I've just gotten my 6x4 table ready to go, I won't be cutting it down for this new recommendation!
The missions tend to define the distance apart from one another, not the distance from the board edge (IE armies start 24" apart, not armies start within 12" of a board edge) so armies won't start closer together, they will just have less room to deploy in.
I will be holding off repainting my table until 9th drops and I can add the dimensions for the smaller tables as patterns on the board, so kill-team games will have small spaces to play on.
Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.
This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.
This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius.
I am just going to stick with the mats I have, and I have a feeling a lot of tournaments will as well because they don’t want to rebuy mats and boards to fit the minimum boards size GW implemented.
Spoletta wrote: Considering the genesis of this edition, i'm fairly sure that many TOs of popular events will go for the 66x40.
What are you smoking? I Seriously have to ask that now, no TOnis going to start cutting up tables to shave them down to 5'6" and 3'4"
They will stick with 6x4 as GW have already implied they are doing.
vim_the_good wrote: Hey all H.B.M.C. is on a trollin mission. Nothing is changing as far as battlefield size is concerned.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nazrak wrote: Everyone getting mad about this being a scheme by GW to make you buy into their new table sizes – you know what the word "minimum" means, right?
You know that's missing the point, right?
They have actually codified the minimum game size to match their weirdly proportioned products. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" over time.
If people don't think this is a reaction to the third part game mat market then they have short memories. They already did it when they started moving most things from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).
GW, at their most ruthless, are a lot like Apple. They will change standards so that they only things that work with their products are their accessories. This is just another example of that.
The new 2000 point standard table is 4 kill team maps, 60"x44".
This is the first serious nerf that we see for the gunlines and also shows why now flyers need to get in and out of the table.
While this is going to be harsh for all those tables already prepared, this will be a boon for the smaller LGS that can now fit more tables.
No idea how this is a nerf to gunlines.
They'll be able to hit more stuff in the 1st turn, especially things that you could hide in your backline.
The only nerfs to gunlines that are relevant are: - terrain placement - shooting distance - -1 to hit
The distance between 2 deployments is the same, what changed is that now you have less area behind your deployment zone. That area where typically basilisks and similar stuff ends up being placed.
Feels like they are really trying to hit home that the game is KT - 40k - Apocalypse with this.
It'll be interesting to try it out. I am not against the idea in essence and will make it easier for some people with smaller tables to play at home maybe. A bit annoying for my Realms of Battle boards as they are kinda fixed size and in plastic.
The cool concept here though is that you can technically buy KT terrain packs and slowly build towards a larger table. A part of me feels like it's their way of trying to double dip a market(the KT mats would be reusable for 40k) and at the same time exclude 3rd party manufacturers.
However, the thing I feel the most is that they are really trying to get games to take less space so more people can play without having an access to a FLGS. My basic Ikea table is now close to the right size of a min size game board at this point.
Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.
This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius.
The old realm of battle is 2'x2' sections.
Moon Base is 65"x43"
The other one is 66"x45"
I can't actually find any of the mats for sale on their website.
So, GW conspired to promote a specific size, because they were upset about not selling their own 4x4, which....doesn't fit these sizes either? In the same breath where they give us free digital copies with every codex?
I think rather they decided to make it easy to carry forward from kill team with friends and have a quick board that still simulates a fair amount of terrain. It doesn't likely have anything to do with forcing sales on possibly the tiniest segment of their business.
I am otherwise curious to see what mission packs will set as the standard. Is GW playtesting on this size? What dynamics does it change? No man's land stays the same, but there certainly is less room for gunlines to go deep.
It doesn't seem like a big deal, just a minor QoL thing. The 6' x 4' tables will still be used (it's a common size of table), but now you won't be playing on the edges, which is better for model longevity. It also gives you a space to stage your models before a game, and/or a place to put casualties.
I'm really excited to see that they're activity having different missions for the different sizes of game!
This looks like it could help small clubs and stuff by letting Combat Ptrol finally be a viable thing!
The delineation between the different games sizes are going to be super helpful! It also means I can now play Small games at home without trying to wrangle a 4'x4' table or board in a small apartment.
For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.
But if you're a tournament player I can see how table size matters more.
The question is, will tournaments adopt the new minimum table size or will they stick with 6x4?
EDIT: Oh ok, nevermind. Looks like Reece has confirmed that tournaments will be using the new minimum table size here. Hm.
slave.entity wrote: For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.
But if you're a tournament player I can see how table size matters more.
The question is, will tournaments adopt the new minimum table size or will they stick with 6x4?
EDIT: Oh ok, nevermind. Looks like Reece has confirmed that tournaments will be using the new minimum table size here. Hm.
If people don't think this is a reaction to the third part game mat market then they have short memories. They already did it when they started moving most things from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).
GW, at their most ruthless, are a lot like Apple. They will change standards so that they only things that work with their products are their accessories. This is just another example of that.
Honestly, I don't think it's as calculated as that. I mean, certainly GW re capable of that sort of directed malice, but IIRC the general opinion back when the Kill Team playmats were first released was that the odd size of them was simply due to box or production limitations, and using those odd sizes as a minimum recommendation is then nothing more than tying things more directly together.
If they were stipulating those specific boards sizes, I'd be more inclined to agree with your assessment... but in practice, all that this is going to do is allow people who have the Kill Team mats to use them for full size games, while also still allowing everyone to use their mats or existing boards.
I like this move from a convenience perspective. Very few tables that aren't purpose build seem to be 4' wide, which has been an obstacle for playing in places that are more general use.
From the tactical side though, I think there are already issues with the board being too small relative to the move speed of units in the game, so like shrinking the board isn't good from that perspective.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I like this move from a convenience perspective. Very few tables that aren't purpose build seem to be 4' wide, which has been an obstacle for playing in places that are more general use..
Has it really, though?
I've played a lot of games on a 3' wide kitchen table over the years. You just cut the 'missing' space off the back end of the deployment zone.
A mate and I also played a series of rather memorable (old)Necromunda games on a round coffee table, using whatever we could scrounge from around the house for terrain.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I like this move from a convenience perspective. Very few tables that aren't purpose build seem to be 4' wide, which has been an obstacle for playing in places that are more general use..
Has it really, though?
I've played a lot of games on a 3' wide kitchen table over the years. You just cut the 'missing' space off the back end of the deployment zone.
A mate and I also played a series of rather memorable (old)Necromunda games on a round coffee table, using whatever we could scrounge from around the house for terrain.
Yeah, that's what we do too when we have this problem. Cut off the back line of the deploy area. But there's still issues with arranging objectives.
Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.
This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius.
The old realm of battle is 2'x2' sections.
Moon Base is 65"x43"
The other one is 66"x45"
I can't actually find any of the mats for sale on their website.
So, GW conspired to promote a specific size, because they were upset about not selling their own 4x4, which....doesn't fit these sizes either? In the same breath where they give us free digital copies with every codex?
I think rather they decided to make it easy to carry forward from kill team with friends and have a quick board that still simulates a fair amount of terrain. It doesn't likely have anything to do with forcing sales on possibly the tiniest segment of their business.
I am otherwise curious to see what mission packs will set as the standard. Is GW playtesting on this size? What dynamics does it change? No man's land stays the same, but there certainly is less room for gunlines to go deep.
and even if it IS product placement why SHOU;DN'T GW use their own damn battle mats etc as their reccomended size?
Insectum7 wrote: My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.
When the odd size of the playmats was first revealed, there were a whole bunch of people complaining that this made them too small to push a few together to form a 40K table. The reduced minimum recommendation spells it out for those who need such a confirmation that it's ok to use the playmats for larger games, while still allowing people to use larger tables if they prefer.
Insectum7 wrote: My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.
To fit on tabletops and correspond with the products they make.
4'x6' is considerably bigger than commonly available household tables, which is almost certainly why their skirmish game packaged boards were made the size they were to be comfortably played on a dining table. The new board sizes are multiples of their skirmish game board sizes, so it's both convenient for people starting off with those sets and convenient for people who aren't playing in a dedicated gaming space.
To fit dining and coffee tables people might have so they don’t need to buy a gaming specific table. That’s their stated goal.
Is that actually stated somewhere, or just an assumption? I can't see 44" wide dining tables being significantly more common than 48" wide dining tables. It's would still be an unusually wide table, either way.
Apparently, dining tables are normally between 36 and 40 inches wide, so you'd still need some sort of rigid board on top for anything other than the combat patrol/incursion.
H.B.M.C. wrote: from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).
GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).
"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.
insaniak wrote: Honestly, I don't think it's as calculated as that. I mean, certainly GW re capable of that sort of directed malice, but IIRC the general opinion back when the Kill Team playmats were first released was that the odd size of them was simply due to box or production limitations, and using those odd sizes as a minimum recommendation is then nothing more than tying things more directly together.
If they were stipulating those specific boards sizes, I'd be more inclined to agree with your assessment... but in practice, all that this is going to do is allow people who have the Kill Team mats to use them for full size games, while also still allowing everyone to use their mats or existing boards.
You're looking at it in the wrong order.
The design of those boards was certainly because of space limitations within boxes. GW have certain box sizes that they stick to, and everything has to fit within that box size. That's fine. But these new minimum sizes are now set to those odd dimensions that they produce. They're shifting the standard game to something they already produce. That's what I'm getting at.
chromedog wrote: GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).
"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.
slave.entity wrote: For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.
But if you're a tournament player I can see how table size matters more.
The question is, will tournaments adopt the new minimum table size or will they stick with 6x4?
EDIT: Oh ok, nevermind. Looks like Reece has confirmed that tournaments will be using the new minimum table size here. Hm.
Hmm, it's almost like FLG is interested in selling mats. Of course they are going to make the new size the standard. They want money. Why people still give any credence to ITC is beyond me.
AOS mentions in the core rules that you must play on a surface that's at least 2x2, I don't think it calls out anywhere that you need to be on a 6x4, but that's what everyone plays on for larger than 1k points.
slave.entity wrote: For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.
My local had 8 custom 4x6 tables built, you can literally put a car on them and they wont break and the mats are a special material that doesn't stain and hard to cut for hobbying on them. There is no way they are changing the size, b.c everyone is going to need their own mats (Store isn't buying mats after spending the money on those tables) and no one wants to message out that nonsense every game.
H.B.M.C. wrote: from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).
GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).
"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.
NEVER? Oh boy, they do now. Check the SoB Repentia models, that just came out on a fresh 28.5mm round base format.
To fit dining and coffee tables people might have so they don’t need to buy a gaming specific table. That’s their stated goal.
Is that actually stated somewhere, or just an assumption? I can't see 44" wide dining tables being significantly more common than 48" wide dining tables. It's would still be an unusually wide table, either way.
Agreed, but it’s stated in the WHC article, alongside also verifying HBMC’s suggestion its to sell their KT boards:
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!
Insectum7 wrote: My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.
When the odd size of the playmats was first revealed, there were a whole bunch of people complaining that this made them too small to push a few together to form a 40K table. The reduced minimum recommendation spells it out for those who need such a confirmation that it's ok to use the playmats for larger games, while still allowing people to use larger tables if they prefer.
Ahhh. Ok, I don't think I've ever even seen one of their playmats in person.
I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.
The design of those boards was certainly because of space limitations within boxes. GW have certain box sizes that they stick to, and everything has to fit within that box size. That's fine. But these new minimum sizes are now set to those odd dimensions that they produce. They're shifting the standard game to something they already produce. That's what I'm getting at.
Absolutely, they are. The difference is that you're seeing it as a cynical cash grab to force people to buy that product, where I'm just seeing it as the rules being tweaked to accommodate the fact that product exists.
As above, I'd agree with your take on it if they were specifying that size as the actual standard, but they're not. They're just including it.
I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.
Were there rumours that points values were going up? That will certainly help somewhat, if it's true, since part of the problem with the rules from around 4th ed onwards was that tables were starting to get rather crowded.
So one would hope that having fewer models on the table and improved terrain rules would go some way towards making up for the slightly smaller usable area.
Agreed, but it’s stated in the WHC article, alongside also verifying HBMC’s suggestion its to sell their KT boards:
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!
Interesting. Sounds like whoever wrote the article was aiming for a throwaway positive comment, but didn't take the time to actually measure a dining room table...
Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.
This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.
Honestly it's genius.
Genius no. Standard MBA sociopathy, yes. Moves like this only seem clever to non sociopaths because well, screwing people for one’s own benefit is not usually the first thing that comes to mind for a non sociopath. But, nothing clever about it. Just snakes in suits doing what snakes in suits do.
I can easily picture my local meta switching over to 5x4 if ITC adopts it as the standard. It will just be more convenient for them to play whatever format is used at local events.
6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.
Elbows wrote: 6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.
8x4 used to be the table size... can we please go back to that?
Genius no. Standard MBA sociopathy, yes. Moves like this only seem clever to non sociopaths because well, screwing people for one’s own benefit is not usually the first thing that comes to mind for a non sociopath. But, nothing clever about it. Just snakes in suits doing what snakes in suits do.
Moves like this seem clever because they stop people from asking if it's ok to use mats that are smaller than 4x6. Nobody is getting 'screwed' here. I'd recommend dialing down the hyperbole just a couple of notches before you dislocate something.
Well.. if the ITC is moving to GWs new proprietary standard then. How long before a 6x4 is as uncommon as that 8x4?
And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly... next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes
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.
Honestly, I don't think I'll understand the outrage people have for other options that don't impede their own.
Table size? You can still play on 6x4.
Points changing to where a 2000 point list might now be 3000? You can play 3000 points.
Open play? You can still play Matched.
Power Level? You can still play points.
I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.
Were there rumours that points values were going up? That will certainly help somewhat, if it's true, since part of the problem with the rules from around 4th ed onwards was that tables were starting to get rather crowded.
So one would hope that having fewer models on the table and improved terrain rules would go some way towards making up for the slightly smaller usable area.
Aye, new terrain rules are my biggest question now in regards to 9th.
Oh 4th Ed, how I miss thee. With smaller armies, escalating missions and LOS blocking forests, etc. 9th sounds like it's taking steps in that direction, at least.
Frankly, it would make more sense if GW could do one stable game well first before changing things just to make other things made most exclusively by third parties obsolete...
I mean, even as a point of pride, would GW leadership like to say that they have a solid game in place?
H.B.M.C. wrote: from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).
GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).
"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.
NEVER? Oh boy, they do now. Check the SoB Repentia models, that just came out on a fresh 28.5mm round base format.
They're 28.5mm bases, but yeah that's a 28mm base...
Elbows wrote: 6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.
8x4 used to be the table size... can we please go back to that?
8x4 is the best of both worlds, lots of room to maneuver, while still having plenty of room for terrain.
harlokin wrote: Apparently, dining tables are normally between 36 and 40 inches wide, so you'd still need some sort of rigid board on top for anything other than the combat patrol/incursion.
Or you just play on your existing 40" wide table....
And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly... next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes
Sorry, you've lost me there. They've offered suggestions as to the minimum size you should use, and have explicitly stated that you can use a larger board if you wish.
So, seriously, please explain what is stopping you from continuing to play on a 6x4 table?
Elbows wrote: 6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.
Then GW brought out Kill-Team, and mat manufacturers started making mats in that size. How long before they start making 44x60 maps?
And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly... next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes
Sorry, you've lost me there. They've offered suggestions as to the minimum size you should use, and have explicitly stated that you can use a larger board if you wish.
So, seriously, please explain what is stopping you from continuing to play on a 6x4 table?
The same people who were stopping us from using the same datasheet more than three times in our army (i.e., because that's the way that the tournaments do it)
Seriously, the whole argument of "you don't have to" is not really approriate when it comes to GW gaming. As someone stated, you don't have to use the Rule of 3, but try playing in a tournament or local store without adhering to that rule...ain't gonna happen.
FLG will be selling mats, gamemat.eu and others will follow suit (they will want a piece of the action), and within 3 months, games of 40K in most settings will be played on 60x44 surfaces. It's just the way it goes.
The weird thing is, you almost need the same size table for that game as you do for a 6x4 so it's not from a logistics standpoint (at least for the 2000pt standard)
Maybe the next best thing to sell is a mat boundary that you place over your 6x4 pre-existing mat....saves placing tape down.
bullyboy wrote:Seriously, the whole argument of "you don't have to" is not really approriate when it comes to GW gaming. As someone stated, you don't have to use the Rule of 3, but try playing in a tournament or local store without adhering to that rule...ain't gonna happen.
I've never been told to use the Rule of 3. If your opponents will only play using completely optional rules, find new opponents? Tournaments, I can understand, but they'll have their own standards which they will make clear before the event. Local store? No such expectations.
Maybe the next best thing to sell is a mat boundary that you place over your 6x4 pre-existing mat....saves placing tape down.
If it's your own 6x4, in your own house/gaming venue... why on earth do you have to worry what anyone else says? It's your house, your rules!
bullyboy wrote:Seriously, the whole argument of "you don't have to" is not really approriate when it comes to GW gaming. As someone stated, you don't have to use the Rule of 3, but try playing in a tournament or local store without adhering to that rule...ain't gonna happen.
I've never been told to use the Rule of 3. If your opponents will only play using completely optional rules, find new opponents? Tournaments, I can understand, but they'll have their own standards which they will make clear before the event. Local store? No such expectations.
Maybe the next best thing to sell is a mat boundary that you place over your 6x4 pre-existing mat....saves placing tape down.
If it's your own 6x4, in your own house/gaming venue... why on earth do you have to worry what anyone else says? It's your house, your rules!
In solo games? Sure, I can fudge any aspect of the game I want. Heck, you're right, i might be able to convince my buddy to play on the full 6x4 table. The thing is, often times, someone will have a list that they want to practice for an event, and that event will be on a 44x60, so they will want to practice at that size. This will happen often enough until you basically say, what the heck, let's just play 44x60 from here on. It happens, people are just creatures of habit.
I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.
What you and your buds play in your garage is irrelevant, what you have the freedom to choose if you lack space is irrelevant. All that matters is what the tournament standard size ends up being.
If ITC wasn't dropping their table size I would say this would get ignored, but they are so the question is will the rsst of the tournament scene fall in line or will their investment in 6x4s and mats keep them to the old standard?
Most likely most events will switch and just mark out a dead zone on the edges of their mats. Which will be awful.
bullyboy wrote:In solo games? Sure, I can fudge any aspect of the game I want. Heck, you're right, i might be able to convince my buddy to play on the full 6x4 table. The thing is, often times, someone will have a list that they want to practice for an event, and that event will be on a 44x60, so they will want to practice at that size. This will happen often enough until you basically say, what the heck, let's just play 44x60 from here on. It happens, people are just creatures of habit.
So, basically, only if you care about tournaments. Which not all players, or even a majority of players, do?
Why should GW take criticism of "you're changing the board size!" from a minority of players who refuse to deviate from limits they accepted themselves?
ERJAK wrote:I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.
Only if all you care about is tournaments. Which not all players (and in fact a majority of all players) do.
I'm not saying tournaments won't change size. But if you're just going to copy whatever the tournaments decide, that was your choice, which was out of GW's hands.
Even if, despite the clear instruction that these are MINIMUM SIZES, people decide to use these smaller measurements to make mats--they will still fit on the 6x4 tables. You would just have a bit of extra space around the edges, just like with a lot of tables today. So you'll only get hosed if your gaming area provides new, cut down tables and you have a larger mat.
I could maybe understand the commotion if we still used guess range weapons. I know that people used to be really conscious of table dimensions when you had to actually guess the range on certain weapons, but you can just measure the damn stuff now.
I don't see it as sinister or avaricious, as much as just slightly incompetent. GW made Kill Team boards a weird freaking size, for no good reason, but realized that doing so meant that people couldn't use them in 40K games. It's just a kludge to allow (and encourage) you to use those boards, even when you aren't playing Kill Team. It would have been great if the KT boards were a more
'standard' size, but given how improvisational Kill Team tends to be, I don't think it was a big issue. But it is a way to allow you to get more use out of your KT boards.
ERJAK wrote:I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.
Only if all you care about is tournaments. Which not all players (and in fact a majority of all players) do.
Tournament standard has a strong habit of shaping PUG expectations.
in the worst possible way.
It's amazing when you play someone whom has only played tourney and inform them that all the stupid house rules ITC imposes on the game are just that, house rules.
I built my own table for Star Wars: Armada and, purposely, made it 1 foot too big (on the long edge) for cards/staging. I kinda like the idea of a 2k game (~1500-1750 of now stuff) on a slightly smaller board with room ON THE TABLE for your cards; reinforcements, etc.
I'm just curious if GW will take advantage and quickly produce mats at the new size you can drop on your old 6x4 boards. I'd be down for that.
bullyboy wrote:In solo games? Sure, I can fudge any aspect of the game I want. Heck, you're right, i might be able to convince my buddy to play on the full 6x4 table. The thing is, often times, someone will have a list that they want to practice for an event, and that event will be on a 44x60, so they will want to practice at that size. This will happen often enough until you basically say, what the heck, let's just play 44x60 from here on. It happens, people are just creatures of habit.
So, basically, only if you care about tournaments. Which not all players, or even a majority of players, do?
Why should GW take criticism of "you're changing the board size!" from a minority of players who refuse to deviate from limits they accepted themselves?
ERJAK wrote:I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.
Only if all you care about is tournaments. Which not all players (and in fact a majority of all players) do.
I'm not saying tournaments won't change size. But if you're just going to copy whatever the tournaments decide, that was your choice, which was out of GW's hands.
You're really ignoring the collective, and maybe this is just a small English club type of mentality? (not knocking it, I'm from the UK). It seems that in the US, they love standardization. If the big tournies are playing one way, it usually trickles down to any player that even has a small affiliation with someone who plays in events. It just becomes a standard. Sure, the guys I game with are often open to some narrative games, etc, but if we're just meeting up on a Saturday to play a game, you can bet it will be 2000pts, on a 6x4, using rule of 3, etc, etc.
So what I'm saying is that in 3 months, we'll probably be meeting on Saturdays, playing 2000pts on 44x60 table...just a hunch, I'd personally prefer to keep 6x4, but not sure if I will be in the minority.
Racerguy180 wrote: It's amazing when you play someone whom has only played tourney and inform them that all the stupid house rules ITC imposes on the game are just that, house rules.
That's one of the big reasons I gave up on 8th edition in general. The local scene moved towards that nonsense and I wasn't going to accommodate their fake rules.
bullyboy wrote:Seriously, the whole argument of "you don't have to" is not really approriate when it comes to GW gaming. As someone stated, you don't have to use the Rule of 3, but try playing in a tournament or local store without adhering to that rule...ain't gonna happen.
I've never been told to use the Rule of 3. If your opponents will only play using completely optional rules, find new opponents? Tournaments, I can understand, but they'll have their own standards which they will make clear before the event. Local store? No such expectations.
Maybe the next best thing to sell is a mat boundary that you place over your 6x4 pre-existing mat....saves placing tape down.
If it's your own 6x4, in your own house/gaming venue... why on earth do you have to worry what anyone else says? It's your house, your rules!
first considering we get more examples here of people from all around the world playing where the rule of 3 is not optional, we can say that the chance of it being optional for majority of players is smaller. And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
You're really ignoring the collective, and maybe this is just a small English club type of mentality? (not knocking it, I'm from the UK). It seems that in the US, they love standardization.
So what I'm saying is that in 3 months, we'll probably be meeting on Saturdays, playing 2000pts on 44x60 table...just a hunch, I'd personally prefer to keep 6x4, but not sure if I will be in the minority.
Not just in the US they love standarization, if I may point that out.
Karol wrote: And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
Stores are not going to be chopping 4" off the edges of their tables. While there is some small amount of justification for tournaments to do so in order to chase the meta, it simply makes no financial sense for stores to replace their tables just because the people who make the game say that it can now work on a surface that is fractionally smaller.
Karol wrote: And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
Stores are not going to be chopping 4" off the edges of their tables. While there is some small amount of justification for tournaments to do so in order to chase the meta, it simply makes no financial sense for stores to replace their tables just because the people who make the game say that it can now work on a surface that is fractionally smaller.
no need to cut anything. Properly placed duct tape will suffice.
Personally, I don't expect many local stores/clubs or events to change their table sizes to the new minimum (particularly if they're also used for other games beyond just 40k, I think that may be a kicker for many), the space savings isn't really all that meaningful over 6-10 tables, and would require investment in new boards, and I have zero interest in doing so for casual home/solo gaming for the same reasons.
I also don't see where it'd be worth the time and effort to lop off or otherwise designate 4" off just to meet the new *minimum* for its own sake on existing boards.
I expect we may see large events shift to the new minimum where space may be at a premium with many dozens or hundreds of tables (particularly if they're run by people selling stuff tailored to the new minimum), or new stores/clubs that don't have existing boards and tables, but I think the classic 4x6 is going to remain the norm for most people, at least for a while. I'm certainly in no hurry to switch table sizes.
Karol wrote: And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
Stores are not going to be chopping 4" off the edges of their tables. While there is some small amount of justification for tournaments to do so in order to chase the meta, it simply makes no financial sense for stores to replace their tables just because the people who make the game say that it can now work on a surface that is fractionally smaller.
I don't have problems with tables being to big. Comparing to US stores ours are very small. We had 4x4, and 5x5 tables. But this is a personal me problem not a world wide one. All in all I think it is a good change.
Karol wrote: And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
Stores are not going to be chopping 4" off the edges of their tables. While there is some small amount of justification for tournaments to do so in order to chase the meta, it simply makes no financial sense for stores to replace their tables just because the people who make the game say that it can now work on a surface that is fractionally smaller.
no need to cut anything. Properly placed duct tape will suffice.
So taping and removing tapes for storage is soooo easy...
Or you could do the sensible thing and understand what word "minimum" means. Helps also making movement and deployment matters more.
Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.
I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.
Having just spent more money on my RoB board tiles, terrain and foldable 2 x 4 foot tables than on any miniatures this year, aint no way I'm going to be throwing all that away just because of some BS ITC decision to take "minimum" as "standard". I'll keep my modular table builds at 4x4/6x4/8x4 thanks. I see the RAI in this the same way I see ruling on mini base sizes, "you can mount the miniature on a bigger base that it came with, but not smaller", therefore this to me reads "you can have a bigger table than this for this size game, but not smaller".
Karol wrote: And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
Stores are not going to be chopping 4" off the edges of their tables. While there is some small amount of justification for tournaments to do so in order to chase the meta, it simply makes no financial sense for stores to replace their tables just because the people who make the game say that it can now work on a surface that is fractionally smaller.
no need to cut anything. Properly placed duct tape will suffice.
I can tell you right now GWs new suggestions for table size (especially the 44" part) will be largely ignored at the local shop & 100% ignored within the circles I play with.
Tables 48" across. Deal with it or don't play, your choice. Doesn't matter what the tournament scene standard is.
Karol wrote: Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.
I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.
The point was that those stores who already have 4x6 tables will continue to use them, because they already have then. At worst, they'll mark out the smaller zone for those who want to use it, in which case you can just ignore it and use the whole table.
This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Use whatever size table you choose, just like people have been doing for the last 30 years.
tauist wrote: Having just spent more money on my RoB board tiles, terrain and foldable 2 x 4 foot tables than on any miniatures this year, aint no way I'm going to be throwing all that away just because of some BS ITC decision to take "minimum" as "standard". I'll keep my modular table builds at 4x4/6x4/8x4 thanks. I see the RAI in this the same way I see ruling on mini base sizes, "you can mount the miniature on a bigger base that it came with, but not smaller", therefore this to me reads "you can have a bigger table than this for this size game, but not smaller".
Not just you. To anybody who undestand basic english
I'm not actually sure that as many events will change over as people think, if they are 40k only then yeah sure they probably will. However if it's space and tables also used for AoS you know what GW says they suggest for 2k battles? Yes 6x4, so you now have a 40k standard and a different AoS standard.
Well we can all hope then that GW done their testing right, and the game size works better then what we had in the 8th?
Otherwise changes for changes sake aren't that good. Specialy for those places where kill team or AoS never became a thing, and people just don't have the boards.
Karol wrote: Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.
I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.
The point was that those stores who already have 4x6 tables will continue to use them, because they already have then. At worst, they'll mark out the smaller zone for those who want to use it, in which case you can just ignore it and use the whole table.
This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Use whatever size table you choose, just like people have been doing for the last 30 years.
In my store the tables were not 4x6. And there was no space to make them bigger to fit the new standard. Infinity and historicals were played on a 4x4 table for example. the biggest table we had was a 5x5 one. So if my store ever reopens it is going to be a problem. And even more so, is that I doubt a new store is going to want to invest in to new tables, with how bad the economy is right now.
I hope people stick top the 72*48 or 72*36 for 1500 points and don't get to strickt onto "must use GW numbers no matter if they are just suggestions or not"
In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!
Standard dining room table size stops at 100cm width, 44" minimum size is 110cm
If GW wants to change their game size from 48" to a size that fits the standard dining room table, it might be worth to check what the standard size is in countries using the metric system (there is a reason why other games use 36")
kodos wrote: I hope people stick top the 72*48 or 72*36 for 1500 points and don't get to strickt onto "must use GW numbers no matter if they are just suggestions or not"
In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!
Standard dining room table size stops at 110cm width, 44" minimum size is 110cm
If GW wants to change their game size from 48" to a size that fits the standard dining room table, it might be worth to check what the standard size is in countries using the metric system (there is a reason why other games use 36")
I'm not sure where GW are getting their ideas for the standard size of a dining room table, but the standard sizes at a popular UK furniture company are:
What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes. AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
ERJAK wrote:I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.
Only if all you care about is tournaments. Which not all players (and in fact a majority of all players) do.
Tournament standard has a strong habit of shaping PUG expectations.
Not in my experience, which I'll accept isn't applicable to all.
The fact is, there's no way to force someone to use a 60x44 if they have a 6x4.
bullyboy wrote:You're really ignoring the collective,
Am I? Without data, and that's including data from all the casual players, ones who play at home with their own stuff, etc, can we say what the collective is?
I dunno, I'd be surprised if the *majority* of 40k players gave that much of a hoot about the tourney scene.
and maybe this is just a small English club type of mentality? (not knocking it, I'm from the UK). It seems that in the US, they love standardization. If the big tournies are playing one way, it usually trickles down to any player that even has a small affiliation with someone who plays in events. It just becomes a standard. Sure, the guys I game with are often open to some narrative games, etc, but if we're just meeting up on a Saturday to play a game, you can bet it will be 2000pts, on a 6x4, using rule of 3, etc, etc.
So what I'm saying is that in 3 months, we'll probably be meeting on Saturdays, playing 2000pts on 44x60 table...just a hunch, I'd personally prefer to keep 6x4, but not sure if I will be in the minority.
That's still down to personal choice to accept those tourney rules. GW didn't impose that, reliance and dependence on the tournament circuit did.
[quote=Karolfirst considering we get more examples here of people from all around the world playing where the rule of 3 is not optional
It's still optional, just socially acceptable.
we can say that the chance of it being optional for majority of players is smaller.
Again, without data to back it up, it's just my opinion against yours. I'm not saying I'm right, but I don't think the majority of 40k players care all that much about tournament standard.
And the second thing, there are places in the world where gaming is not done in private homes, but at stores or in clubs run by stores. Good luck trying to play there with something the store does not want to be used, specialy if they sell stuff that they do want you to use and it lines up with what GW wants to sell.
By that same token, those stores have the power to choose themselves what their house rules are. GW still sell 2x2 tiles (Sector Imperialis, Zone Mortalis, Shattered Dominion), so it's hardly like GW have no incentive to play 6x4 games. Similarly, there are non-GW stores who run 40k, who might want to be selling 6x4 mats, or just can't be bothered to change their tables for an optional rule.
So, sure, you might have stores who will now religiously enforce 60x44, but you'll also have stores who will stick to 6x4, and the onus will be on individual players if they want to shorten things. After all, I can't see Warhammer World slicing parts off all their tables.
There is no official game size in 7th or 8th. All the maps in the brb give you measurements from the center of the table to your deployment zone but give you no actual measurements of the table itself.
6 x 4 was the traditional game size but the brb doesn't have anything to say about it.
Despite that players played on whatever size surface they could get. Eventually building up to a 6x4 but often dealing with smaller. People with smaller tables will keep using their smaller tables. People with bigger will keep using bigger. GW chiming in on this will impact nothing because their single word isn't enough to shift the entire industry of making 6x4 mats and tables.
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
You might want to take off that tinfoil hat before stepping outside today. The sun might bake your brain like a potato.
Galas wrote:- "In my personal experience and most of the people I know, what the big tournaments do, is what shapes how we play"
-"Yeah but, you know, your personal experience is invalidated because MY personal experience is different and I can do whatever I want"
- "But the biggest ITC tournament has allready said they are gonna use the new table sizes"
-"Whatever man! Your life your choice!"
Hmmm... Ok?
"In my personal experience and most of the people I know, no-one cares what the big tournaments do."
"Yeah but, you know, your personal experience is invalidated because MY personal experience is different and I do what the tournaments say"
"But you're under no official obligation to follow what anyone else tells you to, if they change their sizes, that's their independent choice"
"Whatever man! I'm only following tournament standard!"
It swings both ways. All I'm saying is that it's not GW's fault if tournaments/third party groups change their sizes when they're not being forced to.
So GW does a edition around ITC with ITC playtesters with the explicit idea of unifying how Warhammer is played worldwide in a competitive sense... and you say it is not GW's fault?
Galas wrote: So GW does a edition around ITC with ITC playtesters with the explicit idea of unifying how Warhammer is played worldwide in a competitive sense... and you say it is not GW's fault?
They make it clear that those are minimum requirements, and explicitly call out that your old tables are still fine.
Not to mention that not everyone plays 40k in a competitive sense.
Tournaments have the power to run their own rules. They have the power to declare they're using 6x4 tables. Venues can keep using 6x4 tables. No-one's going to come around with a hacksaw and cut away at existing tables.
If you don't want to recognise the warping power the MAIN BODY behind warhammer has about how things are played in a competitive scene they are involved with I don't know what to tell you.
Galas wrote: If you don't want to recognise the warping power the MAIN BODY behind warhammer has about how things are played in a competitive scene they are involved with I don't know what to tell you.
I'm saying that not everyone plays comp, and that that warping power has no obligation to switch their table size. If they didn't want to change from 6x4, they didn't have to.
If ITC changed their table sizes, then blame ITC.
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes. AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
Nice fake news bro to drive your agenda with the veil of objectiveness. The only source to say 40K 2K pts has been designed or is intended to be played on minimum table sizes, is Reece, in the comments section of his own web page. Games Workshop sources on the other hand have said 40K has been designed to be played equally well on any table size (also not true, as the game play experience will be less tactical on smaller tables).
So if you or your tournament wants to move to minimum table sizes, to accommodate a couple tables extra and therefore get a couple more paying customers, that's up to you. But don't mask it under balance, intent, or some bullgak 'the majority will play on tables that Reecius demands because that's for the benefit of mankind anyway' because so far it doesn't look like that at all. In fact, Reecius' event might be the only major to choose to go this way.
ITC won't be anything but a ranking system in 9th edition. And just like in 8th, the only obligation to qualify under ITC ranking is to count points the same way and to follow some ethical guide lines. As it stands it looks like tournaments will be played across the world with various mission packs, various table sizes and various points limits. Neither side should assume there will be any unification whatsoever in 9th. Reece decided to stop fixing GW's 40K after he became a shill for them, and because of that ITC as we know it is dead now. Good for him if this brings him more bacon, but I'm sure others will continue to develop more balanced mission packs than what GW is capable of pushing out in the rule book. And they certainly won't accept a minimum table size just because, and this is from Reece's mouth himself, it's convenient that 4 KT boards can form one 40K board. Most competitive or casual 40K players probably have never played a single game of KT, nor do they own a single KT board.
ITC changing their size will have a trickle down effect. not surprising though that Reece said FLG will be making mats at the new size, because of course he will.
I am curious if GW is now going to make boards at ht new size (or sell KT boards separately) because their realm of battle boards are still 6x4. And that's not even to get into the fact that AOS still uses 6x4 so there's a difference now.
Wayniac wrote: ITC changing their size will have a trickle down effect. not surprising though that Reece said FLG will be making mats at the new size, because of course he will.
I am curious if GW is now going to make boards at ht new size (or sell KT boards separately) because their realm of battle boards are still 6x4. And that's not even to get into the fact that AOS still uses 6x4 so there's a difference now.
Sigmar is probably going to change to the 5'x3'8" as soon as GW gets around to releasing boards. I expect the standard size for tables in game stores that had 6'x4' tables not to change since you might still need it for Kings of War/Star Wars Legion/etc., but GW's probably already got 5'x3'8" tables set up to ship out to their stores.
I don't think there's going to be a single, explicit moment when everyone forms mobs to throw 6x4 tables into a pile and light a bonfire (singing and dancing optional).
I think there is going to be a gradual change as the Minimum becomes the Standard for one Big Tournament (ITC), other tournaments including local ones, then influencing LGSs, which influences home games.
I think, eventually, it will be difficult to find folks willing to play an "unofficial" size mat of 6' x 4'. I think it will be more difficult, faster, for folks in competitive metas. It may not hit some isolated metas at all, or only a little at most.
I think this is going to happen over a fairly long period of time - a year or so, at least.
I think this is going to coincide with across-the-board point decreases and consequently larger armies at the same point values over a similar time frame, because I don't trust GW not to do what they've always done every time since I started playing.
I think GW thinks they'll have time to modify enough codexes by then that they can balance more models on a smaller board. I think GW is gonna throw a few codexes under the bus in the process.
I think a lot of this is speculative, but GW's priority seems to be "We want to make our products as relevant as possible, including these killteam battlemats, so we need our official game sizes to accommodate them" which is going to have selfish and altruistic influences. GW being a company, I think one influence is presumptively stronger than the other.
I'd prefer games had more space to maneuver, but then, I'm a T'au player - of course I do!
I don't consider this doom & gloom, because we don't know enough about the rest of the game changes, but I think it'd be odd to suggest that specific game sizes (even if they're called "minimum") aren't going to have a strong influence on how players (as a whole) tend to game.
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes.
I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.
In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.
Pickled_egg wrote: AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.
Pickled_egg wrote: So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes.
I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.
In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.
Pickled_egg wrote: AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.
Pickled_egg wrote: So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.
ccs wrote: As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.
Exactly. Not even just the tourney players, but the tourneys themselves, are being forced to take on this new size. If a tournament so wanted, they could turn around and say "yeah, I see that's the minimum size, but we're going above that, with our own pre-existing 6x4 tables".
People were fine with ITC making up whole new scoring systems. Tourney circuits have control over people who care about that kind of 40k, and that's actually fine! If a tourney group decide to alter the size of their tables, that was their choice, not GWs.
If the “minimum” was larger that 6x4 I could get behind the rage. The 6x4 mats and gaming tables out there will be just fine. I am assuming that the GW police will not bust my door down and confiscate the 8x5 ping pong table I also game on.
Pickled_egg wrote: ...AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind..
Has it, though?
I'd be rather curious to find out what the studio guys actually play on. I'd be willing to bet it's Realm of Battle boards. I'd be very surprised if the minimum size is anything at all to do with playtesting. The minimum size recommendation is only what it is because that happens to be the size of four of the Kill Team maps.
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes. AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
Pickled_egg wrote: ...AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind..
Has it, though?
I'd be rather curious to find out what the studio guys actually play on. I'd be willing to bet it's Realm of Battle boards. I'd be very surprised if the minimum size is anything at all to do with playtesting. The minimum size recommendation is only what it is because that happens to be the size of four of the Kill Team maps.
the playtest argument is a very bad one anyway, as if this little amount of space has a big influence if the game works well or not, we can expect very bad written rules
so it is more likley that this is just marketing and to get 3rd party products out of the way
Pickled_egg wrote: What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.
To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.
However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes.
I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.
In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.
Pickled_egg wrote: AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.
Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.
Pickled_egg wrote: So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.
1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.
Congrats you managed to totally miss my point.
The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size, as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around. This is in the public domain.
So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.
As a tournament player and a casual player I will probably continue to play narrative and casual games on a 6x4 but if i want to attend tournaments I will invariably test for them on the new size, which I'm not that keen on, as a smaller size feels less tactical to me.
As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,
Pickled_egg wrote:The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size
No, they won't. That is down for the tournaments to decide. Tournaments are not GW. Don't blame GW for the choices of individual tournaments.
as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around.
That's the tournaments' choice. They have every right to keep playing on 6x4 tables, the GW police won't stop the tournament going ahead if they find out they're not using 60x44 tables.
If you're going to blame anyone, blame the tournament organisers for changing based on completely optional rules.
So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.
Yes, you are. But you don't *have* to change. If I was running tournaments, I wouldn't be changing my table sizes at the venue. I'd still run 6x4, and that is well within my right, as a third part TO, to do.
No tournament organiser is being FORCED to change. That will be their choice. If you have a problem with THEIR choice, take it up with THEM.
As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,
People blaming the wrong group for their grievances is though.
I don't really care for tournaments, and I don't think the slight difference in table size will affect me, if I even end up playing on it, but if you're going to scream at shout at someone for changing the table sizes, take it up with the people who had all the power to say "yup, we hear your minimum requirement, and we're still using 6x4", and chose not to.
This discussion is nothing but ridiculous. If you feel in any way forced that you have to prepare for tournament games being played on smaller tables (which so far is nowhere to be seen)... then put a line of dice where the table is "supposed" to end if your 6x4 table is "too large". Problem solved.
This thread leaves me even more puzzled than any "old Marines will die, GW wants to make me burn my models" debate.
Karol wrote: Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.
I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.
Ars Bellica uses exactly those sizes and is very popular around my area, so popular in fact that it's also being used at the local GW as far as I know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: This discussion is nothing but ridiculous. If you feel in any way forced that you have to prepare for tournament games being played on smaller tables (which so far is nowhere to be seen)... then put a line of dice where the table is "supposed" to end if your 6x4 table is "too large". Problem solved.
This thread leaves me even more puzzled than any "old Marines will die, GW wants to make me burn my models" debate.
Or just build like an insert that reduces the play area.
To be fair Frontline Gaming already said they'd use the smaller tables in the future, mostly to save space
The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size, as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around. This is in the public domain.
So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.
As a tournament player and a casual player I will probably continue to play narrative and casual games on a 6x4 but if i want to attend tournaments I will invariably test for them on the new size, which I'm not that keen on, as a smaller size feels less tactical to me.
As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,
If you prefer bigger tables, then tell the tournament organisers that. You don't need to attend a tournament that uses setup that you don't like, and tournaments that have no attendees do not exist. If everyone was not a timid conformist afraid to speak their mind, then tournaments would do what the playerbase actually wants. The tournaments exist for the players, not otherwise around.
Martel732 wrote: GW is just harvesting that free labor. ITC is more interested in GW's rules than GW is. GW should just farm out all the rules writing.
They should have designers play test, not gamers of games.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, as I own about 30 6x4 mats in my personal collection:
1. Reece stated that he made the push for smaller table sizes (its been a trend in the industry for other games the last few years already) because as an event organizer it means he can fit more people in the same number of space. I don't know if this horrifically non-standard table size idea was his, but I have to say I *do* have a problem with him being part of this conversation. Not only is he basically the number 1 guy for competitive 40k event organization (at least in the US if not globally), but he's also part of GWs playtesting program as well as a producer and manufacturer of playmats. From the outside in, its not a good look to see/hear that someone who is going to definitely profit off of this was potentially involved (and possibly was a main influencer) in the decision-making process here. Keep in mind that Reece likely knew the final table sizes months in advance, which gives him a big head start on product development. I would be surprised if Reece *isn't* the first to market with the new mat sizes and doesn't make big bucks hand over fist selling them to TO's globally, simply because its going to take everyone else months to catch up and roll out their own designs in the same dimensions.
2. Now that GW is getting more directly involved with the tournament circuit themselves (see also: hiring Mike Brandt of NOVA to coordinate competitive gaming events globally and manage organized play programs), I expect that even if ITC didn't adopt the new table sizes that it would be irrelevant anyway as to whether or not TO's used them. Honestly, I don't think ITC really has a raison d'etre anymore now that GW seems to be developing its own tournament circuit in some fashion, unless Mikes mandate has a more limited scope than what has been implied. While I'm sure ITC events may be part of GWs circuit, Reece has already stated that ITC will adopt GWs guidelines and standards. The "I" in ITC is therefore largely pointless and branding an event as "ITC" seems to be essentially meaningless except to feed Reece's ego/play into the cult of personality that he has built up for himself. I.E. it seems there will be no real difference between an even thats labeled ITC and one that isn't, except that maybe ITC events will still give you ITC points - but if theres a GW circuit with its own points system I don't really see them coexisting for too long, as I think being a "GW invitational" event will be seen as more prestigious by the organizers, as well as the players, than "ITC invitational". Either some existing events will be flipped over to GW-branded events where ITC points are irrelevant, or new events will pop up to run in parallel. Time and money are limitations for a lot of people, I expect that at some point most players will eventually have to decide if they want to focus on an ITC track or a GW track - if they all pile in to GW then ITC will become irrelevant.
All of that is to say that either way you slice it the competitive community is going to have the new table sizes all but forced in on them one way or another.]
3. I've been in this hobby long enough (16+ years) to know that competitive play dictates how the game is played casually. There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby - congratulations, I envy you, hold on tight to what you got and don't let competitive players take hold of your community and pull that out from underneath you (it can and will happen, I've seen it occur myself several times, and it sucked the wind right out of my interest in playing every time). For the rest of us, competitive players are always practicing for their next competitive event, in the past that means using ITC rules packets and missions, and competitive min-max power gaming lists, for even the most inconsequential casual game. Competitive players want to "train the way they fight", that means doing everything they can to mimic the competitive environment they will be walking to, which means using tables setup the way they expect the tournament tables to look. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
3. Even though these table sizes are advertised as "minimums", the trend in this community and hobby for as long as I have been a part of it has always been to deviate from whats published in the rulebook as little as possible. Suggestions become gospel and I expect that these minimums will also double as maximums for most, even before you account for the influence of competitive play on local metas and casual play. Most people understand suggestions in the context of balance, if something is suggested its because they believe (regardless of whether or not its warranted) that this is what the designers found to be "optimal" for play and balance - in this case I call bs because it doesn't appear that there have been significant enough mechanical changes made in the edition jump to justify saying that the game has been properly balanced for play on a table with ~25% less surface area. In any case, I've been in this hobby long enough to have seen the suggested table size shift from 4x8 to 4x6 and see how the vast majority of the community adopted that standard within just a few months, back in the days where most terrain and tables were essentially handmade. In todays world where you can essentially buy a complete table off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, I expect the transition to be even quicker as there is less sentimental/emotional attachment in the fruit of ones own labor involved in the process of making the change than there was before. Chances are most of us will likely be playing on the smaller tables regularly within a year.
4. This is a slap in the face to a lot of shops and clubs that were already configured for 6x4 play areas. I don't seriously expect them to toss everything out and start over, but I expect this will lead to some friction with local communities who will want to run their competitive events "by the book" or play their casual games the way they would competitively. I don't know what the right solution here is, some groups will have it easy, simply taping off their existing play materials to adjust them to the smaller table space, other shops that have custom or sculpted tables will not be able to easily accommodate the smaller table sizes and probably won't be interested in investing into redoing them. I expect most groups will see limited benefit from the smaller table area, as the size reduction at 2000 point only gets you extra tables if you line your tables up in rows that are multiples of 6 (i.e. currently 6 48x72 tables lines up end-to-end will get you 7 44x60 tables under the new system). Most shops and community centers I've been in generally aren't configurable in a manner where they can squeeze that 7th table out of this, either because there doesn't exist enough space to line up a 36' long row of tables, or they use round card tables that obviously can't be stacked end to end, or they have those custom high-top playing tables with the lip around them to keep dice from falling to the floor that won't allow for a shift in playing size. On top of that, many groups either have a collection of 4x4 and 4x6 playing mats or use cut-to-size mdf panels for their playing surfaces, these will have to to be overlapped if you want to take advantage of the space gained (which comes with its own hazards), otherwise its just going to end up being more dead space around the table for people to put their books, minis, and bags on. This change, I think, is great for the bigger organizers that rent larger venues and convention centers to host their events where they can end up increasing their attendance by 20-30% within the same space. For everyone else it feels like a slap to the face. Its clear that the "you can use a bigger table" stipulation is intended as a consolation prize to these people, but in practical terms its not going to end up working that way and the various dynamics at work within the community are either going to end up forcing the change (or less likely forcing GW to reverse course in due time).
5. Building from the prior, there are lots of other games out there that people are playing that use varying table sizes. 6x4 is a convenient size for most clubs and shops because its fairly all-encompassing. Lots of the most popular games use them, if not they use 4x4 which is easily demarcated by a line of tape or some other objects to mark off the unused 2' section. 3x3 and 6x3 are also becoming popular for other games, which are also easily configured within a 6x4 area. The bizarre dimensions of GWs recommended sizes make things a lot more complicated, as its the *most* popular game out there and thus theres an inconvenience associated with not having mats/boards already sized to go for the game. Its easy to ask the 20-30% of your customer base who play those other "weird" games to put the labor into making sub-optimal materials work for them, its less easy to ask the bulk of your customers to do the same for the main game played in the store or club. Space is a limiting factor here, so some people are going to have to make some tough decisions on what and how they choose to go about accommodating players.
6. I am absolutely livid that the "minimum" size for a 3000 point game is just shy of 4x8. As mentioned earlier, I have plenty of 4x6 mats that if I wanted to I could press into service for larger sized games (even if I myself have long been of the opinion that a 4x6 is already too small a play area for a 2000 pt game), I most likely cannot play larger games now with the majority of my very by-the-book local community, and I cannot justify investing in a collection of even larger playmats (plus those things are heavy enough as it is) to accommodate that option (and as far as I am aware, there are no options for 4x8 mats, nor anything approaching that dimension, of any type on the market currently). Its frustrating but I'll probably get over it in due time.
Anyway, thats it for me. I'm going to stick by my 6x4 mats, they are IMO the most versatile option out there for all the different games I play, and I can easily reconfigure them for use with all sorts of different games with some tape or blank mats that I bought and cut to size for that explicit purpose, I'll simply need to get some new ones to account for GWs bizarre table dimensions so that my competitive-minded local community will allow me to continue using them. Maybe if I'm lucky some of the guys will ease up on this and keep playing 4x6 games instead.
Mountains and molehills. Directly under the recommended size chart, they specifically reference being able to use a Realm of Battle board, which is 6x4.
Venues that choose to keep their 6x4 tables will be fine. And I very, very much doubt that every tournament will change their existing tables.
chaos0xomega wrote: There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby
That's not been my experience, either at gaming venues or online.
If you play in competitive circles, then of course you're predominantly going to encounter mostly competitive players.
chaos0xomega wrote: I have a lot of thoughts on this, as I own about 30 6x4 mats in my personal collection:
1. Reece stated that he made the push for smaller table sizes (its been a trend in the industry for other games the last few years already) because as an event organizer it means he can fit more people in the same number of space. I don't know if this horrifically non-standard table size idea was his, but I have to say I *do* have a problem with him being part of this conversation. Not only is he basically the number 1 guy for competitive 40k event organization (at least in the US if not globally), but he's also part of GWs playtesting program as well as a producer and manufacturer of playmats. From the outside in, its not a good look to see/hear that someone who is going to definitely profit off of this was potentially involved (and possibly was a main influencer) in the decision-making process here. Keep in mind that Reece likely knew the final table sizes months in advance, which gives him a big head start on product development. I would be surprised if Reece *isn't* the first to market with the new mat sizes and doesn't make big bucks hand over fist selling them to TO's globally, simply because its going to take everyone else months to catch up and roll out their own designs in the same dimensions.
2. Now that GW is getting more directly involved with the tournament circuit themselves (see also: hiring Mike Brandt of NOVA to coordinate competitive gaming events globally and manage organized play programs), I expect that even if ITC didn't adopt the new table sizes that it would be irrelevant anyway as to whether or not TO's used them. Honestly, I don't think ITC really has a raison d'etre anymore now that GW seems to be developing its own tournament circuit in some fashion, unless Mikes mandate has a more limited scope than what has been implied. While I'm sure ITC events may be part of GWs circuit, Reece has already stated that ITC will adopt GWs guidelines and standards. The "I" in ITC is therefore largely pointless and branding an event as "ITC" seems to be essentially meaningless except to feed Reece's ego/play into the cult of personality that he has built up for himself. I.E. it seems there will be no real difference between an even thats labeled ITC and one that isn't, except that maybe ITC events will still give you ITC points - but if theres a GW circuit with its own points system I don't really see them coexisting for too long, as I think being a "GW invitational" event will be seen as more prestigious by the organizers, as well as the players, than "ITC invitational". Either some existing events will be flipped over to GW-branded events where ITC points are irrelevant, or new events will pop up to run in parallel. Time and money are limitations for a lot of people, I expect that at some point most players will eventually have to decide if they want to focus on an ITC track or a GW track - if they all pile in to GW then ITC will become irrelevant.
All of that is to say that either way you slice it the competitive community is going to have the new table sizes all but forced in on them one way or another.]
3. I've been in this hobby long enough (16+ years) to know that competitive play dictates how the game is played casually. There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby - congratulations, I envy you, hold on tight to what you got and don't let competitive players take hold of your community and pull that out from underneath you (it can and will happen, I've seen it occur myself several times, and it sucked the wind right out of my interest in playing every time). For the rest of us, competitive players are always practicing for their next competitive event, in the past that means using ITC rules packets and missions, and competitive min-max power gaming lists, for even the most inconsequential casual game. Competitive players want to "train the way they fight", that means doing everything they can to mimic the competitive environment they will be walking to, which means using tables setup the way they expect the tournament tables to look. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
3. Even though these table sizes are advertised as "minimums", the trend in this community and hobby for as long as I have been a part of it has always been to deviate from whats published in the rulebook as little as possible. Suggestions become gospel and I expect that these minimums will also double as maximums for most, even before you account for the influence of competitive play on local metas and casual play. Most people understand suggestions in the context of balance, if something is suggested its because they believe (regardless of whether or not its warranted) that this is what the designers found to be "optimal" for play and balance - in this case I call bs because it doesn't appear that there have been significant enough mechanical changes made in the edition jump to justify saying that the game has been properly balanced for play on a table with ~25% less surface area. In any case, I've been in this hobby long enough to have seen the suggested table size shift from 4x8 to 4x6 and see how the vast majority of the community adopted that standard within just a few months, back in the days where most terrain and tables were essentially handmade. In todays world where you can essentially buy a complete table off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, I expect the transition to be even quicker as there is less sentimental/emotional attachment in the fruit of ones own labor involved in the process of making the change than there was before. Chances are most of us will likely be playing on the smaller tables regularly within a year.
4. This is a slap in the face to a lot of shops and clubs that were already configured for 6x4 play areas. I don't seriously expect them to toss everything out and start over, but I expect this will lead to some friction with local communities who will want to run their competitive events "by the book" or play their casual games the way they would competitively. I don't know what the right solution here is, some groups will have it easy, simply taping off their existing play materials to adjust them to the smaller table space, other shops that have custom or sculpted tables will not be able to easily accommodate the smaller table sizes and probably won't be interested in investing into redoing them. I expect most groups will see limited benefit from the smaller table area, as the size reduction at 2000 point only gets you extra tables if you line your tables up in rows that are multiples of 6 (i.e. currently 6 48x72 tables lines up end-to-end will get you 7 44x60 tables under the new system). Most shops and community centers I've been in generally aren't configurable in a manner where they can squeeze that 7th table out of this, either because there doesn't exist enough space to line up a 36' long row of tables, or they use round card tables that obviously can't be stacked end to end, or they have those custom high-top playing tables with the lip around them to keep dice from falling to the floor that won't allow for a shift in playing size. On top of that, many groups either have a collection of 4x4 and 4x6 playing mats or use cut-to-size mdf panels for their playing surfaces, these will have to to be overlapped if you want to take advantage of the space gained (which comes with its own hazards), otherwise its just going to end up being more dead space around the table for people to put their books, minis, and bags on. This change, I think, is great for the bigger organizers that rent larger venues and convention centers to host their events where they can end up increasing their attendance by 20-30% within the same space. For everyone else it feels like a slap to the face. Its clear that the "you can use a bigger table" stipulation is intended as a consolation prize to these people, but in practical terms its not going to end up working that way and the various dynamics at work within the community are either going to end up forcing the change (or less likely forcing GW to reverse course in due time).
5. Building from the prior, there are lots of other games out there that people are playing that use varying table sizes. 6x4 is a convenient size for most clubs and shops because its fairly all-encompassing. Lots of the most popular games use them, if not they use 4x4 which is easily demarcated by a line of tape or some other objects to mark off the unused 2' section. 3x3 and 6x3 are also becoming popular for other games, which are also easily configured within a 6x4 area. The bizarre dimensions of GWs recommended sizes make things a lot more complicated, as its the *most* popular game out there and thus theres an inconvenience associated with not having mats/boards already sized to go for the game. Its easy to ask the 20-30% of your customer base who play those other "weird" games to put the labor into making sub-optimal materials work for them, its less easy to ask the bulk of your customers to do the same for the main game played in the store or club. Space is a limiting factor here, so some people are going to have to make some tough decisions on what and how they choose to go about accommodating players.
6. I am absolutely livid that the "minimum" size for a 3000 point game is just shy of 4x8. As mentioned earlier, I have plenty of 4x6 mats that if I wanted to I could press into service for larger sized games (even if I myself have long been of the opinion that a 4x6 is already too small a play area for a 2000 pt game), I most likely cannot play larger games now with the majority of my very by-the-book local community, and I cannot justify investing in a collection of even larger playmats (plus those things are heavy enough as it is) to accommodate that option (and as far as I am aware, there are no options for 4x8 mats, nor anything approaching that dimension, of any type on the market currently). Its frustrating but I'll probably get over it in due time.
Anyway, thats it for me. I'm going to stick by my 6x4 mats, they are IMO the most versatile option out there for all the different games I play, and I can easily reconfigure them for use with all sorts of different games with some tape or blank mats that I bought and cut to size for that explicit purpose, I'll simply need to get some new ones to account for GWs bizarre table dimensions so that my competitive-minded local community will allow me to continue using them. Maybe if I'm lucky some of the guys will ease up on this and keep playing 4x6 games instead.
First things first, much, much respect for your passion, knowledge and experience. This explained a lot of elements of the hobby with which I am utterly unfamiliar. It is pretty obvious that you know what you're talking about and you care enough to say it correctly.
I do expect that you are right; many clubs and stores will adopt these sizes- we've already seen announcements from TO's that they are going this way. And of course you are right that competitive players will want to practice as they must play.
But I also think it's fairly easy to not put models within 6" of a short table edge or within 2" of a long edge. I think it's so easy to do that, you won't even require tape. I haven't played as many games as you have- I've played since '89, but I missed a lot of 5th, all of 6th and almost all of 7th. I've also only played in 3 tournaments in my entire life. But I don't often go within 6" of the short sides or 2" of the long ones anyway.
So if a store owner has 3 tables that are 6 x 4, they can choose to resize their boards, in which case I think they're better off leaving a foot at one end rather than 6" one either side; the foot is just more useful as a surface. The owner could also resize the whole table, in which case the surface is the recommended minimum, but there's no extra table space; the store won't pick up enough extra space to add any additional tables, but it would make the store roomier.
Now you're also right to point out that either of those two options are expensive, labour intensive and time consuming.
Which is why, I am sure, that a fair number of stores will keep playing on the tables they have, as is, without any expense or effort. I think that they will educate their players, by saying "Hey, if you guys are training for Nova, remember that you'll have to keep your models 6" away from the short edges and 2" away from the long ones, because that's how big the tables at Nova are going to be. At which point, competitve players who are training will do that. Those who don't care will just play.
Now are you going to run into a situation where you want to play 6x4 but the only opponents you can find really want to practice for Nova. At that point, you will have to decide whether you want to play more than you want to get within 6" of a short side or 2" of a long one, because you're right, the tournament player isn't going to be the one who compromises. And that is going to result in frustration- especially if you already feel 6x4 is too small.
But I think GW is looking at the bigger picture, because all tournament and competitive players also play at home, but nowhere near all casual, home players also play in tournaments or at stores, and even if they do, those are a few games here and there with the majority being played at home. Those Kill Team boards that combine to make the various table sizes? There's going to be one of those in every box set going forward, which means that anyone who starts playing in 9th is basically going to get their surfaces for free in boxed sets.
And here is the even bigger picture: until we get a vaccine, there are no tournaments. We're going the rest of 2020 without any tournaments at least. Probably at least the first half of 2021.
How are smaller table sizes once you realize that for the next year or two, it's play at home or don't play?
Again, no disrespect. Thanks for your insightful and articulate post. It may not have changed my mind, but it taught me a lot.
Galas wrote: If you don't want to recognise the warping power the MAIN BODY behind warhammer has about how things are played in a competitive scene they are involved with I don't know what to tell you.
I'm saying that not everyone plays comp, and that that warping power has no obligation to switch their table size. If they didn't want to change from 6x4, they didn't have to.
If ITC changed their table sizes, then blame ITC.
This is not how business relation work. GW influences what the ITC does, if the ITC doesn't comply, FLG's business will suffer.
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I don't expect many local stores/clubs or events to change their table sizes to the new minimum (particularly if they're also used for other games beyond just 40k, I think that may be a kicker for many), the space savings isn't really all that meaningful over 6-10 tables, and would require investment in new boards, and I have zero interest in doing so for casual home/solo gaming for the same reasons.
I also don't see where it'd be worth the time and effort to lop off or otherwise designate 4" off just to meet the new *minimum* for its own sake on existing boards.
I expect we may see large events shift to the new minimum where space may be at a premium with many dozens or hundreds of tables (particularly if they're run by people selling stuff tailored to the new minimum), or new stores/clubs that don't have existing boards and tables, but I think the classic 4x6 is going to remain the norm for most people, at least for a while. I'm certainly in no hurry to switch table sizes.
You must be joking or have zero business sense if you think 12" x 4" removed from 10 tables isn't of value to a retail store. Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.
Karol wrote: Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.
I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.
The point was that those stores who already have 4x6 tables will continue to use them, because they already have then. At worst, they'll mark out the smaller zone for those who want to use it, in which case you can just ignore it and use the whole table.
This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Use whatever size table you choose, just like people have been doing for the last 30 years.
In the states most stores use extensions or removable tops for 40k. Your speaking out your if you think saved retail space won't be a factor for a shop, as they have to put those play tops somewhere in between magic events, which make them their real profits. Hardly any shops with multiple tables have dedicated, framed war-gaming tables anymore, that went out of fashion at least 20 years ago when GW products become unreliable to maintain a FLGS.
A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.
insaniak wrote: A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.
It literally doesn't Also it requires less terrain to store by a large margin. They won't throw terrain out, but they will repair and replace less and less.
But aside from that quibble, you entirely dodged the real substance to my post. It's the floor space when they are out that really matters.
When is the last time you played 40k at a shop let alone in the states?
I think this move is so stupid of GW, they should stick to the 6x4 formula and make their game around that. Jesus effin christ, who even got 4 of those foldfreak killteam mats? And it would look stupid too, like some windows 95 wallpaper.
And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it", going bigger is gonna be worse for some armies, your forceing an imbalance right off the bat. And with GW's new 9th edition bonuses to close combat armies hype they are blappering about?... yeah, i think table size is like 95% of it, because GW rules logic suck...as usual.
It may be the minimum, but you could also use a football field (HURRAY basselisk and deathstrikes), there is no indicated max or recommended for that matter.
On the VERY small bright side, more space for cards, deathpile and stuff in front of you.
Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?
I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.
And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it",...
Less 'failing to realize' and more 'not believing'. GW aren't playing the game on Kill Team mats. They're playing on Realm of Battle, or the same old studio boards they've had for thirty years now, and just listing the mat size as the default to encourage people who have them to use them.
I would be frankly amazed if the size of the board factored into their playtesting in any significant fashion.
insaniak wrote: Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?
I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.
And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it",...
Less 'failing to realize' and more 'not believing'. GW aren't playing the game on Kill Team mats. They're playing on Realm of Battle, or the same old studio boards they've had for thirty years now, and just listing the mat size as the default to encourage people who have them to use them.
I would be frankly amazed if the size of the board factored into their playtesting in any significant fashion.
I think your being very optimistic. But hey, would love to be wrong, and both be equally viable. For now i just dont see it. And looking at some facebook groups, their slowdrip information tactics is allready getting people fired up, in ALL the wrong ways.
I'd be more inclined to buy the 'balanced for the resize' argument if it was a more significant change. Say, if they had moved the game to a 3'x4' board or something. But this really feels more like marketing saying 'Hey, make sure you include the Kill Team mats in the rules!' and the devs wedging it in, rather than an actual, deliberate rules change.
insaniak wrote: A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.
Change exactly to roughly and sure, ... main point is that this is an unnecessary change. Allow for small games on smaller tables and write appropriate scenarios. That is great. OK. But... Why change from the standard table size? Well, it ain’t in the interests of a better game.
jeff white wrote: They should have designers play test, not gamers of games.
Designers playtesting is what creates the problem, as the designers know how things are meant to work (or how they should work, even if that's not how they wrote them).
Playtesting has to be done by people detached from the design process, otherwise you get the "can't see the woods for the trees" problem.
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I don't expect many local stores/clubs or events to change their table sizes to the new minimum (particularly if they're also used for other games beyond just 40k, I think that may be a kicker for many), the space savings isn't really all that meaningful over 6-10 tables, and would require investment in new boards, and I have zero interest in doing so for casual home/solo gaming for the same reasons.
I also don't see where it'd be worth the time and effort to lop off or otherwise designate 4" off just to meet the new *minimum* for its own sake on existing boards.
I expect we may see large events shift to the new minimum where space may be at a premium with many dozens or hundreds of tables (particularly if they're run by people selling stuff tailored to the new minimum), or new stores/clubs that don't have existing boards and tables, but I think the classic 4x6 is going to remain the norm for most people, at least for a while. I'm certainly in no hurry to switch table sizes.
You must be joking or have zero business sense if you think 12" x 4" removed from 10 tables isn't of value to a retail store. Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.
No, I'm going off my experience with every game store I can recall playing at the last few years. That might be enough for one extra table and room to move around it? Without playing radical table tetris with the floor space, they'll basically just end up with slightly wider walkways, and the gaming space at most of them was separate from the retail space already anyway.
insaniak wrote: A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.
It literally doesn't
Only if vertical wall space in your storage area is at a premium...
At every store I've played at over the last few editions (yes, all in the US), it will make 0 difference storing the boards.
Only if vertical wall space in your storage area is at a premium...
At every store I've played at over the last few editions (yes, all in the US), it will make 0 difference storing the boards.
Don't take it as an attack, but I think people in the US would be very suprised seeing what is considered a normal sized store in some parts of the world. But nor do I claim that I know how big stores are in the US. Which brings me the the question what is considered normal in the US as far as gaming stores goes 3-4 4x4 tables or 2-3 4x6?
Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.
the stores here hardly go over 30 square meters, and this includes the storage area, the counter, space under heaters etc.
From my personal experience with game stores here in the US, the only I've seen 4x4 tables is for the single general-use demo table, and most of that at GW one-man stores. For any place I've played at that I can recall in 6E, 7E, or 8E, in any of the 3 West Coast states, I don't remember any 4x4 tables for general play.
insaniak wrote: Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?
I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.
yeah, that ain't happening. I know of the local store near me with a lot of tables built at 6x4 (nicely built tables I might add). They are not going to chop up those tables, lol.
jeff white wrote: Change exactly to roughly and sure, ... main point is that this is an unnecessary change. Allow for small games on smaller tables and write appropriate scenarios. That is great. OK. But... Why change from the standard table size? Well, it ain’t in the interests of a better game.
The 'why' is 'because we have these mats that aren't 2' square' and so don't make a table that is fully 4'x6', and people kept complaining that they weren't big enough'.
They couldn't make the mats bigger, so they made the game smaller. And also pointed out that you can keep using your 4x6 boards instead.
It's absolutely not a 'necessary' change. But it's really not the sky falling issue that some people seem determined to make it into, either.
After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.
1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.
Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.
Only if vertical wall space in your storage area is at a premium...
At every store I've played at over the last few editions (yes, all in the US), it will make 0 difference storing the boards.
Don't take it as an attack, but I think people in the US would be very suprised seeing what is considered a normal sized store in some parts of the world. But nor do I claim that I know how big stores are in the US. Which brings me the the question what is considered normal in the US as far as gaming stores goes 3-4 4x4 tables or 2-3 4x6?
I've rarely encountered dedicated 4x4 tables or tables built with permanent terrain . The few I have have been used specifically for display/demos with about 20 models +/-.
Most of the shops I've ever gamed at have supported between 3 - 6 tables, either 4x6, 4x8, or a mix. 6' or 8' being determined by what fit best in the space. Most of these were also dedicated tables - I.E. not smaller tables pushed together or with a board placed on top. Most were also built so that you could comfortably sit at them in order to play board/card/RPG games.
Most of us in my circles who've built tables at home have either 6x4 or 8x4. That's a combination of A) 8x4 being a standard size as far as construction material (plywood) goes, B) & a compromise of what'll fit best in the space we've claimed as the game room/what our wives will tolerate.
Amishprn86 wrote: After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.
1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.
Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.
Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.
Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.
Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table
really?
we have seen 2 point changes, which tells us nothing about army size, and as other said to make melee a thing, dedicated melee units need to stay cheaper
also we don't know about vehicles/monsters yet and if they get cheaper or also go up.
we know nothing about army size or how much models we see at 2000 points
Amishprn86 wrote: After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.
1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.
Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.
Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.
Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.
On stream he said his "My 2k Marine army is 1 squad less, we think the internet has grossily over reacted on point changes"
Not Online!!! wrote: Which then Makes me wonder why cultists needed such a hike.
Some rumors (add salt) "hordes" is getting a keyword and 10man units are not hordes, but you get a discount for taking more like in AOS, that discount adds the Horde keyword.
I think that is just guessing more so than rumor, but that could be an option, we will know soon enough.
Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue
Amishprn86 wrote: After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.
1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.
Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.
Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.
Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.
Some armies are pretty reliant on deep strike. Csm get a lot of mileage out of it. A lot of melee focused armies need it to get in range in one piece. Sounds like more help for gun lines.
Also GW said more tactic DSing stratagems. DS has already been heavily nerfed from older editions to 8th, you don't even see iconic DSing units anymore Assault Marines, Drop Pods, etc.. (for many reasons that is). Why would we be happy more nerfs to DS?
GSC, Daemons, DE, and many more has lots of DSing units.
Blackie wrote: Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue
we just need to get people to play 1250-1500 point games instead of the maximum 2000 points on the minimum sized tables
Blackie wrote: Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue
unlikely the case for jhonnys little SM army which just loses a squad accordingly.
i am also bit concerned in what the point is in non flying transports.
Like the board get's smaller the less you need them, the more terrain the more important flying becomes.
both of those things happen, so in other news, chimeras , rhinos etc will become even less important or relevant.
Blackie wrote: Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue
unlikely the case for jhonnys little SM army which just loses a squad accordingly.
i am also bit concerned in what the point is in non flying transports.
Like the board get's smaller the less you need them, the more terrain the more important flying becomes.
both of those things happen, so in other news, chimeras , rhinos etc will become even less important or relevant.
Transports, and vehicles in general, with the fly keyword will be very useful on a smaller board with lots of terrain. Can anyone think of a faction with lots of new flying vehicles gw would want to sell? Gimme a minute, it's right on the tip of my tongue......
In my neck of the woods (northern NJ, NYC, PA) and in most of the other areas of the country I have visited the average shop is configured for 4-6 6x4 tables by putting together long tables with a mdf topper, with what I call a "surge capacity" (i.e. a temporary ability to increase the number of tables by rearranging the shop floor) of 8-10 tables. 4x4 boards are usually supported by dividing a row of 4x6 boards with tape. Larger shops vary in size, Ive seen some regularly set up with 8 that can surge to 20-24, and others that maintain 16-20 on the average day with no ability to surge.
Contrary to Red Corsairs claim, id say its about half the shops in the area have framed dedicated wargaming tables (a couple have a mix between framed tables and regular tables). That style of table still seems popular in more rural and suburban areas where space is cheaper as I still see them a lot in the south and midwest
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’
I love how language evolves over time!
hyperbole but if the new sizes are adopted by tournaments you can bet that MOST games in game stores will change to do the same. Not everyone of course but it's been all but proven that the tournaments have a trickle down effect on games at every level from major tournaments to local tournaments down to "game night" at the local shop.
Like it or not there's a very strong "monkey see monkey do" culture in gaming where most people imitate the tournament scene even unintentionally. Especially in the US.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’
I love how language evolves over time!
I just don't know what is wrong with those people who are saying that they are glad to be finally allowed to play on a smaller table (at home, were one really cares what they are doing) and how this helps players with not enough space
nothing changed, you were allwowed to play on what ever size was available before and still people are glad that they finally get the permission from GW to use a different sized table for playing at home with their friends
and for the very same reason 1500 points won't be a thing any more, as GW suggests to use 1000 or 2000 points, even people playing at home will stay away from other sized games
These new table sizes are a hard NO for me. I'm overly tired of GW continuing to take wargames and turn them into tiny skirmish games.
If you want to play skirmish games thats awesome. Play kill team on a kitchen table.
And to the people going on about minimum is just minimum: the community largely follows whatever is tournament standard. If the tournament standard is this 5' table stuff, that will be whats expected in everything. You're fine if you don't play in public or do public gaming. Otherwise you are stuck with whatever tournament standard is.
In AOS you also don't technically need round bases either.
But good luck finding a game with your squares even if GW says you don't need to have rounds.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’
I love how language evolves over time!
I just don't know what is wrong with those people who are saying that they are glad to be finally allowed to play on a smaller table (at home, were one really cares what they are doing) and how this helps players with not enough space
nothing changed, you were allwowed to play on what ever size was available before and still people are glad that they finally get the permission from GW to use a different sized table for playing at home with their friends
and for the very same reason 1500 points won't be a thing any more, as GW suggests to use 1000 or 2000 points, even people playing at home will stay away from other sized games
the proposed sizes aren't bad per se, specialy for people who can just play on bigger tables. My problems is that, if the games and missions were tested, then I assume they were tested with the GW ordeined table sizes. Maybe the missions, game mechanics,new rules designed for new codex, work great when the terrain is proper size.
Do I really have to point out what happens if someone tries to play w40k with non official GW terrain ? playing on a wood table is like playing with no terrain. Who says that if the ranges aren't proper, the rules stop working too. Lets take something we know little about. The reserv rule. Lets you come from sides or even the back of the table. It for sure has the deploy 9" away from enemy rule . Cool idea, suppose to help armies that are melee, but even for non melee armies it supplies a new vector of attack . Great. now what happens if the table is a bit smaller then what GW tested, and suddenly it is easy for most armies to block off the back and the sides, or one side. Suddenly a crucial mechanic, same way TLoS is in 8th, becomes warped and doesn't work. That is my problem with it. And it comes from the fact that our tables are smaller , and I have my doubts about the willingness of people that bought 2000pts armies in 8th, to play 1000pts in 9th, where it is probaly something like 800-900pts from 8th ed.
lets keep it simple, if the game stops being balanced outside the GW table and point size, we are not looking at the best but the worst version of the game ever
PS: and current official GW terrain was made with the LOS rules of 5th-7th edition in mind, so unless they go back to the old rules, the official terrain is worse than anything home made specific for 9th
I love how so many people are judging how to game will change before GW has given more than the most basic information about how terrain rules are changing. Just from the little morsel they have provided, we know:
1) There will be new more detailed terrain rules
2) It will include suggested terrain density
3) It will be more impactful
4) It will include rules like a new Obscuring rule on some terrain that prevent you from drawing LOS pass that piece of terrain regardless of what TLOS gives.
So maybe before you decide that 9th Edition on a smaller table will be like shooting fish in a barrel, we should wait for at least more details on terrain. Imagine what 4th edition terrain rules would do to the game.
kodos wrote: lets keep it simple, if the game stops being balanced outside the GW table and point size, we are not looking at the best but the worst version of the game ever
PS: and current official GW terrain was made with the LOS rules of 5th-7th edition in mind, so unless they go back to the old rules, the official terrain is worse than anything home made specific for 9th
They literally said that terrain is completely overhauled and all terrain items have keywords assigned by the players including an example of "obscuring" which blocks line of sight. Makes all those windows irrelevant on the gw kits.
insaniak wrote: Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?
I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.
A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you.
GW product is already massive to stock, eats more space to display and takes a ton of room for play area. Not only are the tables huge for only 2 people to play, you have to store all the terrain etc. If they can shave the tables down and provide more regular gaming pace for the other more profitable side of business, like magic, they will. 100% they will.
Blackie wrote: Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue
we just need to get people to play 1250-1500 point games instead of the maximum 2000 points on the minimum sized tables
Red Corsair wrote: A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you. .
So the actual answer is 'not many' based on that anecdotal evidence.
If you're reducing the table width by a foot, you gain an extra table for every five that you reduce... but to do that, you would need to have had the tables in a row of 5. So your 8 table store would at most have gained one additional table... at the expense of replacing or chopping up all of their additional boards. And assuming they don't still need those boards for other games, in which case they're going to the trouble and expense of making all new table tops for no real benefit given that the game can still be played on the tables they already have.
And yes, I'm well aware that floor space is a valuable commodity in retail. My point was that the space you gain has to be actually useful... and reducing the size of the tables only really achieves that for stores with multiple rows of tables in lots of 5.
Spoletta wrote: Considering the genesis of this edition, i'm fairly sure that many TOs of popular events will go for the 66x40.
What are you smoking? I Seriously have to ask that now, no TOnis going to start cutting up tables to shave them down to 5'6" and 3'4"
They will stick with 6x4 as GW have already implied they are doing.
Didn't Reece announce that effective immediatly they were going to follow this recommendation from GW at all ITC events?
Spoletta wrote: Considering the genesis of this edition, i'm fairly sure that many TOs of popular events will go for the 66x40.
What are you smoking? I Seriously have to ask that now, no TOnis going to start cutting up tables to shave them down to 5'6" and 3'4"
They will stick with 6x4 as GW have already implied they are doing.
Didn't Reece announce that effective immediatly they were going to follow this recommendation from GW at all ITC events?
All FLG events, any tourney organiser running ITC events can still do as they please as I understand.
And the full details on what Reese said are here. They basically mirror much of the discussion here, except he points out that FLG had no say in the decision:
Red Corsair wrote: A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you. .
So the actual answer is 'not many' based on that anecdotal evidence.
If you're reducing the table width by a foot, you gain an extra table for every five that you reduce... but to do that, you would need to have had the tables in a row of 5. So your 8 table store would at most have gained one additional table... at the expense of replacing or chopping up all of their additional boards. And assuming they don't still need those boards for other games, in which case they're going to the trouble and expense of making all new table tops for no real benefit given that the game can still be played on the tables they already have.
And yes, I'm well aware that floor space is a valuable commodity in retail. My point was that the space you gain has to be actually useful... and reducing the size of the tables only really achieves that for stores with multiple rows of tables in lots of 5.
Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions? I am close friends with several store owners, whos shops I play at and I can tell you as a business owner myself that your dead wrong. Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, which is 2-300 dollars in entry fees if it's a $50 dollar event. Ones that often sell out and turn players away do to space btw. But now you will tell me that isn't worth the 5 minutes to zip a foot off the table tops right? Alternatively it means adding 12-18 TCG players or a few board games rather then telling them to come back on a none 40k designated day, which also happens. What you really fail to understand is the extra space doesn't need to be allocated 100% back into more 40k tables to be of value. You also fail to understand how valuable even a single extra table is. Even gaining a single table adds increased revenue in an ever exceedingly tough industry. This is how I know your speaking out your bum.
BTW my anecdotal evidence is more important then your baseless assumptions from half way around the planet. Care to give me any actual examples or experience with FLGS owners or events you have helped organize? Or are you going to just make assumptions on gaming stores in the US from a computer desk in Oz? People on these forums like to toss all real experience out, but contrary to that practice, anecdotal evidence is extremely valuable from time to time.
Part of your failed logic here is you think only massive events are incentivized because they gain more tables. What you fail to understand is just how valuable space is on the lower end OVER TIME. Sure a 100 person event can add say 10 more tables and jump to 120 players, but that event is at a special location with additional variable costs. It's also generally once a year. For a shop, even 1 table added provides 2 more players every weekend for RTT's, thats 104 players gained over the course of the year.
It’s also been related to us that this size fits particularly well on many common kitchen tables such as those you can purchase at Ikea to make it easier for new players or players with no access to a club or FLGS to play at home
there is not a single Ikea table with 44"/112cm
are the US Ikea tables that much different from Europe?
Yeah I would assume that the claims that it will fit on your kitchen table are pure hyperbole and marketing speak. I think most people won't have a table big enough
Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions?
Dial down the hostility a tad there, fellow. Calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal is not a personal attack, nor is it a statement that it is wrong.
Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, ...
Yeah, you've missed the point here. Reducing the size of your tables only actually gets you more tables if you reduce enough tables to make up another table. Hence my reference to 5 tables in a row - If you have 6' long tables, and you're reducing them to 5' long, then for every five you reduce, you gain an additional table. So stores only gain extra tables by reducing them if they are in rows of at least five.
I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.
Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions?
Dial down the hostility a tad there, fellow. Calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal is not a personal attack, nor is it a statement that it is wrong.
Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, ...
Yeah, you've missed the point here. Reducing the size of your tables only actually gets you more tables if you reduce enough tables to make up another table. Hence my reference to 5 tables in a row - If you have 6' long tables, and you're reducing them to 5' long, then for every five you reduce, you gain an additional table. So stores only gain extra tables by reducing them if they are in rows of at least five.
I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.
Its quite likely that you can get a foot or two from "spare" space you had anyway. I'd say it's rare that the tables fit so perfectly in the room that you have absolutely zero room left to work with. I mean this isn't a math problem, it's the real world.
insaniak wrote: I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.
Or by having suitable sized tables rather than using just old 6'x4' boards and marking areas accordingly.
Rather than have 2 boards 6' wide split to 3 tables have 3 individual tables.
insaniak wrote: I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.
Or by having suitable sized tables rather than using just old 6'x4' boards and marking areas accordingly.
Rather than have 2 boards 6' wide split to 3 tables have 3 individual tables.
??
6'x2 = 12'
-1' per Table => 5'x2 = 10'
5'x3 = 15'
so the saved 2' result in an extra 5' for a 3rd table?
Presuming game balance etc etc, I don't mind the change to 5' length. You can definitely see that helping get more game tables in. The 48" to 44" width though, that one is a serious pain. It's not enough to be worth redoing tables for, so everyone is going to be taping off those 2". Which from a card holder and model safety perspective is actually nice, but it looks worse and doesn't save space. Realistically those 4" isn't going to save anyone more table space unless talking a huge convention with new 44" tables where 12+ tables becomes 13+.
But allowing the game to now be played on a dining table without a plywood topper is pretty laughable, as noted around 36" width is as close to standard as the very unstandardized tables get. If that was a real concern they'd reduce all ranges by 1/3rd and make the game 3'x4'. Finding a 44" table is nearly as hard as a 48". I recently was looking for a new dining table (more for board gaming than 40K) and the largest table I found locally without going custom sized order was 42", most were 32-36".
And yes, you can bet that all shops will be converting to the new size. If GW goes to that size and ITC goes to that size, you think shops aren't going to tape those inches off?
The competitive meta drives everything, even for those of us who don't play competitive. Whether it's 40K, Magic, or any other game. If a designer "suggests" something, people are going to assume that is intent and/or better for balance. We're on sites discussing meta tactics and army tiers despite 99% of us not being tourney players and most of us use rule of 3. Most people want to play by the same rules as the pros even if they will never play as a pro.
Now, forgive me since I don't attend many events (they're often occurring at conventions I attend, but that's the extent of my experiences). A table is a table. The overwhelming majority of tables I see at events are either the older wooden 8' ones, or more modern folding tables which are almost exclusively 6' long. If anything the new "size" would really just give you a small lip around the table which is more amenable for placing models, dice, rulers, etc. This would help avoid stashing so much stuff under the table.
Most major conventions have hundreds of 6x4 mats, which means they need to tape them off, use a marker...or in the most drastic case, cut them down to size if they want to pretend to benefit from the new change. A company like FLG of course will try to make them in new sizes to appeal to that narrow market.
It does mean less terrain as well, meaning less cost for tournaments, etc. I think this is a cost-saving measure for large conventions and has very little to do with a logical game change, or pretending that you'll suddenly be playing 2000 point games on your kitchen table, etc.
insaniak wrote: A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.
A venue could use their current 12 sheets of 4'x8' ply for a 60' run, but instead of fitting 10 games you can fit 12.
At least it isn't like Magic where cramming an additional 20% into the same space would be classified as a WMD.
Basing recommended minimum table sizes on multiple of Kill Team boards only makes sense if they plan to re-release Killzones or come up with new matching products. Most people do not have 2, 4 or 6 KT boards and they were limited print runs and no longer available. However, even if did have enough KT boards to make a bigger table, I likely wouldn't because cardboard is not a good material for playing larger games.
My ideas for converting 4'x6' board into 44"x60":
1) don't or
2) declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (no need to hassle with tape) and cover 12" of the side with black cloth to increase area for books etc. Or just play full width.
Warhammer Community wrote:
A Word on Battlefield Sizes…
A number of you have been getting in touch regarding the minimum size battlefield measurements we introduced in last week’s article. We’re happy to confirm that, yes, you can still use your 6′x4′ (or larger) gaming tables, be they gorgeously detailed Realm of Battle boards or lovingly created battlefields of your own design.
The minimum size battlefield guidelines for Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force and Onslaught battles are just that – minimum sizes. They’ve been specifically designed to make the game more accessible and compact at smaller sizes (and fit on most dining room tables), but they can just as easily be played on larger battlefields as you see fit. The minimum sizes also ensure that armies in bigger games won’t be cramped on a battlefield that’s too small for them, so will still have plenty of room to manoeuvre.
Stevefamine wrote: This doesnt make any sense at all to change table size
I assume we'll have a noticeable points decrease in gaming to accommodate the already tight space of a 6x4
The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).
That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.
Stevefamine wrote: This doesnt make any sense at all to change table size
I assume we'll have a noticeable points decrease in gaming to accommodate the already tight space of a 6x4
The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).
That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.
Someone posted some guys who playtested the 9th ed, and aside for the everyone is awesome and has no bad sides, they did say, among many things that while no one can force anyone to play on any table size, and they do not advice people to cut off stuff. The missions are tested to work optimal at the new table size, and that playing regular sized games on a miss matched results for certain armies.
the other interesting thing they said is that in UK IKEA sells tables the exact fiting sizes. Which is very interesting, because in Poland they do not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).
That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.
Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.
Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.
Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.
Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.
Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.
Nice optimism. Of course last time GW upped points across the board(8th ed) the players upped the game size to get their old armies fit again.
the other interesting thing they said is that in UK IKEA sells tables the exact fiting sizes. Which is very interesting, because in Poland they do not.
.
A quick check of the Ikea UK website shows that they don't, either. The widest kitchen table they have is 100cm, which is still 12cm too narrow.
Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.
Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.
Nice optimism. Of course last time GW upped points across the board(8th ed) the players upped the game size to get their old armies fit again.
Because they could. Now GW gave us min size table. Playing 2001+ points games in tables smaller than 44'' x 90'' would be illegal, and playing with a table that size sounds more discouraging than shelving a few models.
Then again it's not like players have played by the book before.l
People want to play with their models. 2200 for more CP(to get back where they were before) and more points(so they get models they used) while commonly agreeing to same 6'x4' they already have is quite reasonable scenario. It's not like GW comes knocking down. Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.
Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.
This is true, but a lot of people wanted to play with a lower model count and constantly complained about that, that's why GW increased points costs, and we don't know where the majority stands.
I love the smaller size board for Combat Patrol (sub 1,000 point) games!
I can make a board for super cheap now!
Getting everything at Dollar Tree (everything is $1.25):
2x foam core boards (24"x30")
Duct tape (for a hinge on the back of the boards)
Paint (let's say 6 different colours)
Terrain (various kids toys, baskets/containers, say 10 things, for variety)
4x dice (packs of 6)
Tape measure
2x Army men set
That's 36 things, so approximately $45 and a chill day of painting and building for some proxy forces and a board to play lunchtime games.
Spoletta wrote: 120x75 is a common IKEA dimension in Italy too.
problem here is that most people are talking (and care) about the big board size of 44x60 which no common table fits
that the smaller 44x30 fits on a dinning table is true, but this was never a problem as you could also play smaller games on 48x30 or 48x24 to fit your table
no one forced people to play 500-1000 points game on 72x48 and the standard 48x30 table was fine
so cool that we are now allowed to play on 44x30 for smaller games, but the problem that 60x44 is to big as the standard width stops at 100/110cm is the same as with 72x48
tneva82 wrote: Then again it's not like players have played by the book before.l
People want to play with their models. 2200 for more CP(to get back where they were before) and more points(so they get models they used) while commonly agreeing to same 6'x4' they already have is quite reasonable scenario. It's not like GW comes knocking down. Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.
2000 will be the tourney thing. Players not in the tourney will be free to do things as they want as has been the way for decades.
tneva82 wrote: Then again it's not like players have played by the book before.l
People want to play with their models. 2200 for more CP(to get back where they were before) and more points(so they get models they used) while commonly agreeing to same 6'x4' they already have is quite reasonable scenario. It's not like GW comes knocking down. Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.
2000 will be the tourney thing. Players not in the tourney will be free to do things as they want as has been the way for decades.
and still choose to do 2000 in most cases because it's "tournament standard" lol
tneva82 wrote: Then again it's not like players have played by the book before.l
People want to play with their models. 2200 for more CP(to get back where they were before) and more points(so they get models they used) while commonly agreeing to same 6'x4' they already have is quite reasonable scenario. It's not like GW comes knocking down. Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.
2000 will be the tourney thing. Players not in the tourney will be free to do things as they want as has been the way for decades.
and still choose to do 2000 in most cases because it's "tournament standard" lol
Probably. Depends entirely on the area one plays in and the attitudes there. My area will probably stick to 2000. The tourney guys are doing it because of the tourneys and the narrative guys/casuals just like smaller games. Not everyone who has large armies is sold on playing larger and larger battles. Hell, if I were go to over 2000 points I'd rather just use Apocalypse.
if you think saved retail space won't be a factor for a shop, as they have to put those play tops somewhere in between magic events, which make them their real profits. Hardly any shops with multiple tables have dedicated, framed war-gaming tables anymore, that went out of fashion at least 20 years ago when 
Also it requires less terrain to store by a large margin. They won't throw terrain out, but they will repair and replace less and less.
