Title says all. New change in board size is beyond stupid imo. You have a game where we have 6 ft range railguns that are supposed to be used in game in a tactical way and now GW wants to reduce board size? Um sorry, but alot of Tau players and ranged armies in general rely on the board size, and me and my buddies who have been playing since 2001 all agree the change is short sighted. We have been known to play on 8 by 4 feet boards on anything that is over 2000 points. Who else is just going to continue to play on 6 by 4, the way the game has always been played for years and years for 2000 points 40k games? What use is there in having a gunline army and your opponent can easily surround you and trap you because the board is too small? What use is there in turbo boosting 3 feet distance transports from Eldar/ Dark Eldar when there is no reason to do so? Beyond ridiculous.

I would have been been fine with the change for 1000-1500 point armies. Sure. But 2000 points? 6 ft by 4 ft, thank you very much and have a nice day.

Well, it depends on if I'm playing on my dining room table or not. My table is almost exactly the new min board size, plus one inch of width.

At the game store where I play, I'll continue using the 6x4s, because, might as well. we have tables that big there.

Yeah, table size for me has always been "what's available"

At home we have either a 3x5 dinning table or two 2x4 folding tables (usually set those up together as a 4x4)

The points changes brought my sons' Marine lists to about 1600pts each, or 1750 if we add their Vanguard Vets.
So that's probably where we'll stay

Occasionally might combine their forces into a Brigade for 2000+ games but we'll still play on the tables we have

What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

 Crusaderobr wrote:
. . . all agree the change is short sided.

Lol.


That aSIDE, ranged engagement doesn't have to mean a literal gunline. Now you have Reserve rules that allow for more positioning dancing, so you can draw the enemy one direction, and then strike from another. I think ranged armies will be fine, they just may not deploy in the same way.

Probably just easier to play on my 6x4 mat. I might experement and mask off the extra bits, but I suspect in casual play, it’s not going to make that big a deal. We never really hugged the back edges much anyway.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

They have not. Its just a minimum. You are not breaking any rules by using a 6×4 board.

The idea is probably just so people can make a board out of multiples of the kill zone boards. Just as an option.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

They literally wrote an article about this.

On the topic of Combat Patrol, though many of you will be familiar with fighting battles that roughly equate to the size of Incursion (approx. 50 Power/1000 points), Strike Force (approx. 100 Power/2000 points) and even Onslaught (approx. 150 Power/3000 points), Combat Patrol is aimed specifically at small-scale skirmishes and vanguard operations. As such, it’s the perfect size for lunchtime games, as you should easily be able to finish in under an hour, and you don’t even need an especially large surface to play on!

Incursion is 1000 points per side while Combat Patrol is 500 per side.
Again, this is the MINIMUM SIZE. That means you can play larger if you want to, but they balanced the game sizes around these table sizes as the minimum.

Also remember that tournaments set their own rules. They're the epitome of house ruling things.

All the people in my gaming group have 6x4 mats. Most of our other Wargames use 6x4.
GW still sells their own 6x4. It is a minimum size. So, in no way this is enforced and outside of tournaments I don't think anyone will actually use the new size or care about it. People starting with Kill Team might use it or I suspect GW to produce more mats with their new minimum size for 40K in the Future so newer players might use it. The majority will continue to use what they have.

Not ever playing anti-melee 6x4 boards ever again.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

It's listed for every game type, but in a "play on a surface at least this big for fair game for this points level".

Locally the feeling is a 4x4 makes a better 1k table size than the GW suggested one.

There're plenty of "recommendations" I'd rather the community ignores (e.g. continue to use Legends, it still "100% matched play legal by the rules").

I'd also hope (against hope) some tournaments continue to run Maelstrom. It's just an infinitely deeper and tactically more rewarding format than the "pick-your-own-adventure-secondary"-thing that come with the ITC-fication of 40K.



The smaller boards on the other hand are actually pretty awesome IMO.

I'll still be using my 6x4 board and then just marking down to the recommended size. My group likes to do a lot of 1v1v1v1 type battles so we will most likely still use the 6x4 for games like that. But yeah if your group wants 6x4 all the time its the recommended minimum and you don't have to play on the new smaller size

I'll absolutely be using the smaller size. It just feels more balanced.

You do you, though.

Honestly I don't think it'll make much difference at all. 6x4 biggest difference tactically would be it's easier to deep strike stuff behind enemy lines because the missions push you hard into the middle anyway.

So, better for objectives like Linebreaker, Deploy Homer, etc, because it's easier to sneak a stupid little unit way in the back corner and hide them.

I wonder how much different the 6x4 games are going to be from hte games GW tested the rules at. And how big the differences are.

I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

Seems most of my area is on the smaller boards now. If you pushed really hard you could find a couple that will allow for 6x4 but you'll have to put some energy into it.

Gonna stick with 6x4. My table supports it, all my mats are 6x4 or 4x4 and the people I play with want to keep playing on 6x4 as well.

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique people buy new mats in the new (weird) "standard".

It's actually one of the few 9th related things that don't like. Luckily, I can completely ignore it because I basically only ever play with friends at home, and never play pick-up games or tournaments with strangers who might want to enforce the new table size.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

I don't think anyone would actually modify the tables themselves, it's more likely that there will be available boards and mats for placement on top of the table.

My FLGS isn't going to start cutting up it's boards, but it's going to get mats and tiles that match the new minimum size for 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:
6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

Eh. Most stores near me will happily change. Warhammer was pretty much the only game played in the local and not-so-local stores that used that size. Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Star Wars Xwing, none of them give a fig about 6'x4.'
More space for M:tG tables, as far as they're concerned.

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Not ever playing anti-melee 6x4 boards ever again.

48"x72" is now antimelee but 44"x60" perfectly fine (as if -6"/2" inches in your Deployment zone could make a difference at all whist still 24" distance between armies)

Strategic Reserves are more impactful on a smaller board. It's also the tournament standard this edition.

I won't turn down a game on a 6x4 but I already have a mat for 44x60.

ERJAK wrote:
Strategic Reserves are more impactful on a smaller board. It's also the tournament standard this edition.

I won't turn down a game on a 6x4 but I already have a mat for 44x60.

I'd say it's the opposite. One of the differences playing on the 6x4 is you have more opportunities to place units out of reserves in advantageous positions behind the enemy instead of just joining the mosh pit in the middle.

6x4 is better for extreme range units, and it's better for deep strikers/reserves. 44x60 is better for short range units, and tougher, slower units.

The FLGS has 4X8 tables sometimes we use the entire table depending on which game we are playing, when it comes to terrain mats i have

.X2 city maps
.farm fields
.semi urban
.water
all in 4X6

an additional
.ruined midevil town
.tau city
.rocky desert
.high tech city
.X2 space
.X2 15mm scale city
in 4X4

Some are for standard 40K,, or DUST 1947, or epic 40K, or battletech, or heavy gear, or infinity, or warmachine or victory at sea, or b5 wars/star trek/star wars

additionally since the only 40K i play now is either 5th ed, 30K or epic i don't care what the table sizes are for 9th

I am certainly not changing map sizes after i spent all that money for them.(even though i have seen a few others i want i have no more room to transport them all).

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

.

I did some poking around, because I was curious about this to. For SW: Legion and Armada, their standard size is 6x3, which is even odder, to my mind. That's either too narrow a separation between armies, non-existent deployment zones, or they play lengthwise and have way too much space between armies.

I guess.. Flames of War? If people are still playing that?
A search shows Dust Tactics maybe used 6x4? But there is an awful lot of guessing coming up in my search results for that. And its, you know, dead.

Voss wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

.

I did some poking around, because I was curious about this to. For SW: Legion and Armada, their standard size is 6x3 (which is even odder, to my mind). That's either too narrow a separation between armies, non-existent deployment zones, or they play lengthwise and have way too much space between armies.

I guess.. Flames of War? If people are still playing that?

Maybe for new players our FOW group usually puts 2 tables together for a massive 8X8 that they then fill with loads of fantastic terrain. they like their battles to be massive.

Like Ive said before my club will most likely use 6x4 or 4x3 due to the tables available to us but if folks splash out of the mats of approved mandatory fun thats good too

 aphyon wrote:


Maybe for new players our FOW group usually puts 2 tables together for a massive 8X8 that they then fill with loads of fantastic terrain. they like their battles to be massive.

That just sounds impractical. How are they moving models around in the center of the table without disrupting large chunks of the board?
I'm of average height. 4' (the center of the table) just isn't happening unless my arm is at full extension past my head and I'm practically belly down on the surface. (Yes, I just got out the tape measure and checked)

 Sasori wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

I don't think anyone would actually modify the tables themselves, it's more likely that there will be available boards and mats for placement on top of the table.

My FLGS isn't going to start cutting up it's boards, but it's going to get mats and tiles that match the new minimum size for 40k.

The ones around me flirted with the idea, but between Covid and the 6x4 remaining entirely legal and perfectly acceptable for play, the general trend seemed to be "why bother spending a few hundreds of bucks on new mats and boards?"

Most have existing pre-made 6x4 table boards to slide on top of card tables and the like, 6x4 mats for the main tables, and the few that had tiled tables have the 2x2 chunked ones designed for 6x4 play areas, so any move to the new minimum without a real reason to do so beyond "just because" (especially if they can't save any meaningful space) isn't moving much just yet. That may change once Covid passes and the tournament circuit switches entirely over and presses that onto the large playerbase as a standard, but until/unless that happens the 6x4 tables don't seem to be going anywhere here.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

I don't think anyone would actually modify the tables themselves, it's more likely that there will be available boards and mats for placement on top of the table.

My FLGS isn't going to start cutting up it's boards, but it's going to get mats and tiles that match the new minimum size for 40k.

The ones around me flirted with the idea, but between Covid and the 6x4 remaining entirely legal and perfectly acceptable for play, the general trend seemed to be "why bother spending a few hundreds of bucks on new mats and boards?"

Most have existing pre-made 6x4 table boards to slide on top of card tables and the like, 6x4 mats for the main tables, and the few that had tiled tables have the 2x2 chunked ones designed for 6x4 play areas, so any move to the new minimum without a real reason to do so beyond "just because" (especially if they can't save any meaningful space) isn't moving much just yet. That may change once Covid passes and the tournament circuit switches entirely over and presses that onto the large playerbase as a standard, but until/unless that happens the 6x4 tables don't seem to be going anywhere here.

Yeah, the tournament circuit making that as the standard is what is going to drive the change, that's what drove the change locally.

...I take it there is something in CA20 (or the tournament aspect of it, anyway), that mandates the minimum size for tournaments?

Otherwise, you'd think the tournament organisers would want to stick with the size they already have boards/mats for, too - though it sounds like they'll need to crack on with making more terrain.

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

Age of Sigmar and all the various Warhammer Fantasy remakes like 9th Age and Fantasy Project.
Firestorm Armada.
Flames of War (iirc, it's been a while)
Warzone (iirc, it's been a while)
I also know that the local Warmachine/horde-players like to go 6x4 when they play larger battles.

Regardless, the real question is what other games use 44"x60" other than 40k, because if the answer to that is "none", then I stand by my statement that this size is chosen simply for the sake of GW being able to push something "unique", a.k.a. make people buy new stuff from them that's incompatible with everything else.
I consider the change an inconvenience at best and a gak-move by GW at worst.

Luckily, I can, as previously stated, ignore it because I'm bound neither to tournament organizers nor strangers in a pickup-game. Not everyone is that lucky however, and I feel bad for those who want to play on 6x4 but face someone who's of the opposite mind, especially when 6x4 is the minimum recommended.

it's pretty easy to mark off the edge of the board, and then you end up with a handy space for leaving codexes, dice etc.

So no, I'll move down to smaller board size,unless I play a bigger game.

 Dysartes wrote:
...I take it there is something in CA20 (or the tournament aspect of it, anyway), that mandates the minimum size for tournaments?

Otherwise, you'd think the tournament organisers would want to stick with the size they already have boards/mats for, too - though it sounds like they'll need to crack on with making more terrain.

Quite a few of the big tournament organizers (especially those involved in the playtesting) are also storefronts for miscellaneous products... including terrain mats.

Goodness. FLG already has a range of 44x60 mats. 77 different terrain patterns, in fact.

IanVanCheese wrote:
it's pretty easy to mark off the edge of the board, and then you end up with a handy space for leaving codexes, dice etc.

So no, I'll move down to smaller board size,unless I play a bigger game.

Has this ever been a real issue trough?
I've seen this opinion about "it's nice with some space for other stuff" posted from several players now, but in all my 17 years playing this game, I've never felt the need to cut away a piece of the battlefield and use as some sort of unloading area.

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

 MinscS2 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
it's pretty easy to mark off the edge of the board, and then you end up with a handy space for leaving codexes, dice etc.

So no, I'll move down to smaller board size,unless I play a bigger game.

Has this ever been a real issue trough?
I've seen this opinion about "it's nice with some space for other stuff" posted from several players now, but in all my 17 years playing this game, I've never felt the need to cut away a piece of the battlefield and use as some sort of unloading area.

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

I've often found it nice to have a bit of sideboard area- somewhere to set down books, roll dice, or keep reserve units handy when the table is completely filled. Not seeing where cognitive dissonance comes into it.

 MinscS2 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
it's pretty easy to mark off the edge of the board, and then you end up with a handy space for leaving codexes, dice etc.

So no, I'll move down to smaller board size,unless I play a bigger game.

Has this ever been a real issue trough?
I've seen this opinion about "it's nice with some space for other stuff" posted from several players now, but in all my 17 years playing this game, I've never felt the need to cut away a piece of the battlefield and use as some sort of unloading area.

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

Yes.
Don't know about you, but I've played in some packed (because they're small and/or busy) stores and events. Everything was on the table or under the table, because there simply weren't any other options. And not just one, either. I can think of at least three stores off the top of my head, and several events, including Games Day and a Grand Tournament (though that was decades ago now).


Maybe its because I know its a real thing, but I can't grasp what you're trying to say with the cognitive dissonance reference. It seems misapplied or inappropriate.

 MinscS2 wrote:

IanVanCheese wrote:
it's pretty easy to mark off the edge of the board, and then you end up with a handy space for leaving codexes, dice etc.

So no, I'll move down to smaller board size,unless I play a bigger game.

Has this ever been a real issue trough?
I've seen this opinion about "it's nice with some space for other stuff" posted from several players now, but in all my 17 years playing this game, I've never felt the need to cut away a piece of the battlefield and use as some sort of unloading area.

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

You have never played with a larger board/table and had extra room for books/models in 17 years of gaming? You are most likely the exception if you have only ever played on exactly regulation sizes and never marked off an edge in a single game in 17 years

 catbarf wrote:


I've often found it nice to have a bit of sideboard area- somewhere to set down books, roll dice, or keep reserve units handy when the table is completely filled. Not seeing where cognitive dissonance comes into it.

Sure, I can see the point of having an unloading area for dice/casualties, but not at the expense of a smaller battlefield.

Voss wrote:

Maybe its because I know its a real thing, but I can't grasp what you're trying to say with the cognitive dissonance reference. It seems misapplied or inappropriate.

"I don't really like this change, but it is nice to be able to do *something that wasn't really a major issue* instead, so I guess I'm actually fine with this change after all."
Granted, for some it seems this really was an issue (of sorts).

Asmodios wrote:

You have never played with a larger board/table and had extra room for books/models in 17 years of gaming? You are most likely the exception if you have only ever played on exactly regulation sizes and never marked off an edge in a single game in 17 years

Nope. Guess I (and everyone at my local club) got...lucky? (Not sure if you can call it luck if you yourself make sure the place you play at isn't cramped to hell.)
I've attended some large (100+ players) tournaments as well and I never felt "oh man, I wish I could remove some of the battlefield so I had some place to put my dice".

Again @everyone who disagrees with me, I can see the appeal with an unloading area, but I personally don't consider the change worth it when it comes with the cost of a smaller battlefield.

I don't see a real reason to use the smaller table size, really.

Love the smaller board and to have the extra space is always nice too.

We are just getting spacers (basically just long pieces of wood to press against the edge). The board was 2" long and 2" wide less than it should have been, so this will help get it to the proper sizes.

I have 2 6x2.5 tables. They make a 6x5 table. I have 6x4 mats. I will continue to use them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

You mean you haven't seen the endless repetition of "... the new board sizes!" and "Now that tables are smaller..." in both tactics articles posted here, on YouTube, on WarCom and everywhere else?

You can parrot GW and call it "minimum" all you like, but the new board sizes are very quickly becoming "standard".

 Kanluwen wrote:
... but they balanced the game sizes around these table sizes as the minimum.

Your naïveté is showing again Kan. They didn't "balance" the game around new table sizes. They chose these table sizes as they match the recent mats they make. It was product based, not balanced based.

Voss wrote:

Maybe its because I know its a real thing, but I can't grasp what you're trying to say with the cognitive dissonance reference. It seems misapplied or inappropriate.

But it sure makes him sound smarter, ergo his opinion is somehow more valid.

After trying the minimum table size I have to say that I like it a lot. The game feels more engaging and slow moving armies like Death Guard actually have a chance of covering the table over the course of the game.

Voss wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

.

I did some poking around, because I was curious about this to. For SW: Legion and Armada, their standard size is 6x3, which is even odder, to my mind. That's either too narrow a separation between armies, non-existent deployment zones, or they play lengthwise and have way too much space between armies.

I guess.. Flames of War? If people are still playing that?
A search shows Dust Tactics maybe used 6x4? But there is an awful lot of guessing coming up in my search results for that. And its, you know, dead.

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Banville wrote:

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Ah. Yeah, that's an east of the Atlantic thing.
Here it has basically no footprint at all. You may occasionally see the Mantic ghouls in a Warhammer army rather than the GW ork mutants, but that's the extent of it outside small pockets. People carrying on with games of 8th WFB are frankly more common.

Kings of War isn't that rare over here. Its not gw game level visible for sure, but our region has a pretty active KoW group and Adepticon had a solid showing of Kings of War as well.

I completely forgot about KoW, which is ironic since I own an entire Basilean-army. (Never used for KoW though, but as Empire for Fantasy.)

So yeah, guess the list for games that use 6x4 is fairly long.

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Ah. Yeah, that's an east of the Atlantic thing.
Here it has basically no footprint at all. You may occasionally see the Mantic ghouls in a Warhammer army rather than the GW ork mutants, but that's the extent of it outside small pockets. People carrying on with games of 8th WFB are frankly more common.

'East of the Atlantic'? Like more than half the globe...?

Banville wrote:

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Ah. Yeah, that's an east of the Atlantic thing.
Here it has basically no footprint at all. You may occasionally see the Mantic ghouls in a Warhammer army rather than the GW ork mutants, but that's the extent of it outside small pockets. People carrying on with games of 8th WFB are frankly more common.

'East of the Atlantic'? Like more than half the globe...?

No. Just Europe, but poetically.

I'm making a set of board tiles 15" x 15". That lets me hit all of the length measurements and get within an inch of the consistent width measurement while still allowing me to orient the boards horizontally or vertically to give me a greater variety of play surfaces.

I'm also with ClockworkZion on thinking that Incursion is better on 45 x 45; the Incursion size breaks the escalation pattern- the only reason GW didn't escalate for Incursion scale is that their rectangular boards render it impossible to achieve. My squares, on the other hand, allow me to do this with ease.

I have roads as single edges on some boards and in an L shape on others, and because I can orient them any way I want, I can create any arrangement of roads as either single or double lanes.

Because I'm playing Crusade, I only need 6 boards to start. Then as long as I can have 3 additional boards ready by the time we hit the next benchmark, we should be able to play straight on through. The plan (if we can stick to it) is to only increase supply limit once the painting is complete; I'm a slow painter, so we'll be spending a lot of our RP on other stuff to keep supply limit low for a while.

Last thing is that once the basic boards are done, I can actually add custom boards to the set for specific territories on the campaign maps.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

The part where the playtesters seemed to indicate that's what they tested on so that's what it's balanced around, and the fact most of the big tournaments are moving to that size means it will become a standard, not a minimum.

Wayniac wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

The part where the playtesters seemed to indicate that's what they tested on so that's what it's balanced around, and the fact most of the big tournaments are moving to that size means it will become a standard, not a minimum.

So that means that all other sized boards cease to exist? Tournament organizers are going to come around and tell you "YOU'RE WRONG!" before destroying your boards?

Let's be real here:
People need to stop trying to tournament chase. Especially when most of them will never set foot in a venue, let alone actually play in one.

Also again, see where "minimum does not mean you cannot go larger."

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Ah. Yeah, that's an east of the Atlantic thing.
Here it has basically no footprint at all. You may occasionally see the Mantic ghouls in a Warhammer army rather than the GW ork mutants, but that's the extent of it outside small pockets. People carrying on with games of 8th WFB are frankly more common.

'East of the Atlantic'? Like more than half the globe...?

No. Just Europe, but poetically.

I'm thinking about mixing it up game by game. I ordered one of the new smaller mats to be flexible. I mostly play garage hammer with friends, so I'm thinking of either deciding the map size before hand, or pre game, rolling for 6x4 vs new minimum and trying to build a list that could do well at either size. Over time, we may end up having a preference for one size or the other, or we may keep it random, who knows!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

The part where the playtesters seemed to indicate that's what they tested on so that's what it's balanced around, and the fact most of the big tournaments are moving to that size means it will become a standard, not a minimum.

So that means that all other sized boards cease to exist? Tournament organizers are going to come around and tell you "YOU'RE WRONG!" before destroying your boards?

Let's be real here:
People need to stop trying to tournament chase. Especially when most of them will never set foot in a venue, let alone actually play in one.

Also again, see where "minimum does not mean you cannot go larger."

Of course, but let's also be real here: Plenty of areas will just follow whatever tournament standard is and stifle any deviation from that.

In the grim, dark future of the 41st millennium. There are only 6x4 battlefields.

I was initially very skeptical of the reduced size, but coupled with the reduced size of armies it tightens up the gameplay without getting too cluttered. It's not a huge difference, but you will notice it when reserves come on from the side of the board and have longer to slog to get to the objectives, or when artillery hides in a corner.

One thing that I don't see people talking about is how the point levels match up with boards- 1500pts on a 44x60" table is going to feel more empty than 2000pts on a 48x72" table, despite the former being the 'official' size and the latter being beyond the minimum. If you want to stay closer to the 'intended' play experience while keeping your existing board size, you can always just play 2500pts on a 48x72, which will produce comparable board density to 2000pts on 44x60. There's also terrain to take into consideration, as with more stuff blocking LOS now, playing on a large board doesn't necessarily mean backfield units can make use of greater range.

All my mats are 48x72", but I've discovered that my coffee table is 44x66, so just laying a mat on the table and using the 44x60 size for 2000pt games is a lot easier than getting MDF board from the basement to get the old size. I'll probably still keep the MDF, and use it for larger games as described above. YMMV.

If you're a tournament player you'll use the tournament sizes, if you're a casual player it's not that big a deal what size you use. Not sure why there's heated debate over this of all things; I'd argue it's a lot less impactful than the types, size, and amount of terrain you use, but I don't see much discussion about that.

Do note it is 25% smaller. It may not always feel smaller, because no man's land is the same (usually).

The length got squished more than the width and the result creates a much tighter space to fight over objectives and subsequently a more difficult placement for reserves.

The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

* The tables at the shop I frequent are 4x8 & 4x6.
While we do occasionally play games using only 4/5/6/or 7 feet, we do it based on # of players, size of game, theme of game, etc. NOT because some company says "Blah blah blah...."
(hell, we play X-wing on 4x6-8 & that's designed for what, 3x3?)
As for shrinking the boards to 44" across? LOL. We're just lazy. We're not going to waste a moment thinking about doing that or zoning it out or any such. Boards 48" across. Deal with it.

* Those of us with tables at home? Most of our tables are 4x6. Some are 4x8. Depends upon space available (a compromise of physics & SOs opinions).
Other than that? See comments above.

 bullyboy wrote:
The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

Smaller boards were picked for ££££££. GW wants to sell more of their boards, ITC wants more prooooooooofits for themselves.

Balance or what's good for game never played in it. In game all it does is reduce meaning of movement and tactics.

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

Smaller boards were picked for ££££££. GW wants to sell more of their boards, ITC wants more prooooooooofits for themselves.

Balance or what's good for game never played in it. In game all it does is reduce meaning of movement and tactics.

ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle) and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway, even then you have a choice of the 2 board pack that makes a 44x30 or nothing from GW. I don't disagree the choice was made to allow GW to monetise the table size, but they're hardly ramming it down peoples throat.

Banville wrote:

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Kings of War. That's a big one actually.

Ah. Yeah, that's an east of the Atlantic thing.
Here it has basically no footprint at all. You may occasionally see the Mantic ghouls in a Warhammer army rather than the GW ork mutants, but that's the extent of it outside small pockets. People carrying on with games of 8th WFB are frankly more common.

'East of the Atlantic'? Like more than half the globe...?

Go far enough east, and it's the whole globe (except for the Atlantic itself).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
... but they balanced the game sizes around these table sizes as the minimum.

Your naïveté is showing again Kan. They didn't "balance" the game around new table sizes. They chose these table sizes as they match the recent mats they make. It was product based, not balanced based.

To be fair, you're both being naive by using "balance" to describe anything to do with 40k...

Dudeface wrote:
ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW

Of course they did. Because GW want to sell their new board size.

Dudeface wrote:
...and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle)

At this stage that's an ancient product and clearly not in keeping with their new product strategy.

Dudeface wrote:
... and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway

Like that matters. They've been making them in that size for a couple of years now, and decided to go all in with that size and start selling them. And so they start bringing out products to fit with their new recommended standard minimum table sizes.

tneva82 is 100% correct about this. The change in board size had nothing to do with balance or gameplay. It was decided purely by product requirements (which, in and of themselves were decided purely by shipping requirements).

I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW

Of course they did. Because GW want to sell their new board size.

Dudeface wrote:
...and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle)

At this stage that's an ancient product and clearly not in keeping with their new product strategy.

Dudeface wrote:
... and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway

Like that matters. They've been making them in that size for a couple of years now, and decided to go all in with that size and start selling them. And so they start bringing out products to fit with their new recommended standard minimum table sizes.

tneva82 is 100% correct about this. The change in board size had nothing to do with balance or gameplay. It was decided purely by product requirements (which, in and of themselves were decided purely by shipping requirements).

I didn't disagree, it just seems disingenuous to point fingers at FLG/ITC at this point as being a factor in the size change. Likewise as I say, they're not overly aggressively pushing a smaller table size, the community is doing that for them.

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Or gw could stop nonsense transport rules, actually make them work for all transports and not just for primaris, lower the extreme hike in fire output and doubleshooting for everyone .

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

Lol, incompetent or refusing to play with a style that I don't like? I hate outflanking, deepstriking, teleporting, reserve and nonsense like that. I'm willing to give up some competitiveness in order to play the game I want to play. Now this edition set a standard table that is smaller than before and game mechanics push the action towards the centre of the board. I welcome those changes, and I'm not putting a single unit in reserve except maybe the Gorkanaut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

Still better than nothing. And combined with the new edition's way to score points and army rosters being slightly smaller due to price hikes it's definitely an improvement.

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

Lol, incompetent or refusing to play with a style that I don't like? I hate outflanking, deepstriking, teleporting, reserve and nonsense like that. I'm willing to give up some competitiveness in order to play the game I want to play. Now this edition set a standard table that is smaller than before and game mechanics push the action towards the centre of the board. I welcome those changes, and I'm not putting a single unit in reserve except maybe the Gorkanaut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

Still better than nothing. And combined with the new edition's way to score points and army rosters being slightly smaller due to price hikes it's definitely an improvement.

I think the only reason its come to this point is from poor game design in previous editions. There seems to be almost no actul thought to how Close Combat should be achieved in 40k until the rules are written, and often a lot of factions dont have the tools available to even start in a good place.

As someone who plays on coffee tables and desks, my ambition is to be able to get UP to these minimum sizes.

The new boards fit on my dining table, the old one doesn't easy choice.

I'm also going to build some barricades to add to any 6x4 table so my armies don't have to suffer through another edition where mobile long-range shooting absolutely dominates the game.

Kanluwen wrote:What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

This.

If you don't want to use the minimum sizes offered, who cares! Find whatever size that works for you, and use that!

Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

tauist wrote:
Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

Lots of terrain hampers slow mid-range and assault armies which are also handicapped by larger tables. This is why smaller tables are good.

 Jidmah wrote:

tauist wrote:
Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

Lots of terrain hampers slow mid-range and assault armies which are also handicapped by larger tables. This is why smaller tables are good.

I would agree for 8th, but I've found terrain to be a boon for mid-range/assault armies in 9th. While it does make it harder to get to the enemy's deployment zone, it makes it much easier to chill at midfield and occupy objectives without getting shot.

For bigger games yes. So far we haven't liked the feel of a 2000 point 9th ed game on the smaller table size. For anything under 1500, the recommended sizes feel about right, but yeah, too cramped at 2000 so at least for now, 6x4 it is.

For my 6x4 tables, I could easily see marking off 12' to bring it down to 60", but wouldn't waste time with the 4" across, seems pointless. So basically 5x4 table.

Maybe GW did start off with an ulterior sales motive to the small board sizes. I think it's pretty likely.

However.... after playing a few games on them already, it does make a noticeable difference. "Short" (24") range weapons are more effective, melee units are much harder to get away from, objectives are harder to hold. I expect it to catch on quickly in the local scene because any event bigger than a basement is driven by the competitive players.
Any discussion about balance or meta is going to be contingent on the smaller board size.

I know if you want to be a pedant it's only a "minimum" board size, but then again last edition was only a "recommended" board size, you could totally have gone larger...but no-one really did.

At the store? 6x4. At the armory or in the garage? 6x5 or 8x5

I built my gaming table twenty years ago and no corporate sleazebag from Nottingham will mess with it in any way.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

The missions dictate where units are, which means units aren't in their deployment as often. That means melee works more.

I’ve absolutely no intention on changing the size of board I use to play on. We have a bunch of 6x4 mats and a realm of battle board. We are quite happy with how they work.

Remember these are MINIMUM sizes, not compulsory or even recommended.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

 xeen wrote:
I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

I think herein lies the problem. The new size is a *minimum*, not something the rulebook clearly recommendeds as a standard to wholesale transition towards, and I think the perception that the minimum is supposed to be such a standard now is what people are really irked about more than anything else. If you already have a 6x4, why bother marking it down just to adhere to the new minimum for its own sake instead of just...playing it as it is, unless physical space is a particularly huge requirement?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 xeen wrote:
I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

I think herein lies the problem. The new size is a *minimum*, not something the rulebook clearly recommendeds as a standard to wholesale transition towards, and I think the perception that the minimum is supposed to be such a standard now is what people are really irked about more than anything else. If you already have a 6x4, why bother marking it down just to adhere to the new minimum for its own sake instead of just...playing it as it is, unless physical space is a particularly huge requirement?

I see your point. If you want to play on a 6 x 4 then cool. If not, it is really easy to mark it off. I just don't understand why people are freaking out. Personally based on play and watching battle reports I think the smaller board is better. I believe GW (or maybe play testers) said the game is balanced for those sizes (as much as GW can balance anything). I think it makes the game faster. I think it limits sit in the back and shoot armes which I don't like very much. I think it helps melee. These are my opinions.

But if we went to a pick up game and you wanted to use the whole 6 x 4 that would be fine. To me the issue is the way some people talk about this is like you can't use a 6 x 4 board. You can. You don't have to cut your 6 x 4 mats. Marking off a board it not hard, is not confusing, and I have had no issues playing on a 6 x 4 board making off the end of the battlefield. This seems like a preference thing, and just don't get why it is a big deal in the slightest. Again if someone wants to play on the whole 6 x4 then fine. But acting (not anyone in particular just the general feel of this thread) like this board size change is some big complex thing that is ruining the game seems like an overreaction. Even if the smaller board size was mandatory, I don't think this would be a big deal.

the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

1500 on 6x4' & 2k on 8x4 sounds like it has the best of both worlds; enuff room to maneuver & plenty of space for obstacles and large line of sight blocking terrain.

Yeah, I find some players take suggestions from GW as if they were rules. It started with the "rule of 3" which was a mere suggestion for a very narrow way of playing the game (organized events), it continued with the same people treating legends as if it meant those models were out of the game when the whole point of it was to keep them in the game and it goes on with minimum size being treated as the only possible way. These things are also highly selective.
When I play Cities of Death with legends and power Level you'd read tournament focused guys saying yeah, that's Garage hammer and not real 40K. Funnily enough with that approach I'm following strict GW rules unlike every ITC player with his House rules.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, I find some players take suggestions from GW as if they were rules. It started with the "rule of 3" which was a mere suggestion for a very narrow way of playing the game (organized events), it continued with the same people treating legends as if it meant those models were out of the game when the whole point of it was to keep them in the game and it goes on with minimum size being treated as the only possible way. These things are also highly selective.
When I play Cities of Death with legends and power Level you'd read tournament focused guys saying yeah, that's Garage hammer and not real 40K. Funnily enough with that approach I'm following strict GW rules unlike every ITC player with his House rules.

People can do as they please. They just can't expect to come here and complain about how the game is unbalanced and force us to unpack their statements until we find out they didn't use Ro3 or some other balancing mechanic.

This doesn't make tournaments perfectly balanced, but it makes them more balanced than they otherwise would be.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a reviewer, youtuber, etc say one of the reasons faction "x" is better in 9th is the reduced table size, I'd be a rich man. Well, not rich, but could probably buy a beer or ten on the weekend. As much as people keep harping about it being a "minimum" there is a pretty strong push to make people realize that the game is optimized on the smaller tables.
Won't know til i try it.

 bullyboy wrote:
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a reviewer, youtuber, etc say one of the reasons faction "x" is better in 9th is the reduced table size, I'd be a rich man. Well, not rich, but could probably buy a beer or ten on the weekend. As much as people keep harping about it being a "minimum" there is a pretty strong push to make people realize that the game is optimized on the smaller tables.
Won't know til i try it.

Generally because those armies are probably CQC focused. Your Harlies will most certainly find the terrain and table sizes beneficial in some form or another.

I didn't have problems getting into CC with my Death Guard (!) last edition and I probably won't have them this edition.

Strg Alt wrote:I built my gaming table twenty years ago and no corporate sleazebag from Nottingham will mess with it in any way.

It's a good thing those "corporate sleazbags" don't care at all, and have outright told you that you don't have to change anything with your table.

Racerguy180 wrote:
the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

Exactly. I mean, by the same rationale, the 'minimum' is 1 X HQ and 1 unit of troops - so everyone should only play with that...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

People can do as they please. They just can't expect to come here and complain about how the game is unbalanced and force us to unpack their statements until we find out they didn't use Ro3 or some other balancing mechanic.

This doesn't make tournaments perfectly balanced, but it makes them more balanced than they otherwise would be.

okey, but there is a difference between taking or not taking 3 non troop units and stores having boards of a size which is not optimal for 9th ed. Players have the agency to use, or not, the rule of 3, and unless you play at home no one is going to rebuild the tables to fit GW weird table size. And it works even worse for all those place where people played 4x4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

Exactly. I mean, by the same rationale, the 'minimum' is 1 X HQ and 1 unit of troops - so everyone should only play with that...

Only that is not the event minimum. That is why you didn't see many 500pts games, and more or less everyone when talking about armies in 8th was talking about 2000pts.