Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

For me it'll depend on how the point changes shake out.

I played a test game of 1700pts with a friend using the new 9th ed rules (Estimating what army size will be after point hikes for a 2k game) and it basically just felt like - 20% less minis, 20% less board. made sense.

But if the point hikes are not significant, or as I suspect, if they're massively disproportionately aimed at cheaper/horde units and GW just has to walk them right back to make those units anywhere near usable again, then I think I'd just go back to 6x4.

From the marine points leak it looks like you will probably have a few less units, my marine list is probably only dropping 200 to 300 points from my current 2k list to my 9th Ed 2k list, since I already have a 6x4 mat no sense in resizing.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

You get me to drop them by over my dead body. I ain't reducing tactics just for sake of greedy cash ploy

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

It also allows more space for deep strikes and speed becomes a bigger factor.
It also depends on how the objectives are placed and how much/where you place your terrain and what traits it have.
It doesn't automatically becomes "more about shooting".

And I'll keep playing on 6x4, unless my mates want to reduce the size of the board (we will probably try it a few times though but it feels like a really small board).

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Not Online!!! wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

Oh I think it matters a lot more, at least from the games of 9th ed I saw, people are getting stuck in turn 1 a lot more often, then they did in 8th. But maybe it is because people play missions with objectives in the middle and everyone races to get to them.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Of course. My gaming mat is that size and my table as well.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Not only that, but if the table has proper line of sight blocking terrain, then being further back doesn't mean you can shoot for longer. If your line of sight is blocked you might well still have to move forward, the actual distance that you have between yourself and exposed close combat units could be very similar to on a smaller table. Again the terrain density, style, size and breakup makes a dramatic difference to games.

If you're just lining up with very little terrain and very little blocking the line of sight then sure, a bigger table will make it easier for gun-line armies to sit back and fire and approach objectives with less contesting.

Of course it also means that any deepstrikes or other means of deploying from off the table, also have more room to deploy. Reducing the risk of using them.

Dudeface wrote:
Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Dead units can't score. Best defense is good offense applies here.

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

I agree. In the early stages of AoS, base sizes were pretty loose. Probably due to boxes still having square bases and stuff like that. Not uncommon to see people using squares or different round size bases, it was practical tbh.
Slowly but surely, the do whatever you want, it's only a recommendation! became do this if you want to play the *official* way. Since a lot of people (especially the so called "competitive" crowd) play the way some corporation tells them to play, the shift became inevitable. This even became common for random pickup game at store with people refusing anything outside the corporate-directives. The sad state of modern gaming

I wouldn't be surprised if companies started printing "new sized" mats, as well as the corporation repeatedly advertising the new size (WD battlerep, mission maps, etc...) and then some tournaments will jump on the change too.
People might first use whatever they want but the shift will probably be inevitable on the long run as per previous cases. Those who never cared about following every single corporation-directive will continue as usual.
So it goes.

Dudeface wrote:
Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Deploying further back is not mutually exclusive with being able to take center-board objectives. Long-ranged units, like artillery sets up on the back line, while infantry set up on the front to press the attack.



As for table size,
At my home, I will probably continue to use a 6'x4' table, since I have one made and marked out and I don't feel like changing it.
I imagine the LGS, where I play most of my games, is going to downsize to 60"x44", since that's good for them and they can fit more players in more comfortably.
When I play with my personal friends at club or at their houses, I imagine we're also going to play in the reduced size board, because they don't have pre-existing 6'x4' tables.

Fundamentally, 6'x4' is not a common household table size, and you have to go out of your way to make one, so I imagine most people will be scaling down.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

I'll probably continue to play on my 6x4, but agree to go down in size if my opponent prefers that.

It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

We'll probably give it a whirl on the smaller table. We typically like a table having less places to castle/turtle... and we really enjoy playing board control and capture-and-control styled games. This will help melee armies as there is less depth to deployment zones to hide from them, though screening got stronger. With luck, the impetus put on keeping in the middle of the table for scoring will allow flanking/deep striking units to have adequate space to plop down.

Best case scenario: we empower melee a little more and give those units a bit more relevance on the table, and gain a little extra space on the edge of the tables to store out of play stuff!

Worst case scenario: we revert back to the full 4x6 table. Though, we commonly have smaller tables as the points limits go down - I do like that at least. Losing 4"x12" at the 2000 point level? We'll see how it plays out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

The table size change cut into deployment zones. The space between armies still looks like it is largely 24". So there is minimal distance lost, but anywhere from 2" to 6" has been lost in deployment zone depth (though other maps may change this, as they did in 8th).

 bullyboy wrote:
It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

But muh moneyh! For gw it was about using kill team mats, for playtesters about fitting moie players to venue and selling new mats. Never been about balance or what's good for game

mlem

All the major tournaments and local tournaments are going to be using the new minimum, which will trickle down in a lot of places. My area is already planning on using the new minimum.

Not a huge deal, I'll just buy a new mat for at home and the store will just adjust their boards.

I love the new sizes!
It means I can play Combat Patrol games at home on my kitchen table rather than on the floor.

I'm going to play on a 6x4 with a 2" spot for dice on my side of the table and a foot to the side for destroyed models and stuff. It's really not that hard.

My guess is my FLG and nearby tournaments will stick to 5x4 because its matches up with the 6x4 tables but also leaves 4 square feet for storage on the same table - Which is great.

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

 Sim-Life wrote:
People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

Because now there is a rule point you can fall back on if you want to be a di

If you're afraid deeper DZ might be bad for your game, just don't allow deploying in these last 2 (game changing !) inches when you use a 6x4 table (not fair I guess, they can still move back 2 during their movement phase).

9th edition, the huge mole hills edition.

i own a dozen game mats most are 4X6, with a few that are 4X4 that i can double for a 4X8 full table....but since i only play 5th ed, epic with 8th ed rules or HH when it comes to 40K/30K it doesn't really matter what they are pushing in 9th.

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

Because GW changes things. new editions, new rules, not always for the better. the last game we played was a 5th ed game with a chaos player running a khorne list. he had no problem getting his berserkers or chosen terminators into CC and we were playing on a 4X8 table in a 3 way match where he started in a 12" X 24" corner deployment.

GW is releasing new official objective markers that are 50mm across on the same day they are releasing the rulebook that says objective markers are 40mm across.

Just wanted to point that out for the true believers who think GW does even 1 minute of thinking gak through and any of this stuff is gonna be playtested and balanced.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW is releasing new official objective markers that are 50mm across on the same day they are releasing the rulebook that says objective markers are 40mm across.

Just wanted to point that out for the true believers who think GW does even 1 minute of thinking gak through and any of this stuff is gonna be playtested and balanced.

Have the bases sizes been confirmed anywhere? They're not shown next to anything else to compare scale with.

Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.[u]

on planet Bowlingball, yes. On an appropriately terrained board, no. I mean, if your fine with doing the bare minimum, I guess that's ok. those of us that enjoy something other than the bare minimum, will not have any issues.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

40k is all about shooting the piss out of something with a fantastic array of ranged weapons. I'm good with that. Always have been.
So if you come running across no-mans land at me with your pointy stick/claw/etc? Don't be surprised when I vaporize you. Or do my best to vaporize you.

As to 48" making it more focused on shooting? Incorrect. At the minimum things just stay the same as they have been. And you melee players already figured out how to deal with covering 48".

I’d say I’m disappointed with the amount of people who seem to genuinely think a longer board size doesn’t benefit shooting, but then I remember that I’m on Dakka, and yeah, this is about par for the course. I guess it would be more surprising if the consensus WASNT the lowest level take possible.

I am going to use the minimum size. Just feels more engaging to be on the smaller table. Even thinking of trying out the same Min Table size in AoS.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

I have a 5X4 table (made by a friend years ago) we use for all kind of gaming, and a 8X4 table (originally made for model trains) on my back porch. I'll be using those, most of the time with the various battle mats I own (several 3X3, a couple 4X6).

When I do play, it's usually 1K point games on the indoor table (South MS heat can put the back porch at over 100 degrees easily), so most likely it'll be on a 3X3 mat.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Yes.

I see zero reason to shrink the table ever-so-slightly just because GW sells a product that isn't quote 6x4 (and that's why they're doing it folks - because of the products they make, not any other reason).

For 2k games the difference is small, but for 1k games the difference is actually quite large.

5x4 actually makes more sense if you are just blocking off a piece of your mat/table. The extra 4" isn't going to make a difference.
yeah, yeah...in before the "that's what she said"

MINIMUM

The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

They are the minimum size tables for the size games.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

GW wants everyone to stay within the GW HHHobby ecosystem. This means that all their products service that eco-system. Their various mats just happen to match these new sizes*, which means that they shifted the rules to match their products. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" (it already is with various big tournaments) and as GW are the biggest fish in the pond others will jump to meet them (some 3rd party mat makers are already falling in line).

So you can repeat the "minimum" thing as much as you like; it won't be long before that is the "standard". If there's a gaming equivalent to the Overton Window, GW is shifting it for table-sizes.



*Let me be clear on one point. GW mats are the size they are because of the constraints of their boxes. If GW had boxes that could take full feet mats (like the exception they made for new Necromunda Zone Mortalis stuff) then they would have, and they're not about to change it now given they've manufactured so many in the current size already. They didn't make their board sizes the way they were to screw over people who like 6x4 or 3rd party mat makers (unlike 32mm bases, which were a transparent attempt at screwing with the 3rd party base market) but they absolutely made up this "minimum" nonsense to fit with their products.

Kommissar Kel wrote:MINIMUM

The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

They are the minimum size tables for the size games.

at this point I think they're fine with doing the bare minimum, so I guess giving 50% effort is apparently acceptable.

sounds lame

at this point I think they're fine with doing the bare minimum, so I guess giving 50% effort is apparently acceptable.

The community shovels forklifts worth of cash their way regularly, why should they work harder when they don't have to?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

GW wants everyone to stay within the GW HHHobby ecosystem. This means that all their products service that eco-system. Their various mats just happen to match these new sizes*, which means that they shifted the rules to match their products. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" (it already is with various big tournaments) and as GW are the biggest fish in the pond others will jump to meet them (some 3rd party mat makers are already falling in line).

So you can repeat the "minimum" thing as much as you like; it won't be long before that is the "standard". If there's a gaming equivalent to the Overton Window, GW is shifting it for table-sizes.



*Let me be clear on one point. GW mats are the size they are because of the constraints of their boxes. If GW had boxes that could take full feet mats (like the exception they made for new Necromunda Zone Mortalis stuff) then they would have, and they're not about to change it now given they've manufactured so many in the current size already. They didn't make their board sizes the way they were to screw over people who like 6x4 or 3rd party mat makers (unlike 32mm bases, which were a transparent attempt at screwing with the 3rd party base market) but they absolutely made up this "minimum" nonsense to fit with their products.

The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

That's what I meant. Their boxes are what dictate the size of their boards - it's the reason the Newcromunda cardboard tiles weren't 1x1 sadly - but the "minimum size" thing is something they invented because their boards are smaller than 6x4.

They could have just as easily said 4x4, or 6x10, or whatever, but they chose their own board size (created out of necessity) just because they make that size board. It had nothing to do with making a smaller game, or changing the game dynamics, or whatever other nonsense they (or the playtesters) are spouting.

I'm currently building a 6*4 table and I'm certainly not about to change that. But then again, I'm also not a very competitive player, so I honestly couldn't care less about the tournament scene. And, of course, lots of games use 6*4 tables, or at least, full feet ones. And I see no reason to cut myself off from those options.

I not all to worry about table size specifically, but what GW is using that space for.


watching some of the battle reports it looked like they barly moved around on the space they had. tournament players I think but it just seemed like they did not do much maneuvering at all considering how long the games where.

I'll probably be building some sort of barricade set to reduce table size.

Melee is weak enough as it is, no need to give shooting armies enough space to dodge getting charged for three or more turns.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

That's what I meant. Their boxes are what dictate the size of their boards - it's the reason the Newcromunda cardboard tiles weren't 1x1 sadly - but the "minimum size" thing is something they invented because their boards are smaller than 6x4.

They could have just as easily said 4x4, or 6x10, or whatever, but they chose their own board size (created out of necessity) just because they make that size board. It had nothing to do with making a smaller game, or changing the game dynamics, or whatever other nonsense they (or the playtesters) are spouting.

Well, yeah.

I was agreeing with you and clarifying for our dear viewers.

Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

Yeah I was gonna mention that. The Moonbase tiles, which I quite like, and the AoS equivalent (which I got scammed over on a Facebook buy/sell group... that was fun), are of a different size as they appear to have been experiments at the very start of this. Same goes for the two actual mats GW released, that were 4x4 yet somehow more expensive than every other company's 6x4's (good 'ol GW prices!).

Given that they abandoned both when they moved to the new size, it seems that they were testing the water with those and found more positive results with boards than mats. Also, it's possible the mats weren't made in house and were too expensive to keep producing even for the absurd asking price, whereas all the 3rd party groups are making their mats themselves, which certainly would amortise some of the costs involved.

I don't own any mats, so I will just use what the store has. This is 99% going to be 60x44, since for stores it is so much easier to just put together kill team boards, not to mention that they can fit more games in the same space.

By the way, those who think that the dimensions have no impact on the game are fooling themselves. The impact is huge.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

Yeah I was gonna mention that. The Moonbase tiles, which I quite like, and the AoS equivalent (which I got scammed over on a Facebook buy/sell group... that was fun), are of a different size as they appear to have been experiments at the very start of this. Same goes for the two actual mats GW released, that were 4x4 yet somehow more expensive than every other company's 6x4's (good 'ol GW prices!).

Given that they abandoned both when they moved to the new size, it seems that they were testing the water with those and found more positive results with boards than mats. Also, it's possible the mats weren't made in house and were too expensive to keep producing even for the absurd asking price, whereas all the 3rd party groups are making their mats themselves, which certainly would amortise some of the costs involved.

I've also got some good news for the fans of high speed ork racing: The speed freeks box allows you to build a 44"x66" board, just measured its tiles

 Sasori wrote:
All the major tournaments and local tournaments are going to be using the new minimum, which will trickle down in a lot of places. My area is already planning on using the new minimum.

Not a huge deal, I'll just buy a new mat for at home and the store will just adjust their boards.

I'm curious to see if it's any easier to manage models without having to orbit the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

So what are you going to do if they turn out to be 40mm?

Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Gordoape wrote:
Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Literally one person has said "cash ploy" in this thread, and you're going to tar and feather everyone with the same brush?

If I can get my hands on a appropriate sized battle mat that looks cool and is inexpensive and high quality, then yes. But until then I'll be using 6x4.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gordoape wrote:
Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Literally one person has said "cash ploy" in this thread, and you're going to tar and feather everyone with the same brush?

Didn't you know all of dakka is a single mind that always shares the same opinion of everything? I've also heard that there is a picture of dakkadakka on the back of the limited edition BRB for 9th.

I got the benefit of playing at a local club with friendly minded people who just want to have a good time out of the game.

We will try the new table size and if it is fun, it is going to stay. If not, we will change it to our needs.

I'll try out the new size, though perhaps not when I'm playing my Kabalites against my friend's Harlequins.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

Oh I think it matters a lot more, at least from the games of 9th ed I saw, people are getting stuck in turn 1 a lot more often, then they did in 8th. But maybe it is because people play missions with objectives in the middle and everyone races to get to them.

I meant tactical manouvering and not the blind Alpha strike Rush to the middle gw wants.

"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

 Jidmah wrote:
"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

Disagree , but then again transports were Bad for most factions allthroughout 8th, smaller tables won't Make them better aswell as the generic Reserve change...

I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

Frankly, i feel like that is an issue of the extreme offensive output of shooting that went through the roof...

6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

I'm fairly sure the main drive behind continuing to play on 6x4 is having existing 6x4 battlefields that required considerable effort and/or money to get, rather than feeling adventurous about odd table sizes.

Something interesting is also that there is no actual need for the table to rectangular. So if you have a table with round edges, you can just use that for gaming now as well.

Getting a battlefield to play on was one of the biggest struggles for me and my friends when we started playing 40k, so reducing the battlefield to a size that can fit on most dining or kitchen tables is definitely a good thing for new players.

I still think thats what killteam is for if you want to play the game on a kitchen table.

 Jidmah wrote:

Getting a battlefield to play on was one of the biggest struggles for me and my friends when we started playing 40k, so reducing the battlefield to a size that can fit on most dining or kitchen tables is definitely a good thing for new players.

Worth mentioning again that Ikea doesn't sell a single 44" wide dining table: https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/cat/dining-tables-21825/

Neither do almost all other furniture retailers. I've found exactly one 44" dining table searching for them, and it was $850. Otherwise, you're looking at some quite expensive custom carpentry if you want a dining or kitchen table that supports a Strike Force sized game.

You certainly can't fit it on most dining tables.

That's odd - while I also struggled to find tables that wide for sale, me and most of our group seem to own dining tables that are 120 cm (~47") wide.

Apparently ChickenMcNuggets aren't the only thing shrinking over time

Yeah, I have an old dining table repurposed as a wargame table that is exactly 60x44. I'm planning to just put a neoprene mat on top (letting the extra 6" on each end just hang off the side), which will be simpler than my previous method of laying three 4x2' MDF boards on top.

Getting the 44x30 size for a 1K game will be a bit trickier, but I have tape and other means of marking boundaries, so not a big deal.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

6'x4' was largely a practical limit. It involves table height and how far the average player can reach without leaning down on the table (and knocking things over) without too much awkwardness. 5' wide starts making that uncomfortable for people, and even at 4', big scrums in the center around a lot of terrain can be awkward.

I'm actually a little (pleasantly) surprised that 44" as the new minimum hasn't turning into ranting about 'kiddifying' 40k again.

Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

IMO, it's not a terrible price, but I find cardboard mats to be suboptimal since they often don't lay flat and models tend to slide.

I think it's better in the long term to invest in a neoprene mat, and either make your own terrain for buy some laser-cut MDF terrain.

The issue with Moon Base Klaisus is that it comes with an anaemic amount of terrain. I got double that plus two of the Sector Fronteris Killzone complete buildings and that's about enough to cover the Klaisus stuff properly.

Also the Klaisus boards were one of GW's first forays into this whole tile/board shenanigans, so they're not quite the same size as the ones they've been producing for a while.

I'm going to be sticking with 6x4. Every local store I know is sticking with 6x4. If I've already got a 6x4, I don't see a good reason to deal with the fiddlyness of cutting extra bits off just for less play space.

I haven't attended a large tournament in years, an event that provided its own terrain and tables and all, so I have no idea how that will turn out, those can probably make better use of the space, but for most existing shops, the differences in min table size won't be anything they can actually make use out of, and I don't see them running out to replace their boards just...because.

Oh yeah, you'd definitely need a lot more terrain than what comes in the Moon Base set to have a decent game.

The main issue I have with GW's terrain is that it all tends to be small or non-solid, which in a game where an entire unit needs to be hidden to block LOS is a problem.

MDF buildings or ruins, or foam hills, take more work to make look good but make it much cheaper to get a playable amount of terrain.

I was in the hobby for a few years before drafting up and building my own table. And a few more years before we had proper terrain to cover said table. I really don't think that is going to change too much for many hobbyists, even with a different sized table.

If you're scratching up the money to put an army together piece-by-piece over time, you're likely not going to be in a position to get and decorate a table no matter what size it is. I think scaling down the size lowers that barrier just a little, but not significantly, but also limits some hiding and corner camping that happens in game a little as well. I think I said it before: we just got a little more space around the edges of the table to work with for storing out-of-game stuff, NBD. A 6x4 table WITH a little extra space for books and out-of-game models is a bit of a chore. If it doesn't have that, then storage of said books, models, and travels cases, and anything else you may want on there (drinks?) becomes exponentially more difficult.

I don't get the idea that a 6x4 table is now somehow useless or you need to cut/draw on it. I don't have a different mat for each deployment zone we play we simply mark off the boundary. I look at this change the exact same way you simply mark off a smaller total size with some dice or terrain. I could actually see people freaking out if they had made the table size larger because then you literally wouldn't have enough room. But the way they changed it, I'm now just adding some more imaginary borders instead of just deployment

I still miss 8x4...

Asmodios wrote:
I don't get the idea that a 6x4 table is now somehow useless or you need to cut/draw on it. I don't have a different mat for each deployment zone we play we simply mark off the boundary. I look at this change the exact same way you simply mark off a smaller total size with some dice or terrain. I could actually see people freaking out if they had made the table size larger because then you literally wouldn't have enough room. But the way they changed it, I'm now just adding some more imaginary borders instead of just deployment

Yeah, I'm not sure either. I just purchased a new size mat for my home table. You can even do something as simple as using tape. You by no means need to break out the tablesaw to fix this.

Now that I think of it, the reason I liked 6x4 is that it was nice and even numbers. It was easy to measure table quarters and deployment zones without too much thinking. Aesthetically, once the mat is laid on the table it doesn't make difference it's few inches too small or too big.

I don't have a 6x4 mat at the moment but if I did and wanted to try new recommended minimum size, I would simply declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (which they effectively are in any games that I play anyway). To strip one foot of the side, I would cover it with cloth to be used as an area for dice tray, reserves, casualties etc.

My only issue with new recommended minimum table sizes is that they are not mathematically pleasant.

jullevi wrote:
Now that I think of it, the reason I liked 6x4 is that it was nice and even numbers. It was easy to measure table quarters and deployment zones without too much thinking. Aesthetically, once the mat is laid on the table it doesn't make difference it's few inches too small or too big.

I don't have a 6x4 mat at the moment but if I did and wanted to try new recommended minimum size, I would simply declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (which they effectively are in any games that I play anyway). To strip one foot of the side, I would cover it with cloth to be used as an area for dice tray, reserves, casualties etc.

My only issue with new recommended minimum table sizes is that they are not mathematically pleasant.

The missions all measure form the center of the battlefield so they accommodate literally any table size.

jeff white wrote:I still miss 8x4...

I'm also of the opinion that we really should be going larger, not smaller. Like 8x6.

4' of board depth is just not enough to have any meaningful depth of operation or strategic maneuvering. There's no development of the attack because there's no depth. You can't penetrate and break through, because there's nowhere to break through to because everything is on the front line.

Mixzremixzd wrote:Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

Probably not. I don't have it, but according to their website, it is not in fact at least the minimum dimensions.

It also doesn't come with anywhere near an appropriate amount of terrain. I'd just buy a mat. If you want 44'x60', just take a knife to it.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

It should be good for Combat Patrol and Incursion sized games.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

The amount of terrain is far from enough for anything and the set cost as much as a rubber based 6x4 game mat.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

This 1,000,000x.

It is too easy to kite your opponent into submission with +48" guns on a 6'x4' tables.

 skchsan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

This 1,000,000x.

It is too easy to kite your opponent into submission with +48" guns on a 6'x4' tables.

Objectives are in the center of the table and you're supposed to play with a piece of terrain every 12". You're sure going to kite alright (maybe) but probably going to lose the mission too.

Your opponent only needs to kite your for the first two turns, your army will be unable to win the game afterwards - and those fast units have no problems getting back onto the objectives for the last two turns. When entire armies are balanced around a ~23" threat range, having units that can move 10" away or more and then shoot you from 36"+ from simply doesn't work if you can't push them into a corner while it still matters.

 Jidmah wrote:
"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

With stuff that's faster than in any previous edition or even able to assault turn 1 from their own deployment zone, with more fast assault units than ever before, tables often so full of units and models that maneuver of any sort is often difficult, trivial reserve penalties (e.g. they come in where you want when you want and without any mishap risk), etc, I've never found this to be an issue in 8th personally, in fact I've had far more tables in 8th where maneuver of any meaningful sort wasn't particularly possible (because there was so much stuff on the table) than I've seen armies successfully kite an opponent to victory. Usually if something has lots of 48" range guns, their butt is already on the back of the board or close to it anyway.

Now, I've seen gunlines basically obliterate melee armies before they get to go, I've seen melee armies get shot to pieces before they even make an opponent feel threatened enough to move or that get screwed by some overwatch trick or whatnot, but to be perfectly honest I really haven't seen table maneuvering space allowing for extensive kiting to win significant numbers of games by just backing up forever (especially as that usually means giving up objectives).

dhallnet wrote:
Objectives are in the center of the table and you're supposed to play with a piece of terrain every 12". You're sure going to kite alright (maybe) but probably going to lose the mission too.

For sure. But at the end of the turn, dead units can't score. All one needs to do to ensure the opponent doesn't score is to make sure there are no footslogging enemy units within 15" of the objectives (3" control range + 6" M + 6" Advance) and shoot the fast units down first.

The reason why Jidmah's examples of fast armies performs best among armies he has is precisely because it's designed around threat overloading. One glaring weakness of these lists are that these fast units tend to cost a lot, which severely decreases the number of significant models you can field (which then gets shot down with relative ease due to proliferation of multi damage weapons.

You can park your +48" guns at the edge of your deployment and be able to threaten the entirety of the no-man's land without any repercussions for minimum of 2 turns.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

So what are you going to do if they turn out to be 40mm?

They didn't.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
They didn't.

For which I am genuinely flabbergasted.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

stratigo wrote:
They made melee worse.

I played a game of Salamanders vs Khorne today, using 9th edition rules with 8th edition points, so: No.

Melee army gets into combat faster, with less casualties due to Overwatch. Being able to easily hide behind ruins helps. Yes, other changes (multicharges, coherency) toned it back down a bit, but melee is better than in 8th.
Overall the two games I've played so far with the new missions and terrain rules were a far better experience than most of 8th, although our lists were more experimental than highly optimized tournament lists, of course. (Tyranids vs IF - Nids won, Salamanders vs World Eaters - WE won).
Just make sure you put enough terrain on the table, we were using 4 smaller ruins (>5'' though), one bigger ruin with a large footprint in the center, and 3-4 of each for craters, forests and armoured containers for a Strike Force game (1250 and 1750 points)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
They didn't.

For which I am genuinely flabbergasted.

I think you're not an AoS guy so let me tell you they also wrote mercenary rules so everyone could use the Ironweld Arsenal (dwarf and empire warmachines) and released this pretty much the same day as they removed those models from sale.

stratigo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

How?

By making objectives a stand and hold thing? So now you have to be on top of the objective the whole game, not just touching it for a turn.

By changing the rules for melee combat so you can now engage models 5" vertically and 1" horizontally so you don't have to climb all the way up the building?

By changing the movement rules so that if ANY model in the unit moves the whole unit counts as having moved? Oh well guess heavy weapons in infantry squads is mostly useless now.

By making most terrain sight blocking as long as your not "toe in", allowing you to bound forward from terrain piece to terrain piece to avoid being shot?

By basically removing Overwatch from every army except Tau?

By nerfing fly so you can't shoot after you fall back?

By making the board smaller so Melee units don't have as much ground to traverse?

Should I keep going?

Just wanted to point out that GW is still selling the 6'x4' Sector Imperialis.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?

They made melee worse.

How?

By making objectives a stand and hold thing? So now you have to be on top of the objective the whole game, not just touching it for a turn.

By changing the rules for melee combat so you can now engage models 5" vertically and 1" horizontally so you don't have to climb all the way up the building?

By changing the movement rules so that if ANY model in the unit moves the whole unit counts as having moved? Oh well guess heavy weapons in infantry squads is mostly useless now.

By making most terrain sight blocking as long as your not "toe in", allowing you to bound forward from terrain piece to terrain piece to avoid being shot?

By basically removing Overwatch from every army except Tau?

By nerfing fly so you can't shoot after you fall back?

By making the board smaller so Melee units don't have as much ground to traverse?

Should I keep going?

And let’s have a look at the other side of that same coin shall we and view what got harder for melee?





No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Tanks shooting into melee

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out




Should I keep going?

I mean, as an Ork player who plays a bit of a hybrid list I'm up for the table size change. Yes the minimum distance is the same at 24 inchs, but the maximum distance the enemy can be has decently shrunk. The mission layouts also tend to push the objectives pretty close to the middle, making the midboard pretty important. I'm hoping to test out some lists against a tau mate, It's possible those saying melee is dead are right, but I feel it may be just as or more important than ever. Bring on the midfield moshpits!

I wonder if some of the table size reasoning has to do with attracting new casual players. When the recommended table size for their small collection fits on a coffee table, it does remove one more barrier to entry.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tri-points were always a feels bad moment. You either pulled it off and then wrecked their army or didn't and suffered.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Gun lines aren't going to get points easily.

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Definitely makes those previously terrible increase aura by x" traits seem more interesting. Characters are going to need to move in front of their units with JPs or bikes or hitch a ride.

Tanks shooting into melee

This has been really situational. Also, melee benefits hugely from dreadnoughts with this ability.

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

This was a necessary result of the O/W changes.

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Makes Orks quite the kings of charging.

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Big O/W is the bane of melee.

Additional plusses:

- Psykers can't fall back and cast
- You pick who fights first the turn after you charged if your opponent makes no charges
- Chargers pick up a save bonus in heavy cover

Pure melee and shooting armies will both not be optimum.

When you use melee units to remove an opponent's unit from an objective, not only did you remove their unit from scoring position, you placed yourself in that same position and have now forced your opponents hand.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tri-points were always a feels bad moment. You either pulled it off and then wrecked their army or didn't and suffered.

Cool, that's still a massive nerf that absolutely shredded certain melee armies and units. Your response isn't a counter to the fact that it was nerfed, this is just you saying how you feel about. And you aren't even correct. Plenty of times it was just what a unit needed to hang on a turn, not get to wreck an entire army lol, while yes it happened sometimes that's a massive hyperbole. You are right though that if they don't get the tripoint, they suffered. So now, for the cost of 2CP, they get to suffer everytime.

You know what else was a feels bad moment? Building melee army just to get dunked on by gunlines every single edition. Seems they left that one in the game though. This is unmistakably a melee nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Gun lines aren't going to get points easily.

Already addressed and acknowledged in the post I had responded to. Irrelevant response.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Definitely makes those previously terrible increase aura by x" traits seem more interesting. Characters are going to need to move in front of their units with JPs or bikes or hitch a ride.

Yup, so in every way, affects melee armies disproportionately.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tanks shooting into melee

This has been really situational. Also, melee benefits hugely from dreadnoughts with this ability.

Genestealer's should just take their dreadnoughts then :(

Slice it how you want, this is a nerf to melee.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice strategems)

This was a necessary result of the O/W changes.

1.) No, it wasn't?

2.) even if it was, this makes the overwatch changes actually a nerf since this change here, is actually more impactful.

3.) irrelevant anyway - whichever way you take it, THIS IS STILL A NERF TO MELEE.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Makes Orks quite the kings of charging.

By virtue of being affected least by another nerf that disproportionately, and entirely unnecessarily, affected melee.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

Big OW only exists in a few places outside of Tau who weren't changed at all. And for the ones who were changed, when it is important they can still spend 2CP to do so and often cause an entire unit to miss combat (and die) for that price.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Additional plusses:

- Psykers can't fall back and cast
- You pick who fights first the turn after you charged if your opponent makes no charges
- Chargers pick up a save bonus in heavy cover



Pure melee and shooting armies will both not be optimum.

When you use melee units to remove an opponent's unit from an objective, not only did you remove their unit from scoring position, you placed yourself in that same position and have now forced your opponents hand.

Fair points.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
And let’s have a look at the other side of that same coin shall we and view what got harder for melee?

Sure, why not.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Because of a Stratagem which means only ONE unit can get away, and it costs CP to do it, and given that the max CP is now greatly reduced paying 2 cp to get a unit out is a big spend so it's going to need to be worth it. Mission objectives are set up now to punish gunline gameplay. You have to move out and push onto objectives, or you WILL lose the match. You know they changed the terrain rules right? You know you will probably be able to move from sight blocking terrain to sight blocking terrain and not get shot at all right? Sure Tripointing is harder, know what else is harder? Seeing your opponent.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Finally an actual point that sticks. Maybe ensure your characters can stick with your units, or have the Character charge first, since, you know, no overwatch.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Which hurts Shooting as much as it does Melee.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Tanks shooting into melee

Tanks can't shoot into melee, they can shoot at what there engaged with, they also can't fire blast weapons while engaged. Lots of low S shots use a high T unit, a couple of High S shots, use chaff. Blast weapons? Use literally anything since they can't shoot at all.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice stratagems)

That's 2 Sure that kinda sucks that you can't use multi charge as a free move mechanic anymore.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Again hurts shooting just as much as it does melee, possibly more so since there is only a 5% difference between rerolling 1 die and rerolling both dice on charges over 9 inches.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

Again affects Shooting as much as it affects melee.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

So any person that was smart enough to bring Flamers as a deterrent. Any army that has access to special flamers they pay prime points for, to use as a deterrent/force longer charges. Saying that something has no effect does not actually mean it has no effect.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out

Again affects shooting armies as much as it affects melee armies.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Should I keep going?

Since of the 11 points you made, only 2 actually apply exclusively to melee units and of those 2 only 1 is an actual nerf (multi-charge) and the other (Tripointing) is "worse" only because they made it extremely easy for you to avoid being shot at when your moving up the board.

sigh... why is it that all the people responsible for all the worst posts, always feel the need to do this thing where they break up every single line of your response into a million different dotpoint quotes and make it a hell of an eyesore. I can remember what I wrote, just respond to it in succession? Like I didn't break up your original list into a ton of individual quotes? This style of formatting is such a hallmark for the worst contributions. But, since you've forced us down this road...

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more guaranteeing a unit safety with tripointing (Ridiculously more impactful alone then literally everything you mentioned combined)

Tripointing being much less practical to pull off in general because of coherency rules.

Coherency rules in general make it harder for units that are active on the board (melee) rather than gunlining

Because of a Stratagem which means only ONE unit can get away, and it costs CP to do it, and given that the max CP is now greatly reduced paying 2 cp to get a unit out is a big spend so it's going to need to be worth it. Mission objectives are set up now to punish gunline gameplay. You have to move out and push onto objectives, or you WILL lose the match.

Aaaaaaand straight out the gate with the low level takes. If you think tripointing being escapable for 2CP isn't a massive nerf to melee, you were not playing at a level where you should be commenting on tripointing. Watch how melee armies play at top level. Melee units like Genestealers RELIED upon this, and not only are they a pricier chunk of your list but there is now also NO WAY left to keep them safe. Even Daedulus's response was much better here - as he said, this can be a game changing difference. A brand new option for 2CP to win the game by defanging your entire melee offense, oh my, should I spend it?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
You know they changed the terrain rules right? You know you will probably be able to move from sight blocking terrain to sight blocking terrain and not get shot at all right? Sure Tripointing is harder, know what else is harder? Seeing your opponent.

You mentioned this in your original post. I didn't say anything to disagree with terrain changes being helpful. I said this is THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, ie all the nerfs you were either conveniently ignoring, or just lack the game knowledge to recognise. Outside of pointing out your flawed Overwatch argument, my post was an expansion of yours, not an argument that these weren't buffs. I am acknowledging the buffs you mentioned, while including the addition of all the even more significant nerfs that you failed to mention.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Character rule changed to 3" disproportionately hurts assault armies, since they're more likely to leave the character through charges

Finally an actual point that sticks. Maybe ensure your characters can stick with your units, or have the Character charge first, since, you know, no overwatch.

So, exactly what I said. This is a nerf that disproportionately affects melee and adds further limitations to how they are going to be able to move.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Blast weapons hurting bigger units

Which hurts Shooting as much as it does Melee.

Spoken like someone truly unfamiliar with competitive play.

Tell me, what are all this large size infantry shooting units that were relevant in the meta in 8th? Please, name them. Hordes, tarpits, and large melee bombs were a staple for melee play and crucial to how many of these armies function. If you are playing somewhere that large infantry shooting units are equally as important for shooting armies as large melee units are for melee armies, then your meta is so totally alien to me that I don't even know if I can argue what you're saying - maybe it's true where you are, but you're playing a different game to the rest of the world my friend.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Tanks shooting into melee

Tanks can't shoot into melee, they can shoot at what there engaged with

Mate - I don't know if you're deliberately trying to be as nitpicky as you can to present an argument with the least amount of good faith possible, but shooting what you're engaged at IS shooting into melee. I didn't say can shoot into allied melees, that's not a rule? You knew this, I knew this... what are you doing here? Even with your absurd wordplay here, both ways it is STILL a nerf to melee, do you have an argument why it's not?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Ability to charge multiple units nerfed significantly (this also nerfs fight twice stratagems)

That's 2 Sure that kinda sucks that you can't use multi charge as a free move mechanic anymore.

Well while it wasn't free, you're otherwise right, as it basically destroyed one of the bigger strengths that melee had to try leverage where possible, so it's a pretty significant nerf, glad you agree.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
No more re-roll single charge dice, have to re-roll both

Again hurts shooting just as much as it does melee, possibly more so since there is only a 5% difference between rerolling 1 die and rerolling both dice on charges over 9 inches.

......... how in god's name did you come to the conclusion that this somehow hurts shooting? Even with what you wrote, that still nerfs melee and hurts shooting in no way.

also, this is a perfect example of why empty mathhammer is so silly. Let me give you a practical enough situation - 9" charge. You roll a 6, and a 2. You whiff the charge. Pre nerf, your CP re-roll would have a 2/3 chance of granting you the charge. Post nerf, you have a 1/4 chance of success. It's not a flat "5% difference", it means that many situations will occur where there is a flat out no safe re-roll for a charge, when there was very good odds before.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
-1 to hit abilities being much weaker and less reliable defense against shooting

Again affects Shooting as much as it affects melee.

No, because nerfing -1 to shoot from both sides of a shooting vs shooting match up just puts them on even footing. Removing -1 to shoot in a melee vs shooting match up, just takes away a vital defensive mechanic for one side of the board. I would think that was common sense. Blanket rules might impact everyone, but they do not impact everyone equally.

On top of that, it means that heavy weapons get to move and shoot for free now against anything that was relying on a -1 save for protection.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
The Overwatch change is mostly only relevant for armies with big overwatch output, and that nerf didn't even affect the most important one, Tau

So any person that was smart enough to bring Flamers as a deterrent. Any army that has access to special flamers they pay prime points for, to use as a deterrent/force longer charges. Saying that something has no effect does not actually mean it has no effect.

I'm sorry, this must be my unfamiliarity - please direct me in the direction in some of these lists that did well competitively this year, by being as smart as you claim to be, and taking flamers as a melee deterrent.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Even the ‘buff’ of smaller boards is actually a nerf to GSC and other DS assault units like Tzaangors, Bloodletters, Da Jump mobs, etc, who don’t give a gak about ground to cover and are actually limited for places to get in by denser boards and also much easier to casually screen out

Again affects shooting armies as much as it affects melee armies.

??


???????


I can't even begin to fathom the logic of how this hurts shooting units as much as melee deepstrike units who need to deepstrike every single model as close as humanly possible to make the charge.

Just simply saying these things does not make them true.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Should I keep going?

Since of the 11 points you made, only 2 actually apply exclusively to melee unitsonly 1 is an actual nerf (multi-charge)

Very few changes affect anything exclusively. Look at the points YOU made. Much more Terrain blocking line of sight is a massive buff for no-LoS shooting. However, you were capable of can recognise that this is more of a help to melee. Of the 11 points I made, all them are melee nerfs.




When you make a post like the one you just did mate, I think you need to stop, take a step back, distance yourself from your personal collection, and ask yourself - "am I letting my individual biases heavily influence the statements I make"?

For what it's worth, outside of his tone I agree with Nitro Zeus, and I usually don't.

The only thing that could possible result in a huge gain for melee is the mission design forcing people to move towards assault units instead of away from them.

I am going to explain this one thing to you since you are being neither reasonable nor rational

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
also, this is a perfect example of why empty mathhammer is so silly. Let me give you a practical enough situation - 9" charge. You roll a 6, and a 2. You whiff the charge. Pre nerf, your CP re-roll would have a 2/3 chance of granting you the charge. Post nerf, you have a 1/4 chance of success. It's not a flat "5% difference", it means that many situations will occur where there is a flat out no safe reroll for a charge, when there was very good odds before.

Yes, it takes that situation into account, it literally takes all the possible rolls into account. 10/36 for a 9' charge with no reroll (27%), 20/36 with a reroll (55%), reroll the lowest 22/36 (60%).

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
When you make a post like the one you just did mate, I think you need to stop, take a step back, distance yourself from your personal collection, and ask yourself - "am I letting my individual biases heavily influence the statements I make"?

Really...you know you're totally right.

That’s not the example nor the problem described, perhaps you should re-reread.

I attached my rationalising to every statement I made. You made a bunch of empty statements with no explanation attached while demanding others deliver their points better. Nope, you don’t get to ignore all the overwhelming counter logic to your position and then accuse others of not being rational, just gonna call that out for what it is.