can tempt into dumping the cash for a new army. So I'd expect the new Space Marine codex to come out only a month or two after the Necron release.
Tiberius501 wrote: Yay, we’ll finally get some high res images of more Necrons!
Hopefully they reveal what the new units do and their names.
With all of this, I'm thinking that leaked schedule putting 9th at the first week of august may be wrong. That seems to far away with how quick everything is getting revealed now.
Three years ago they unboxed the starter and then it went on preorder the next Saturday (2 weeks preorder before release).
We might get 9th ed before or alongside Pariah.
That would suggest July 4 - but I really doubt they'd release on a US holiday. July 11 maybe?
They've done more than one edition launch around the start of July. 2 week preorder with it being released first week of July is on point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tinfoil hat time: there is no new Necron codex, and the leaked cover is part of the starter box containing new Necron rules. Everything else is part of Pariah like the expanded Ad Mech were part of Engine War.
That's what I've been thinking. It would explain the sparse number of factions in Pariah as well as why they would release it so close to a new codex. Pariah could basically be the new Necron codex.
Alpharius wrote: Do you think the new Marine Codex will come out at the same time as the Necron Codex, or will they give one or the other time to breath and sell related releases before unleashing the next?
8th edition dropped in June 2017. The first codices were Space Marines (July 2017), Chaos Space Marines and Grey Knights (August 2017), Adeptus Mechanicus and Death Guard (September 2017) according to Wikipedia. With the amount of new kits being released for both armies, I would not expect both codices to be dropped simultaneously and to follow something similar to the early 8th edition release schedule.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
They've already confirmed it one of the streams, and that it and the Necron dex will be among the first ones for the new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
I think we are past that point, the codex and Necron release is already likely done and sitting in a warehouse already.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
They've already confirmed it one of the streams, and that it and the Necron dex will be among the first ones for the new edition.
The Deathwatch Codex was also mentioned are coming out very soon.
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
I doubt Pariah will have all (or any) of the new units we'll see released for 9th edition therefore a new codex does make sense.
Yeah, 9th would already be out by now - likely even the first Codex - without the pandemic closing their factory for a couple months and therefore preventing them from getting the new ad mech models ready, which delayed engine war hugely, and in turn pushed back the timeline on getting the new necron and space marine models churned out.
Alpharius wrote: Do you think the new Marine Codex will come out at the same time as the Necron Codex, or will they give one or the other time to breath and sell related releases before unleashing the next?
8th edition dropped in June 2017. The first codices were Space Marines (July 2017), Chaos Space Marines and Grey Knights (August 2017), Adeptus Mechanicus and Death Guard (September 2017) according to Wikipedia. With the amount of new kits being released for both armies, I would not expect both codices to be dropped simultaneously and to follow something similar to the early 8th edition release schedule.
Actual information (and not unsubstantiated weird opinions) is always appreciated - thanks Ghaz!
So, probably a month for each new release out of the gate - I wonder which one will be first?
Odds are Space Marines, but I wouldn't be shocked if it is Necrons first.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
They've already confirmed it one of the streams, and that it and the Necron dex will be among the first ones for the new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
I think we are past that point, the codex and Necron release is already likely done and sitting in a warehouse already.
FW and Deathwatch were the only confirmed rules I recall hearing in the streams.
They were on a pretty regular release schedule for the PA books. We would be getting Pariah right about now following a plague free trajectory. So I think 9th in Mid to late July was always the plan.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
As said, it's already been said.
Also, anything else would make absolutely no sense from a retail / sales perspective.
The starter box (Marines vs. Necrons) is gonna be the bread and butter of every GW store in the world, and literally every add-on sale to that box is going to be the Necrons and Marines Codex.
They're not gonna be having store managers explaining every new excited twelve year old that just split the box or got it for his birthday, that the add-on Codex to expand from that doesn't have the cool bikers and is partly outdated on points, doesn't have the newfangled Crusade stuff, etc.., etc..
Those Top 10, Top 20 sellers of the GW inventory that drive sales, especially with new customers, just sit on a different priority.
This is the way.
Hell, it's arguably the main reason there was a second Codex for Chaos Marines and Space Marines in 8th and not for other factions. Because Shadowspear existed and was kind of an 8.5 starter box as far as driving sales, thus the two factions in there needed an updated add-on book whereas the rest of the range did not.
I can see it now: "We listened to all the complaints about codex space marines and it's dominance, so in an attempt to address these concerns and bring you new crusade content here is the first codex of 9th edition - Codex Space Marines"
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
They've already confirmed it one of the streams, and that it and the Necron dex will be among the first ones for the new edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
I think we are past that point, the codex and Necron release is already likely done and sitting in a warehouse already.
FW and Deathwatch were the only confirmed rules I recall hearing in the streams.
I don't remember exactly which stream it was, but the first confirmation was one of the first ones when they were talking about Crusade, and the new Crusade rules in the new SM dex.
One other stream mentioned that SM and Necrons would be among the first new codex's released that edition. I don't remember which one that was either.
Eldarain wrote:They were on a pretty regular release schedule for the PA books. We would be getting Pariah right about now following a plague free trajectory. So I think 9th in Mid to late July was always the plan.
Yeah, I think broadly this is correct. I think Pariah was likely supposed to come out sooner, since it's story was the bridge to 9th, but I am pretty certain that this summer release was always going to be 9th and some of the other releaes (Like AoS) have been pushed for this.
I doubt even GW would release a SM codex again so soon, it going to turn the 9th edition release into a shitshow, and they are smart enough to see it coming.
As said, it's already been said.
Also, anything else would make absolutely no sense from a retail / sales perspective.
The starter box (Marines vs. Necrons) is gonna be the bread and butter of every GW store in the world, and literally every add-on sale to that box is going to be the Necrons and Marines Codex.
They're not gonna be having store managers explaining every new excited twelve year old that just split the box or got it for his birthday, that the add-on Codex to expand from that doesn't have the cool bikers and is partly outdated on points, doesn't have the newfangled Crusade stuff, etc.., etc..
Those Top 10, Top 20 sellers of the GW inventory that drive sales, especially with new customers, just sit on a different priority.
This is the way.
Hell, it's arguably the main reason there was a second Codex for Chaos Marines and Space Marines in 8th and not for other factions. Because Shadowspear existed and was kind of an 8.5 starter box as far as driving sales, thus the two factions in there needed an updated add-on book whereas the rest of the range did not.
GW said during the Q&A that all the models would have rules in box just like Shadowspear did.
I don't remember exactly which stream it was, but the first confirmation was one of the first ones when they were talking about Crusade, and the new Crusade rules in the new SM dex.
One other stream mentioned that SM and Necrons would be among the first new codex's released that edition. I don't remember which one that was either.
I remember that SM codex comment and it was basically "for example when it gets updated it'll have rules for Crusade".
I’m thinking necrons first since they have more new kits. Followed by space marine. Remember there are still more primaris kits that were leaked that haven’t been shown yet or at least the landspeeder. They will probably show off the rest of this primaris wave before they release the next codex.
I don't remember exactly which stream it was, but the first confirmation was one of the first ones when they were talking about Crusade, and the new Crusade rules in the new SM dex.
One other stream mentioned that SM and Necrons would be among the first new codex's released that edition. I don't remember which one that was either.
I remember that SM codex comment and it was basically "for example when it gets updated it'll have rules for Crusade".
I recall the stream well. They in no way said there was a new Codex Space Marine coming up. They have used the "space marine character being interned in a dreadnought" a number of times as the sort of things you will see in Codex specific Crusade context, but not in a way to imply that a codex is due out soon. I will be roundly shocked to get a new Codex Space Marines less than 12 months after the last version. Players, both Space Marine and non-Space Marine, will be justifiably angry should they do that. Especially should such a codex lack the revised Doctrine rules that they only put out a few months ago.
I don't remember exactly which stream it was, but the first confirmation was one of the first ones when they were talking about Crusade, and the new Crusade rules in the new SM dex.
One other stream mentioned that SM and Necrons would be among the first new codex's released that edition. I don't remember which one that was either.
I remember that SM codex comment and it was basically "for example when it gets updated it'll have rules for Crusade".
I recall the stream well. They in no way said there was a new Codex Space Marine coming up. They have used the "space marine character being interned in a dreadnought" a number of times as the sort of things you will see in Codex specific Crusade context, but not in a way to imply that a codex is due out soon. I will be roundly shocked to get a new Codex Space Marines less than 12 months after the last version. Players, both Space Marine and non-Space Marine, will be justifiably angry should they do that. Especially should such a codex lack the revised Doctrine rules that they only put out a few months ago.
alextroy wrote: I recall the stream well. They in no way said there was a new Codex Space Marine coming up. They have used the "space marine character being interned in a dreadnought" a number of times as the sort of things you will see in Codex specific Crusade context, but not in a way to imply that a codex is due out soon. I will be roundly shocked to get a new Codex Space Marines less than 12 months after the last version. Players, both Space Marine and non-Space Marine, will be justifiably angry should they do that. Especially should such a codex lack the revised Doctrine rules that they only put out a few months ago.
they also said that the Crusade rules/option will come for each faction with their new Codex, so either the new Core Box factions are not able to play Crusade against each other for some time, Marines will get an extra Crusade Booklet while others will not, or there is a new Codex coming
either way, someone will be angry
and regarding the Doctrine rules, of those are still in, and there is a new Codex after launch, it won't be the changed one as the Codex must have been printed before the change was made
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, 9th would already be out by now - likely even the first Codex - without the pandemic closing their factory for a couple months and therefore preventing them from getting the new ad mech models ready, which delayed engine war hugely, and in turn pushed back the timeline on getting the new necron and space marine models churned out.
I strongly doubt that, they were pretty consistently releasing one PA book per month before the shutdown and so Pariah would have been set for a June release regardless, that makes me think 9th was always set to release in July.
There were leaks of the Necron Codex cover. It is allready done. Buying PA as a necron player is a little... useless. Just like death guard and space marines it will be one of the two first codex of the edition.
BrianDavion wrote: if 8th edition is any indication there will be a month or so between faction releases
I can see GW slowing down for 9th.
8th was a bit "reboot" session for GW, same as AoS 2.0 was. In terms of releases the core focus was getting all the armies codex'ed up and up to date in one big go. I can envision that with the codex for 8th edition working in 9th, GW might well slow things down so that updates are bigger. Shifting back a bit to the older pattern of a slower rate, but with bigger changes. Eg the Necron update is clearly going to be pretty huge with not just updates to old models, but big additions to the arm as well with several new units and leaders and perhaps new additions to existing units getting updated models (eg warriors appear to have a new weapon).
Slowing down and doing bigger updates in model terms makes the new codex far more viable to buy for gamers, esp considering some are not that old.
They're not gonna be having store managers explaining every new excited twelve year old that just split the box or got it for his birthday, that the add-on Codex to expand from that doesn't have the cool bikers and is partly outdated on points
Completely outdated on points. Every codex will be as all point values are getting revised for 9th after the recent general revision for CA2019. No points in any Codex have any meaning for 9th- if they're the same its pure coincidence, as they will be at least two iterations out of date (some of the older codexes are...four or five iterations out of date?)
But I agree, SM will be relatively early in the 9th cycle, probably 2nd, maybe 3rd. They're getting a pile of brand new stuff, and there's only so long GW will sit on a shiny new codex with new stuff for Space Marines. Whether they can leave marines alone for a while after that is the real question. Besides which, they need to do the general book relatively early so they can revise the snowflake chapters without creating an even bigger mess (or leaving them in the dirt again when the main SM codex does get revised). They spent most of a year getting them on the same page with PA (except DW and GK), no need to muck it all back up the way they did in previous editions, where the DA codex came out as a sacrificial offering, then the main marine codex changed design directions and spit all over the poor schmucks.
I remember that SM codex comment and it was basically "for example when it gets updated it'll have rules for Crusade".
I recall the stream well. They in no way said there was a new Codex Space Marine coming up. They have used the "space marine character being interned in a dreadnought" a number of times as the sort of things you will see in Codex specific Crusade context, but not in a way to imply that a codex is due out soon. I will be roundly shocked to get a new Codex Space Marines less than 12 months after the last version. Players, both Space Marine and non-Space Marine, will be justifiably angry should they do that. Especially should such a codex lack the revised Doctrine rules that they only put out a few months ago.
they also said that the Crusade rules/option will come for each faction with their new Codex, so either the new Core Box factions are not able to play Crusade against each other for some time, Marines will get an extra Crusade Booklet while others will not, or there is a new Codex coming
either way, someone will be angry
and regarding the Doctrine rules, of those are still in, and there is a new Codex after launch, it won't be the changed one as the Codex must have been printed before the change was made
New SM is coming out straight, the only thing that isn’t clear yet is what’s the fate of the supplements. Most likely everything will be invalid. I doubt this is a big problem for the player base that is already cutting their game mats and building entirely different style army lists.
Here's some 4chan rumors for the Necrons in the starter set. For the record, I don't beleive them. I think they just used some guess work to make some things that seem reasonable.
Dubious about this. It looks like a list of educated guesses and the stats for the Hyperphase reap-blade don't line up with the one they revealed (they showed the statline and it made no mention of a -1 to hit).
If these are true, then a few things:
Gauss reapers are wayyyyy better than flayers. Hell, they're better than Gauss blasters.
Skorptekh destroyers look decent, their viability depends on strats and dynasty traits. Rerolling RP after killing a unit is cool.
Canoptek Stalker (presumably the smaller of the war of the worlds walkers) - not great. Gives an inv save and spreads auras, but without character rule it'll just die super quickly.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
Given the length of time it takes to get a book to print, that Necron Codex has been finished for a while. PA won't be a beta test.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
It is if you are playing warrior hordes.
I can see taking the Overseer so you don't have to take Immortal Pride to stop warriors from retreating.
ClockworkZion wrote: Pariah dropping right before 9th is why I doubt we're going to see Necrons in codex form right away. Easier to use Psychci Awakening as an open beta and finalize things in the codex proper later.
Given the length of time it takes to get a book to print, that Necron Codex has been finished for a while. PA won't be a beta test.
I disagree. I'm saying there is no Necron codex ready to go, if they've startes it at all.
Immortal Overseer - poop. Moral isn't a huge issue for necrons. Might see some limited use as a filler HQ, since assuming he'd be dirt cheap with those stats.
It is if you are playing warrior hordes.
I can see taking the Overseer so you don't have to take Immortal Pride to stop warriors from retreating.
Eh, maybe. It's still niche. Like I said, depends how cheap he is and how good other HQ choices are. He might actually see more use if he's a cheap elite, to help us fill out a Brigade. the rest of our elites are expensive.
