The table we use for gaming in my garage is 54x54” and after years of planning I’ve finally realized that I’m unlikely to ever build the full 4x6’ wargaming table with Realm of Battle tiles inset that I wanted.
My question is how important is the 30x44 battle board size “required” for 1000pt 40K/AoS games compared to something like a 48”x48” mousepad mat in the middle of my already square table?
FlightMedic wrote: My question is how important is the 30x44 battle board size “required” for 1000pt 40K/AoS games compared to something like a 48”x48” mousepad mat in the middle of my already square table?
It's a nonsense requirement created to support an existing product, which in an of itself only existed because it was the size of board GW could fit in their standard box size. Ignore it.
FlightMedic wrote: The table we use for gaming in my garage is 54x54” and after years of planning I’ve finally realized that I’m unlikely to ever build the full 4x6’ wargaming table with Realm of Battle tiles inset that I wanted.
My question is how important is the 30x44 battle board size “required” for 1000pt 40K/AoS games compared to something like a 48”x48” mousepad mat in the middle of my already square table?
In addition to what H.B.M.C. said the larger table allows for more tactical movement. especially with dispersed objectives. I still play 5th ed (usually at 2K) so things like outflank, infiltration, scouting, transports all become very important. normally we play on a 4X6 because we use pre-made mats and custom tables in that size, but from time to time we use the entire table as most of the stores tables are 4X8 with some terrain boards made for it.
I'm a bit old school but realistically, measuring out 30" x 44" seems ridiculous and weird to me. Make round numbers.
500 = 3' x 3' board
1k = 4' x 4' board
1.5k = 4' x 4' up to 4' x 6' board
2k = 4' x 6' board
These are simply easy to measure out, standardized and make he most use out of readily available folding tables and other such home goods. My home board is three 2' x 4' boards which can be set next to each other on top of 1 or 2 standard 2-1/2' x 6' folding tables. The folding tables are nice because you can just toss a roll of model train faux grass on it and tape off the playing area. Tournie and faux tournie players are the only ones who care about that minutiae and no one else can give a real answer as to why the hell GW changed the normal table size to these weird measurements.
I keep trying to convince people to play 5' x 5' boards as they keep everything about the battlefield essentially equal while granting an extra square foot of playing space... I have thus far been unsuccessful in this endeavour in any large scale impact, though my gaming group does not care and sometimes doesn't even notice.
How many people do you know who , went there is you have to do X to get Y, will do X+1? And how many do you know who would not do it. There is a reason why with stuff like table size, models counting as painted/unpainted people ask for minimums or if something is enough. Same way with army size, no one stops the over all population of w40k to play 2000pts games with less then 2000pts, but there aren't many people bringing 1500pts to such games.
How many people do you know who , went there is you have to do X to get Y, will do X+1? And how many do you know who would not do it. There is a reason why with stuff like table size, models counting as painted/unpainted people ask for minimums or if something is enough. Same way with army size, no one stops the over all population of w40k to play 2000pts games with less then 2000pts, but there aren't many people bringing 1500pts to such games.
That's irrelevant to the point Hecaton is making. Also, when it comes to table size it's not uncommon around here for people to use the old 6x4 size for 1500+ point games, because that's what clubs and stores often have. I don't think any of the stores or clubs near me went to the trouble of cutting down existing boards when the new minimum size was introduced. They have often acquired some of the minimum-size mats since the change, but it's not uncommon to play one game on a 6x4 one week, then on the minimum sized board the next.
Sort of irrelevant for me. I have the new game boards for the official minimum (as I like it), but I'll play on a 6x4 still if I need too. Not going to go out of my way to play on old standards though, as I prefer to play what I'll see at events, which is the minimum.
That's irrelevant to the point Hecaton is making. Also, when it comes to table size it's not uncommon around here for people to use the old 6x4 size for 1500+ point games, because that's what clubs and stores often have. I don't think any of the stores or clubs near me went to the trouble of cutting down existing boards when the new minimum size was introduced. They have often acquired some of the minimum-size mats since the change, but it's not uncommon to play one game on a 6x4 one week, then on the minimum sized board the next.
But that is how the world works. The only people that play on 6x4 are those that had those tables before the change and who didn't want to update them, for what ever reason. Considering how fast w40k goes through its players, if the "minimal" table size is going to stay the same for one more edition, there are going to be many people playing that size of a table, aside for those that play 10+ years. It is like the games, from what I have been told, was about 1750 or 1500pts, and before that even smaller, specialy considering the army size model wise. Now the avarge game is 2000pts and the number of people who think of w40k with a mind set to play something else is the minority. Saying to others that this is just the minimal table size is like telling people to play narrative or open to "fix" their problems.
If you change the size of the board, you will have to change the numbers in the mission to work with the new sizes.
Because they measure from the middle, changing board size alone does nothing- you just added inches to the deployment zone that you will never use anyway.
You shouldn't let this stop you from adjusting table size to suit your needs- just be aware that you also have to tweak the numbers in order for using a bigger table to actually matter.
Also, as others have mentioned, scaling table size to game size makes sense, even if you disagree with GW's numbers, so thinking about escalation as you consider your options can be helpful.
Because they measure from the middle, changing board size alone does nothing- you just added inches to the deployment zone that you will never use anyway.
You might not use that space, but I do.
I like long range firepower. Always have. My vision of the 40k battlefield is sci-fi guns, bigger sci-fi guns, really big sf guns & ridiculously big sf guns.
So I'll often deploy such units as far back as possible.
I assure you, barring terrain, my guns have no problem dealing with a table that's 48" across instead of 44". (My fast units don't either)
It also doesn't bother me that the opponents shorter range/melee units need to cover 2" more ground to threaten my guns.
FlightMedic wrote: My question is how important is the 30x44 battle board size “required” for 1000pt 40K/AoS games compared to something like a 48”x48” mousepad mat in the middle of my already square table?
It's a nonsense requirement created to support an existing product, which in an of itself only existed because it was the size of board GW could fit in their standard box size. Ignore it.
4x4 is totally fine for 1000 points.
This would be my suggestion as well. 48x48 is a good size and you'll have room on the edge for gaming supplies.
30x44 is a stupid size. Plus, if you're into modular boards, doing things in feet is much easier. If GW really wanted to feed their pocketbook and make things smaller and easier for folks, they'd have gone with the 34" square that is a standard card table. Then they could sell proprietary sized game mats AND throw a bone to folks with small playing space.
In general though, I'd say pay less attention to the recommended size and more attention to the scenario you're playing and especially the amount of terrain. Even a silly 30x44 board can be fine if you've got plenty of terrain to challenge movement and limit line-of sight. I like a big 4x6 table for my sci-fi games (or even a 6x6 or more sometimes...), but even after all these years I've still got to remind myself to put enough terrain out (usually alot more than I initially do) to keep it from becoming a shooting gallery.
Slipspace wrote: Also, when it comes to table size it's not uncommon around here for people to use the old 6x4 size for 1500+ point games, because that's what clubs and stores often have. I don't think any of the stores or clubs near me went to the trouble of cutting down existing boards when the new minimum size was introduced.
I've seen plenty of places with taped up boards that cut down the play size on an existing 6x4 mat. Even crazier are the ones that cut their 6x4 mats up.
How many people do you know who , went there is you have to do X to get Y, will do X+1? And how many do you know who would not do it. There is a reason why with stuff like table size, models counting as painted/unpainted people ask for minimums or if something is enough. Same way with army size, no one stops the over all population of w40k to play 2000pts games with less then 2000pts, but there aren't many people bringing 1500pts to such games.
When people are complaining that the board sizes are too small it's very relevant.
And I know plenty of people who do more than the bare minimum. And there are plenty of people in Poland like that, so enough with your crypto-racism against Poles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: But that is how the world works. The only people that play on 6x4 are those that had those tables before the change and who didn't want to update them, for what ever reason.
Or those of us who find that 30 x 44" is a very inconvenient size for gaming. I'd rather have something that makes a round number in feet or cm.
How many people do you know who , went there is you have to do X to get Y, will do X+1? And how many do you know who would not do it. There is a reason why with stuff like table size, models counting as painted/unpainted people ask for minimums or if something is enough. Same way with army size, no one stops the over all population of w40k to play 2000pts games with less then 2000pts, but there aren't many people bringing 1500pts to such games.
When people are complaining that the board sizes are too small it's very relevant.
And I know plenty of people who do more than the bare minimum. And there are plenty of people in Poland like that, so enough with your crypto-racism against Poles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: But that is how the world works. The only people that play on 6x4 are those that had those tables before the change and who didn't want to update them, for what ever reason.
Or those of us who find that 30 x 44" is a very inconvenient size for gaming. I'd rather have something that makes a round number in feet or cm.
That, and many other games also have suggested board sizes and it's very, very annoying if your board is too small. And, of course, GW can always change things up again and then you'll have people glueing 3/4 inch strips to their boards.
PenitentJake wrote: If you change the size of the board, you will have to change the numbers in the mission to work with the new sizes.
Uh no you don't...The missions are designed so that they work regardless.
Hell on tuesday I played 1k scenario with 2k board size.
Guess what? We didn't need to redesign distances. Because the mission doesn't actually care what size board you play with...
That's largely true, but a couple of the diagonal deployment types can be quite annoying to create with a 6x4 board.
On a related note, why does GW seem to love diagonal deployment so much? It's really annoying to set up and even more annoying with the number of secondaries that require you to get into or keep units out of deployment zones.
They say in the description for table sizes that they are the minimum recommended sizes and I think they really mean it.
They have those sizes as it pairs up with the boards they can put in their boxes but I personally feel having bigger boards makes the game alot better, movement and weapon ranges become more meaningful and its just a better experience.
If it’s a small scale battle on a large board? You may find you spend more time in silly knees bent running about business than actually kicking names and taking well let’s just leave that one there.
If it’s a large scale battle on a small board? You may simply find there’s literally no room to manoeuvre.
For your 54x54? Eff around and find out is the only way to figure out what’s gonna work.
But that is how the world works. The only people that play on 6x4 are those that had those tables before the change and who didn't want to update them, for what ever reason. Considering how fast w40k goes through its players, if the "minimal" table size is going to stay the same for one more edition, there are going to be many people playing that size of a table, aside for those that play 10+ years. It is like the games, from what I have been told, was about 1750 or 1500pts, and before that even smaller, specialy considering the army size model wise. Now the avarge game is 2000pts and the number of people who think of w40k with a mind set to play something else is the minority. Saying to others that this is just the minimal table size is like telling people to play narrative or open to "fix" their problems.
no, i got myself a table and bought a 6x4 playmat for it because its the smart dimension to take when youre playing multiple different game systems.
I'd go as far as saying that the recommended 30x44 table for 1k is unplayable because your just lined up covering the entire length with a normal amount of units.
For smaller games (<40PL or so), we sometimes split the table in half into two 4x3 tables.
My table is made from two 72"x30" commercial folding tables - so there ends up being nice 6" gutter for dice, books and reserves along the both long sides.
And no, it litterally is the MINIMUM recommended size, stop overthinking it. 40k isnt more or less broken because you have 4" more on your table.
Good luck playing the game of w40k on an infinity table, specialy when it is what we here call an "american" style table. And I have no idea you would fit even a 1750pts game on to a 3x3 or 2x2 table. As the 4" isn't important thing. For some armies, those with extrem movment, with flyers maybe it does not matter as much. For armies that don't really care about engaging the enemy or who don't have to do it to win. Maybe it is true to a degree too. But try playing something like LoV on a small and bigger table and after 10 games on each you will definitly see the difference. Especialy when the terrain is proper GW size with proper separation of no terrain between them. On small tables some armies can't run an optimal build and screen themselfs from something like demons for example. To me that counts very much as impacting the game. Now what ever it breaks it or not, mostly depends on the army someone plays.
And no, it litterally is the MINIMUM recommended size, stop overthinking it. 40k isnt more or less broken because you have 4" more on your table.
Good luck playing the game of w40k on an infinity table, specialy when it is what we here call an "american" style table. And I have no idea you would fit even a 1750pts game on to a 3x3 or 2x2 table. As the 4" isn't important thing. For some armies, those with extrem movment, with flyers maybe it does not matter as much. For armies that don't really care about engaging the enemy or who don't have to do it to win. Maybe it is true to a degree too. But try playing something like LoV on a small and bigger table and after 10 games on each you will definitly see the difference. Especialy when the terrain is proper GW size with proper separation of no terrain between them. On small tables some armies can't run an optimal build and screen themselfs from something like demons for example. To me that counts very much as impacting the game. Now what ever it breaks it or not, mostly depends on the army someone plays.
I think you misunderstand. They're not talking about playing 40k on a 2x2 or 3x3 table. They're pointing out that a 6x4 table/board allows them to play everything from 40k to Bushido, and all games in between. My own board at home is sliced into 3 2x4' sections, which allows for easy 4x4 or 3x3 spaces to be used.
And no, it litterally is the MINIMUM recommended size, stop overthinking it. 40k isnt more or less broken because you have 4" more on your table.
Good luck playing the game of w40k on an infinity table, specialy when it is what we here call an "american" style table.
Well, our Infinity table is the same table we use for anything else. Same 6'x4' table. We just use more/less of the table space depending upon wich game/how big of a game we're playing/etc...
None of us know what you mean by an "American" table. Is that somehow different than a "Polish" table?
As for playing 40k in the space generally used for Infinity? It can be done. You probably want to adjust the points/# of units used.
Karol wrote: And I have no idea you would fit even a 1750pts game on to a 3x3 or 2x2 table.
You use less pts/less units/smaller models to fit the space on at hand. You can also try using more expensive units, wich will often result in smaller forces.
Karol wrote: But try playing something like LoV on a small and bigger table and after 10 games on each you will definitly see the difference.
I agree. On small boards I'll bring one list & certain tactics. On larger boards my list will look different & I'll use different tactics.
Karol wrote: Especialy when the terrain is proper GW size with proper separation of no terrain between them.
Whatever the Hell that is. Most of us have terrain of all kinds in our collections - old GW stuff, new GW stuff, FW stuff, stuff from who knows how many companies, 3d printed stuff, scratch built....
Karol wrote: On small tables some armies can't run an optimal build and screen themselfs from something like demons for example. To me that counts very much as impacting the game. Now what ever it breaks it or not, mostly depends on the army someone plays.
Whatever army you play, on small (or large) tables you might want to bring different types of lists. What's optimal on one may not be the same on another size.
And no, it litterally is the MINIMUM recommended size, stop overthinking it. 40k isnt more or less broken because you have 4" more on your table.
Good luck playing the game of w40k on an infinity table, specialy when it is what we here call an "american" style table. And I have no idea you would fit even a 1750pts game on to a 3x3 or 2x2 table. As the 4" isn't important thing. For some armies, those with extrem movment, with flyers maybe it does not matter as much. For armies that don't really care about engaging the enemy or who don't have to do it to win. Maybe it is true to a degree too. But try playing something like LoV on a small and bigger table and after 10 games on each you will definitly see the difference. Especialy when the terrain is proper GW size with proper separation of no terrain between them. On small tables some armies can't run an optimal build and screen themselfs from something like demons for example. To me that counts very much as impacting the game. Now what ever it breaks it or not, mostly depends on the army someone plays.
Bro if an Infinity table has too much terrain on it for 40k just take some off wtf is wrong with you.
Well, our Infinity table is the same table we use for anything else. Same 6'x4' table. We just use more/less of the table space depending upon wich game/how big of a game we're playing/etc...
None of us know what you mean by an "American" table. Is that somehow different than a "Polish" table?
As for playing 40k in the space generally used for Infinity? It can be done. You probably want to adjust the points/# of units used.
I still play N2 core rules for infinity (the best they ever made IMHO) back when the game was made for 4X6 tables, and it works just fine.... terrain setup just takes a bit longer.
This is what some of our N2 tables looked like
for space requirements we also do 4X4s like so.
When it comes to 40K, sure if you are playing 9th and everything happens in the center of the table you probably do not care about the rest of the table. if you play any other version of 40K where tactical movement, disparate objectives and the like are more important squeezing a 2K army onto a smaller table doesn't make much sense.
Almost every game i play is on either a 4X6 or a 4X8 including BFG, classic battletech (3d terrain rules), B5 wars rules, DUST 1947, 40K etc... about the only thing dedicated to a 4X4 is warmachine since it is designed specifically for a 4X4 table.
I have two 2x4' foldable tables which allow me to set up 2x4, 4x4 or 6x4 (requires a 6x4' base board on top of the two corner tables). I tend to use all three table sizes depending on the game. No icky game mats in my games, all RoB tiles, baby!
Don't sweat the minimun size cap in 40K, the game plays better on bigger boards. 2x4' is good for Kill Team though, KT21 doesn't play well on larger boards due to having typically only 4 "turns" and some units being slow as all heck
(cough poxwalkers cough).
Regardless of table size, amt of terrain should always feel appropriate for the mission.
Good luck playing the game of w40k on an infinity table, specialy when it is what we here call an "american" style table. And I have no idea you would fit even a 1750pts game on to a 3x3 or 2x2 table.
you have to be trolling.....
i play all of these on my 6x4 mat, but i can resize the battlefield between them
6' x 5' pretty much all the time. The local store I play at has 6' x 4' or 8' x 4', and the lack of deployment zone depth is highly noticeable and detrimental to the game.
Blndmage wrote: I don't have the space for a huge board, so I find the smaller end of the scale. The current board sizes work great for small apartment 40k players.
And there's a significant enough difference between 44"x60" vs 48"x72" or 44"x30" vs 48"x48" to make them "better"?
Blndmage wrote: I don't have the space for a huge board, so I find the smaller end of the scale. The current board sizes work great for small apartment 40k players.
And there's a significant enough difference between 44"x60" vs 48"x72" or 44"x30" vs 48"x48" to make them "better"?
Simply preference, and if the Points vs. Power Level thread was any indication it might be in your best interest to not go there...
I can't help it, I'm afraid. I cannot wrap my brain about the concept because there's simply no logic behind it.
To me, saying that the slightly smaller table size is "better" would be like someone giving you a slightly smaller can of Coke, but it's a different shape than normal, and you claim it somehow tastes better.
My main table is 56" x 80", simply because that's the size of two bedroom closet doors glued together I had at a previous residence. Now I have that and a 6' x 4' table in my basement for hosting tournaments but everyone refers to it as the 'small' table. I guess it's what you're used to.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I can't help it, I'm afraid. I cannot wrap my brain about the concept because there's simply no logic behind it.
To me, saying that the slightly smaller table size is "better" would be like someone giving you a slightly smaller can of Coke, but it's a different shape than normal, and you claim it somehow tastes better.
I think you need to detach the idea of it being better so much as more convenient. 40K never had an "official" 48x48 rules for example, so people like me in my current situation where I moved house & can manage a 30 x 44 on my dining table comfortably, which is rules supported but I wouldn't manage 48 x 48 without extras.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I can't help it, I'm afraid. I cannot wrap my brain about the concept because there's simply no logic behind it.
To me, saying that the slightly smaller table size is "better" would be like someone giving you a slightly smaller can of Coke, but it's a different shape than normal, and you claim it somehow tastes better.
I'm in the same boat generally, except where certain small skirmish games are concerned. For a game of old-school necromunda, make the table smaller and cram as much terrain in as possible....
Blndmage wrote: I don't have the space for a huge board, so I find the smaller end of the scale. The current board sizes work great for small apartment 40k players.
And there's a significant enough difference between 44"x60" vs 48"x72" or 44"x30" vs 48"x48" to make them "better"?
Sometimes? I mean, I'd LIKE a 4x8 table at home. But given the size of the room, other furnishings, & the fact that some of us have gotten fat? I had to settle for a 4x5 table. :(
H.B.M.C. wrote: There's a marked difference in size between a 4x5 and a 4x8 table compared to 44"x30" vs 48"x48" though.
Yes you can now play a mission designed to fit on a 4x5 and you couldn't previously. This is the difference, people would widely be happy on a 6x4, I would and I am when playing elsewhere, but spacial requirements mean the smaller tables made home gaming more accessible for some people. It's not that the game or table is better if smaller, it's just less of a hassle getting the game in.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well I was talking to someone who said it was "better", so really why are you coming back at me when we don't disagree?
Well BIndmage didn't say better, just that it works well for them so I was trying to higlight that. Also just because we don't disagree it doesn't mean there aren't extra viewpoints or thoughts that can be shared.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well I was talking to someone who said it was "better", so really why are you coming back at me when we don't disagree?
Well BIndmage didn't say better, just that it works well for them so I was trying to higlight that. Also just because we don't disagree it doesn't mean there aren't extra viewpoints or thoughts that can be shared.
Exactly.
I ever said "better", that's all coming from the reader.
I prefer the smaller size, as I have very limited space and the difference between 48"*48" and 30"*44" is huge.
It means my games have a limited size, but that's ok. I'd rather play small games instead of none.
So a standard sheet of Plywood or OTC is 8x4. That and two Saw horses is a regulation 2k table, and costs roughly 25-50$ at any decent constuction store. throw in 2 2x4x8s, and you can make borders for your tables. Those cost between 2-4 bucks. Free if you get em warped or tossed. It's not like it's hard to make a table to play standard 40k on. IT's actually cheaper than a set of models and a codex. And it was actually the first thing I made when I got into the hobby!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a standard sheet of Plywood or OTC is 8x4. That and two Saw horses is a regulation 2k table, and costs roughly 25-50$ at any decent constuction store. throw in 2 2x4x8s, and you can make borders for your tables. Those cost between 2-4 bucks. Free if you get em warped or tossed. It's not like it's hard to make a table to play standard 40k on. IT's actually cheaper than a set of models and a codex. And it was actually the first thing I made when I got into the hobby!
Lucky you have the space and ability (physically, monetarily, access to a vehicle, etc) to do so.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a standard sheet of Plywood or OTC is 8x4. That and two Saw horses is a regulation 2k table, and costs roughly 25-50$ at any decent constuction store. throw in 2 2x4x8s, and you can make borders for your tables. Those cost between 2-4 bucks. Free if you get em warped or tossed. It's not like it's hard to make a table to play standard 40k on. IT's actually cheaper than a set of models and a codex. And it was actually the first thing I made when I got into the hobby!
Lucky you have the space and ability (physically, monetarily, access to a vehicle, etc) to do so.
If you can't afford that you can't afford 40k. Also, you can get 2 quarter sheets of plywood cut at any hardware store, there's your 4 x 4.
I have a lot of 4'x6' tables with mats the same size. Good for all kinds of games. If we are playing Matched play 40k i run 2" black painters tape down the long sides of the mat and drop a 1'x4' hazard striped mat on the end for a side board.
Works good for matched play and I can strip it off whatever 4'x6' game anyone wants to play.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a standard sheet of Plywood or OTC is 8x4. That and two Saw horses is a regulation 2k table, and costs roughly 25-50$ at any decent constuction store. throw in 2 2x4x8s, and you can make borders for your tables. Those cost between 2-4 bucks. Free if you get em warped or tossed. It's not like it's hard to make a table to play standard 40k on. IT's actually cheaper than a set of models and a codex. And it was actually the first thing I made when I got into the hobby!
Lucky you have the space and ability (physically, monetarily, access to a vehicle, etc) to do so.
If you can't afford that you can't afford 40k. Also, you can get 2 quarter sheets of plywood cut at any hardware store, there's your 4 x 4.
You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
Why not be a gatekeeper? Playing "40k" with no real models and no terrain isn't really playing 40k, not when 90% of the value of the game is the spectacle of fully painted armies on nice terrain.
(And yes, third-party models can be real models. But decent third-party models are going to cost way more than $100.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Simply preference, and if the Points vs. Power Level thread was any indication it might be in your best interest to not go there...
"Simply preference" isn't really an answer to anything, it's a way to avoid discussion. Unless you're willing to discuss why it's a preference and whether or not those reasons are valid saying "just because" adds nothing to the conversation. And in this case there's no reason why the "preferences" of a handful of people should dictate table sizes for the rest of the game, especially when those table sizes are bad for game design and nothing more than an arbitrary number that happens to fit within the standard cardboard box size GW uses.
(Which, since you mention it, is a lot like points vs. PL: the PL side has no defense for the system beyond "because I said so" but insists that it's sufficient reason for GW to keep PL.)
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
Why not be a gatekeeper? Playing "40k" with no real models and no terrain isn't really playing 40k, not when 90% of the value of the game is the spectacle of fully painted armies on nice terrain.
(And yes, third-party models can be real models. But decent third-party models are going to cost way more than $100.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Simply preference, and if the Points vs. Power Level thread was any indication it might be in your best interest to not go there...
"Simply preference" isn't really an answer to anything, it's a way to avoid discussion. Unless you're willing to discuss why it's a preference and whether or not those reasons are valid saying "just because" adds nothing to the conversation. And in this case there's no reason why the "preferences" of a handful of people should dictate table sizes for the rest of the game, especially when those table sizes are bad for game design and nothing more than an arbitrary number that happens to fit within the standard cardboard box size GW uses.
(Which, since you mention it, is a lot like points vs. PL: the PL side has no defense for the system beyond "because I said so" but insists that it's sufficient reason for GW to keep PL.)
The spectacle is 90% of the game to you. Not to everyone.
I’m happy to let people play how they like-whether that’s with fully painted minis on a perfect table, or using coke cans and quarters on boxes and books, it doesn’t matter to me.
For me personally, I don’t get people who only value the spectacle. But I can respect them, and understand that they’d not want to play with my half-painted at best army. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to respect how others play the game-you don’t have to join them, but don’t crap on them.
Then what else is there? The rules that are a litany of incredibly bad game design decisions, to the point that you could write a game design 101 textbook by sticking a "don't do this" label on the cover of the 9th edition rules? The cunning strategic battle of "who bought a more powerful army"? The fluff, which is completely undermined by playing with dollar store army men and piles of trash for terrain?
The reality is that if 40k was a game of cardboard tokens on a hex grid hardly anyone would have played it and GW would have gone out of business decades ago.
Then what else is there? The rules that are a litany of incredibly bad game design decisions, to the point that you could write a game design 101 textbook by sticking a "don't do this" label on the cover of the 9th edition rules? The cunning strategic battle of "who bought a more powerful army"? The fluff, which is completely undermined by playing with dollar store army men and piles of trash for terrain?
The reality is that if 40k was a game of cardboard tokens on a hex grid hardly anyone would have played it and GW would have gone out of business decades ago.
40k is a hot mess, but it still plays. If you can't turn down the competitive mindset enough to have a fun game with friends, or you lack the system knowledge to make a relatively well-balanced list compared to your friends, then yeah, it's gonna suck. But if you can and do, you still get fun games-not necessarily nail biters, but games that can go either way.
The fluff is not undermined by not using proper models. That's a completely nonsensical statement.
Aecus, why does other people playing the game "wrong" matter so much to you? You're not playing with them. You don't seem to even like 40k, so any negative impact on the game itself seems moot.
JNAProductions wrote: 40k is a hot mess, but it still plays. If you can't turn down the competitive mindset enough to have a fun game with friends, or you lack the system knowledge to make a relatively well-balanced list compared to your friends, then yeah, it's gonna suck. But if you can and do, you still get fun games-not necessarily nail biters, but games that can go either way.
It's not just about balance. Playing less competitively doesn't do anything about the obscene rules bloat, IGOUGO, scale/scope contradictions, shallow strategy, over-reliance on off-table buff cards, etc. Even a perfectly balanced version of 9th edition 40k would be a miserable slog that is only worth it because of the models.
The fluff is not undermined by not using proper models. That's a completely nonsensical statement.
Oh really? You see no difference between playing a game with a fully painted Ultramarines army, using all of the correct (and lore-appropriate!) models with canon paint schemes, and playing the same game with a bunch of dollar store army men?
Aecus, why does other people playing the game "wrong" matter so much to you? You're not playing with them. You don't seem to even like 40k, so any negative impact on the game itself seems moot.
People can do whatever they want. But the claim was made that you can play 40k for $100 and the reality is that you can't. You can only play a miserable pseudo-game with dollar store army men and piles of trash.
and there it is, the post where we inevitably go off topic and start gatekeeping. Oh and might as well start the old "painting is the most important thing ever" debate
Aecus Decimus wrote: But the claim was made that you can play 40k for $100 and the reality is that you can't. You can only play a miserable pseudo-game with dollar store army men and piles of trash.
My buddies 3d printer + Battlescribe/Whahapedia says you don't know what your talking about.
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.
The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.
Blndmage wrote: The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.
Blndmage wrote: The Recruit box is $60.
Thats literally all you need to start playing.
No carpentry needed.
You can play on the bed using the board in the box and the terrain.
It's getting closer, but at only ~300 points not really. There are still too few units on the table to have meaningful decision trees and you don't have the complete rules (chapter rules, stratagems, etc). But since that box is $185 (and doesn't include paint or modeling supplies) now you're way past the original claim of being able to play for under $100.
Can you define what "a real 40k game" is?
An absolute minimum of 500 points, preferably 1000-2000 points. Below that you don't have enough decision tree depth for it to be a real game, it's just a rock/paper/scissors game of "can my unit roll enough 4s or better before you roll enough 3s or better" where everyone knows exactly what both sides are going to do with their 1-2 units and all you can do is roll dice to see who wins the scripted event. To use your recruit box example: the assault marines need to charge to win (and probably will if they succeed) and can do little else, the necrons need to shoot and stay out of combat to win and can do little else. The marines will move directly towards the necrons as fast as possible, the necrons will move away as fast as possible while shooting. If the necrons have dice luck on their side early in the pseudo-game they win, if they don't they lose. At no point will any meaningful decisions be made by either player and you don't really even need to bother putting models on the table to "play". Just have each side roll an equal number of D6s and award the win to the player who rolls the most 6s.
I'd probably rather play a skirmish style game, like Kill Team or Infinity, with so few models, but 40k does support it. No reason to say that it's not a real game of 40k. It's not to your taste, but not everything need be.
Have you tried 8th ed style Kill Team before, Blind Mage? I thought it was pretty fun. 100 points each. Has some fun narrative rules for your models, like leveling them up.
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.
I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.
But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.
Dudeface wrote: But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.
Making a slightly smaller table with a 5.8x4.8 sheet of plywood is any different? It's not like the material changes just because you make your table fit GW's standard cardboard box size instead of the 6x4 that everyone else uses, a minimum-size 9th edition table made as cheaply as possible is going to look just as scruffy as a 6x4.
Dudeface wrote: But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.
Making a slightly smaller table with a 5.8x4.8 sheet of plywood is any different? It's not like the material changes just because you make your table fit GW's standard cardboard box size instead of the 6x4 that everyone else uses, a minimum-size 9th edition table made as cheaply as possible is going to look just as scruffy as a 6x4.
Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.
I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.
What if you don't have the space for that?
And why do you want to keep people away from the hobby?
So before this turns into the poors v the Lobster and cake eating crown wearing super rich, I just want to say I started off this hobby in 7th with poker chips (Which are actually the same size as Astartes bases) and Jello shot cups. On a plastic folding table. We had a literal furby as a Daemon prince. We wrote the name of the units on the poker chips. We made do with what we had. We played outside on a double bed sheet as a table, with magic marker terrain and buildings.
And if all you are going to do is keep shifting the goal posts ("Nice that you have the room for that") then I will just reply that you can always find reasons why you CAN'T do something. Instead, why not find a way you CAN do something?
We still use a lot of paper craft terrain as well, need something specific.
Sometimes it’s just faster to throw something up out of a cardboard box for that special mission.
Infinity also, all white terrain but interesting shapes and huge buildings !
Nothing fancy but can look and play great.
For the table size itself, I think a lot is how GW use it and change it.
With the reach and ranges on so many units high, it can make the boards feel very small.
But smaller boards can be really great if both players are dropping down both the scale of the game, and the units available.
How is 40K supposed to be played? That´s actually a pretty easy question. Look at the first WD battle reports of 2nd from the 90s:
- Proper terrain on a gaming board
- Meaningful objectives
- Two fully painted armies with several units on each side
How did I start to play it? On the carpet floor with books covered with cloth, glass mineral water bottles and roughly shaped paper cutouts painted green to resemble forest terrain. It´s nothing to be ashamed of but sincerely you should improve from that state or otherwise the hobby will suck.
Strg Alt wrote: How is 40K supposed to be played? That´s actually a pretty easy question. Look at the first WD battle reports of 2nd from the 90s:
- Proper terrain on a gaming board
- Meaningful objectives
- Two fully painted armies with several units on each side
How did I start to play it? On the carpet floor with books covered with cloth, glass mineral water bottles and roughly shaped paper cutouts painted green to resemble forest terrain. It´s nothing to be ashamed of but sincerely you should improve from that state or otherwise the hobby will suck.
It really did make my first fully completed (assembled and painted) minis extra special for me. Unfortunately I played Guard, so that meant there were still about 40-50 models left after those 10.
But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.
I keep mine in my laundry room. You can keep yours in your closet, whatever. There are functionally no situations where you can store 40k models but not quarter sheets of plywood.
Dudeface wrote: Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.
Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.
It's getting closer, but at only ~300 points not really. There are still too few units on the table to have meaningful decision trees and you don't have the complete rules (chapter rules, stratagems, etc). But since that box is $185 (and doesn't include paint or modeling supplies) now you're way past the original claim of being able to play for under $100.
Can you define what "a real 40k game" is?
An absolute minimum of 500 points, preferably 1000-2000 points. Below that you don't have enough decision tree depth for it to be a real game, it's just a rock/paper/scissors game of "can my unit roll enough 4s or better before you roll enough 3s or better" where everyone knows exactly what both sides are going to do with their 1-2 units and all you can do is roll dice to see who wins the scripted event. To use your recruit box example: the assault marines need to charge to win (and probably will if they succeed) and can do little else, the necrons need to shoot and stay out of combat to win and can do little else. The marines will move directly towards the necrons as fast as possible, the necrons will move away as fast as possible while shooting. If the necrons have dice luck on their side early in the pseudo-game they win, if they don't they lose. At no point will any meaningful decisions be made by either player and you don't really even need to bother putting models on the table to "play". Just have each side roll an equal number of D6s and award the win to the player who rolls the most 6s.
Re the command box being ~$170 and out of your $100 limit:
It's not just the models (for 2 armies), but terrain, dice and a board. But as it's for 2 players, that's only $85 each. Solidly within your $100 cap.
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?
Please don't make straw man arguments. If someone is so poor that they can't afford enough space to store a couple sheets of plywood then they can't afford 40k at all. Whether or not they deserve to have fun is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Re the command box being ~$170 and out of your $100 limit:
It's not just the models (for 2 armies), but terrain, dice and a board. But as it's for 2 players, that's only $85 each. Solidly within your $100 cap.
That's kind of dishonest and you know it. You're only within the $100 limit if you find someone else to split the box with you and share all of the dice/rulebooks/etc, it's not an option that is generally available to anyone who wants to buy it. And it's still well short of being able to play a real game.
Dudeface wrote: Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.
Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.
It's not just "trimming a few inches", are you really that unwilling to listen?
Blndmage wrote: The difference, especially when dealing with very limited space, is massive.
Not really, because the total square footage of floor space used isn't changing. If you lean the board against the wall then how tall it is doesn't matter, the only difference is needing a 30" length of wall vs. a 48" length of wall. And I doubt a meaningful number of players are in the very precise situation where they have 30" of wall space to lean a board against but not 48". So please don't dishonestly pretend that you need to lay the board out flat on the floor at all times and take up the maximum amount of space.
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?
Please don't make straw man arguments. If someone is so poor that they can't afford enough space to store a couple sheets of plywood then they can't afford 40k at all. Whether or not they deserve to have fun is irrelevant
Are you freaking kidding me?
Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?
You can play 40k at sub 25PL, that's literally what the rules for game size mean. It's still a real game.
Dudeface wrote: Because 2k points on 60x44 isn't the only way to play, so maybe a 30x44 piece is more tolerable to some people.
Please don't move the goalposts. Your original comment was that someone might not want a cheap plywood table because it looks scruffy, now you're trying to make it about playing smaller games in general. And the reality is that people played smaller games on smaller tables before 9th edition without any issues. If a 48x48 table for a 1000 point game is too large or otherwise unacceptable then I don't see how trimming a few inches off the sides to make it fit into GW's standard cardboard boxes magically makes it work.
When did I move the goalpost? We're being told repeatedly buy a sheet of wood for a full size 2k game or bigger, else you're a pleb that should get out.
As a good example, "trimming a few inches off" let's me play on my kitchen table without need of a sheet of wood. 48x48 would facilitate me keeping a 4ft square of wood somewhere In the house, which gets in the way and inevitably warps of left leaning/upright.
£100 is probably enough to get into the 40k-iverse and definitely some games within the 40k stable*, but it's probably not enough to get into the mass battle game at a large enough scale that is typically envisioned as what '40k' is but perfectly serviceable for smaller games but imo £150 to £200 is probably more realistic for ^bigger^ games.
Whether the mass battle game at 2000pts is the 'proper' way of playing is absolutely up for debate. Personally I think is as proper a way of playing as any other, but its not the only way - smaller games are perfectly fine and perfectly serviceable. Imo sometimes better.
*£100 will get you more than sorted to dive into kill-team, which is a great wee game.
*£100 will get you more than sorted to dive into necromunda, which is a fantastic wee game.
I think it helps enormously if you can get a 6 x 4 board, or 4 3 x2 boards or whatever. Its not gonna cost you an arm or a leg. Whether it's foam based, plywood, proper wood etc, Heck even plastic. There are cheaper but still effective alternatives. Back in uni we used 6 x 4 felt matts we got from a fabric store. They worked perfectly well.
A little bit of pragmatism and ingenuity goes a long way with regard to storing it but it ain't hard - lets face it. I've stored boards under my bed, between the wall and a closet or even on top of a closet. Also most gaming clubs I've gone to had club boards and terrain that were safely stored by them.
Anything else is splitting hairs and trying to score internet points.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?
We used to bring all our warmachine stuff and a 5x4 plywood board down to the local pub on foot, set up on a table outside in the beer garden and play our games with a few beers, then pack up and go home.
I've lifted far heavier and far more awkward things (my greyhound for example) far longer distances than I've ever had to do with a few thin sheets of plywood. Worst case scenario - split the load. It takes two to play, get your partner to help lug.
Blndmage wrote: Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?
This magically works fine when the sheets are a few inches shorter? But doesn't allow you to cut a 6x4 table into multiple smaller sheets for transport purposes?
(And let's not forget that GW didn't care about people like you when they made the changes. This was purely about making everything fit within their standard cardboard box size so they could save a bit of money on shipping and packaging costs.)
You can play 40k at sub 25PL, that's literally what the rules for game size mean. It's still a real game.
I have already explained why it is not a real game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: When did I move the goalpost? We're being told repeatedly buy a sheet of wood for a full size 2k game or bigger, else you're a pleb that should get out.
As a good example, "trimming a few inches off" let's me play on my kitchen table without need of a sheet of wood. 48x48 would facilitate me keeping a 4ft square of wood somewhere In the house, which gets in the way and inevitably warps of left leaning/upright.
You moved the goalpost when you started off by complaining about a cheap plywood table looking "scruffy", but then changed your argument to the virtues of smaller game sizes when I pointed out that a minimum size 9th edition table made out of cheap plywood isn't going to look any less "scruffy" just because it's a few inches shorter.
Blndmage wrote: Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?
This magically works fine when the sheets are a few inches shorter? But doesn't allow you to cut a 6x4 table into multiple smaller sheets for transport purposes?
(And let's not forget that GW didn't care about people like you when they made the changes. This was purely about making everything fit within their standard cardboard box size so they could save a bit of money on shipping and packaging costs.)
You can play 40k at sub 25PL, that's literally what the rules for game size mean. It's still a real game.
I have already explained why it is not a real game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: When did I move the goalpost? We're being told repeatedly buy a sheet of wood for a full size 2k game or bigger, else you're a pleb that should get out.
As a good example, "trimming a few inches off" let's me play on my kitchen table without need of a sheet of wood. 48x48 would facilitate me keeping a 4ft square of wood somewhere In the house, which gets in the way and inevitably warps of left leaning/upright.
You moved the goalpost when you started off by complaining about a cheap plywood table looking "scruffy", but then changed your argument to the virtues of smaller game sizes when I pointed out that a minimum size 9th edition table made out of cheap plywood isn't going to look any less "scruffy" just because it's a few inches shorter.
Wow, way to gatekeep the hobby.
If it's not played your way, it's not a real game?
Combat Patrol games (*up to* 25PL) are a perfectly valid way to play the game, there are missions and everything!
Dudeface wrote: When did I move the goalpost? We're being told repeatedly buy a sheet of wood for a full size 2k game or bigger, else you're a pleb that should get out.
As a good example, "trimming a few inches off" let's me play on my kitchen table without need of a sheet of wood. 48x48 would facilitate me keeping a 4ft square of wood somewhere In the house, which gets in the way and inevitably warps of left leaning/upright.
You moved the goalpost when you started off by complaining about a cheap plywood table looking "scruffy", but then changed your argument to the virtues of smaller game sizes when I pointed out that a minimum size 9th edition table made out of cheap plywood isn't going to look any less "scruffy" just because it's a few inches shorter.
Keep up with your own narrative here:
I said people don't want a 8 or 6x4 sheet lying around, which was the initial suggestion, because it takes a lot of space and looks scruffy resting on a wall. You responded with:
Blndmage wrote: Wow, way to gatekeep the hobby.
If it's not played your way, it's not a real game?
There are lots of valid ways to play the game that I don't enjoy. For example, tournament 40k is clearly a real game even though I have zero interest in it myself. But a game with 1-2 units per player isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. There just aren't enough pieces on the board for the decision trees to be non-trivial or for player agency to matter.
But fortunately there's a solution as long as you aren't caught up in Cult of Officialness nonsense about needing to play Official GW-Approved 40k: Kill Team is an excellent game that works well with the equivalent of a single 40k unit. By breaking up one unit into 5-15 units you get enough pieces on the board for it to be a real game with real decisions.
Combat Patrol games (*up to* 25PL) are a perfectly valid way to play the game, there are missions and everything!
Combat patrol is 500 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I said people don't want a 8 or 6x4 sheet lying around, which was the initial suggestion, because it takes a lot of space and looks scruffy resting on a wall.
And the point is that a slightly smaller than 6x4 sheet of plywood looks just as scruffy. The fact that you can play 500-1000 point games instead of 2000 point games is completely irrelevant when the subject is how 9th edition trimmed a few inches off the table sizes to fit GW's official boards into GW's standard cardboard box for packaging and shipping efficiency. If an 8th edition board for a given game size is "scruffy" then the 9th edition board will have the exact same problem.
Blndmage wrote: Wow, way to gatekeep the hobby.
If it's not played your way, it's not a real game?
There are lots of valid ways to play the game that I don't enjoy. For example, tournament 40k is clearly a real game even though I have zero interest in it myself. But a game with 1-2 units per player isn't, for the reasons I've already explained. There just aren't enough pieces on the board for the decision trees to be non-trivial or for player agency to matter.
But fortunately there's a solution as long as you aren't caught up in Cult of Officialness nonsense about needing to play Official GW-Approved 40k: Kill Team is an excellent game that works well with the equivalent of a single 40k unit. By breaking up one unit into 5-15 units you get enough pieces on the board for it to be a real game with real decisions.
Combat Patrol games (*up to* 25PL) are a perfectly valid way to play the game, there are missions and everything!
Combat patrol is 500 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I said people don't want a 8 or 6x4 sheet lying around, which was the initial suggestion, because it takes a lot of space and looks scruffy resting on a wall.
And the point is that a slightly smaller than 6x4 sheet of plywood looks just as scruffy. The fact that you can play 500-1000 point games instead of 2000 point games is completely irrelevant when the subject is how 9th edition trimmed a few inches off the table sizes to fit GW's official boards into GW's standard cardboard box for packaging and shipping efficiency. If an 8th edition board for a given game size is "scruffy" then the 9th edition board will have the exact same problem.
Stop being a stubborn dick.
Combat Patrol games are either 0-25PL, or 0-500 points, played on a 30"*44" board (minimum, but recommended).
Read the book!
It's presented as just a valid way to play the game as Strike Force game.
There's also a *really* strong undercurrent here of able-bodied people running down how hard it can be for other folks to do that transportation and setup that they take for granted, as well as the impact that can have even if its attainable.
Catulle wrote: There's also a *really* strong undercurrent here of able-bodied people running down how hard it can be for other folks to do that transportation and setup that they take for granted, as well as the impact that can have even if its attainable.
Like, try having a little empathy?
Thank you!
I barely have the energy to setup and play a few rounds of Micro 40k once a week. A "proper" Combat Patrol game, is literally the only thing I can manage that day, and can take a day to recover from!
Oh jesus. Put it back in the deck. I'm a two time cancer survivor with 80% disability from two wars. I don't come onto forums and complain about the game being too difficult to play. I make the game less difficult to play. Stop acting like we all have to cater to your victim mentality simply because we are willing to put in the effort and time to achieve success in something.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Oh jesus. Put it back in the deck. I'm a two time cancer survivor with 80% disability from two wars. I don't come onto forums and complain about the game being too difficult to play. I make the game less difficult to play. Stop acting like we all have to cater to your victim mentality simply because we are willing to put in the effort and time to achieve success in something.
I have blood cancer, a type that you don't survive, because your bone marrow is burned out. I'm already at 20/24yrs predicted, an was originally given 20. So feth me if I'm asking that playing the game, as presented in the book be recognized as a valid way to play.
All I'm saying, is that, as I started within the conversation, I really like the smaller 30"*44" board for Combat Patrol games. I don't see why I need to keep justifying why I prefer that board or game size. Discussing the merits and flaws is one thing, that not what has been happening here.
I am truly sorry to know you have that type of cancer. But if you choose to spend your time on forums arguing with strangers about how to play with plastic dolls, instead of making the most of your life, consider me impressed. When I got the second diagnosis I went back to school. I made things, planted trees. Wrote letters. If this brings you happiness then whatever the F you want to play on is fine. Just play. Stop arguing about what is and is not ok, and just do it.
As others have said, it's hard to fit more than 1000 points of models on a 2x2 board, without it all becomming a scrum on turn 2. 500 per player that is.
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?
Please don't make straw man arguments. If someone is so poor that they can't afford enough space to store a couple sheets of plywood then they can't afford 40k at all. Whether or not they deserve to have fun is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Re the command box being ~$170 and out of your $100 limit:
It's not just the models (for 2 armies), but terrain, dice and a board. But as it's for 2 players, that's only $85 each. Solidly within your $100 cap.
That's kind of dishonest and you know it. You're only within the $100 limit if you find someone else to split the box with you and share all of the dice/rulebooks/etc, it's not an option that is generally available to anyone who wants to buy it. And it's still well short of being able to play a real game.
You can’t play 40k with the official models, with official terrain, on a small budget.
You can still play it-the rules aren’t free legally, but they’re affordable to lots more people than the rules and the models.
You might not consider playing 40k with Coke cans and green army men as models and books and boxes as terrain worth playing. But other people can and do.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Oh jesus. Put it back in the deck. I'm a two time cancer survivor with 80% disability from two wars. I don't come onto forums and complain about the game being too difficult to play. I make the game less difficult to play. Stop acting like we all have to cater to your victim mentality simply because we are willing to put in the effort and time to achieve success in something.
The point was, there is a legitimately craptacular assertion in this thread that the more accessible versions of the game are, in some way "not real" despite all printed (and played) evidence to the contrary. That's not playing a card to point out how poor that form of behaviour/argument is.
It's okay to have preferences. It's douchey in the extreme to address an argument that isn't being made (c.f. "complain(ing) about the game being too difficult to play" or the possession of a "victim mentality," neither of which were actually asserted) when the reactionary position being advanced upthread is that its somehow illegitimate to play PL, or, Lord help us, find the smaller *minimum* board sizes more convenient. Like it makes the faintest of differences to anybody not involved. It's frankly pathetic, divisive for the sake of it, and achieves less than nothing for the hobby at large.
Blndmage wrote: Combat Patrol games are either 0-25PL, or 0-500 points, played on a 30"*44" board (minimum, but recommended).
Read the book!
It's presented as just a valid way to play the game as Strike Force game.
And 500 points is the minimum to have an actual game. No matter how many times you try to insist that a 100 point pseudo-game with one unit on each side is technically by strictest RAW Official GW Approved 40k it's not a real game because there aren't enough units on the table to have meaningful decision trees or player agency. "Micro 40k" or whatever you're calling it these days is not a thing for anyone but you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Catulle wrote: There's also a *really* strong undercurrent here of able-bodied people running down how hard it can be for other folks to do that transportation and setup that they take for granted, as well as the impact that can have even if its attainable.
Like, try having a little empathy?
Sorry, could you clarify what exactly about having a disability requires you to play a 100 point pseudo-game instead of a real game of Kill Team? It's unfortunate if some people can't play 40k for various reasons but that doesn't change what 40k is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: I don't see why I need to keep justifying why I prefer that board or game size.
You don't. You can leave this argument and stop posting at any time, nobody is forcing you to continue defending your opinions or even continue reading this thread. What you can't have is unquestioning validation of your opinions and agreement that your games are Official Warhammer 40k Games.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I am truly sorry to know you have that type of cancer. But if you choose to spend your time on forums arguing with strangers about how to play with plastic dolls, instead of making the most of your life, consider me impressed. When I got the second diagnosis I went back to school. I made things, planted trees. Wrote letters. If this brings you happiness then whatever the F you want to play on is fine. Just play. Stop arguing about what is and is not ok, and just do it.
As others have said, it's hard to fit more than 1000 points of models on a 2x2 board, without it all becomming a scrum on turn 2. 500 per player that is.
I'd love to be able to do those things too but I'm in constant pain and can't get the the bathroom without passing out. Forums generally require small bits of writing, as opposed to my RPG I've been working on for a decade, which requires focus and energy.
I agree that Incursion games can be crowded on the board, but it depends on the armies. Custodes incursion games would feel far less cramped than a Necron Silver Tide list, or (I can't image a mirror) horde nids.
I think Incursion games are a different meta than Combat Patrol, with the board size vs army size being a key factor in how each meta functions.
Catulle wrote: The point was, there is a legitimately craptacular assertion in this thread that the more accessible versions of the game are, in some way "not real" despite all printed (and played) evidence to the contrary.
It has nothing to do with accessibility. It's about the number of units on the table, and the reality is that for a game to be a game and not just an exercise in rolling dice to see who rolls more 6s you need to have meaningful decision trees where player agency matters. 40k can't do that with only 1-2 units on the table because the correct choice for each player is obvious at all times, there is never any reason to deviate from the script, and all you can do is roll dice to see which player has better dice luck and wins. There's no meaningful difference between a pseudo-game with 1-2 units per side and a game of "each player rolls 50 dice and the player who gets the most 6s wins".
And I'll once again remind you that small boards have nothing to do with accessibility. The sole reason GW changed the table size was that a 30x22 board is what fits in the standard cardboard box they use, and by changing the table size they were able to eliminate the need for a separate box size as used by the old 24x24 tiles and save some money on shipping and packaging. If you want genuine accessibility then you should play and encourage Kill Team, which is a real game with a modest price and small table sizes.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sorry, could you clarify what exactly about having a disability requires you to play a 100 point pseudo-game instead of a real game of Kill Team?
No. Your argument is based in a kind of ignorance that would be entirely too boring to engage with further. You've already abandoned the rulebook, so there really is no point.
Catulle wrote: No. Your argument is based in a kind of ignorance that would be entirely too boring to engage with further. You've already abandoned the rulebook, so there really is no point.
"I'm so smart and infallible I don't have to defend myself lol".
I guess if that's what you need to feel like you won?
Catulle wrote: No. Your argument is based in a kind of ignorance that would be entirely too boring to engage with further. You've already abandoned the rulebook, so there really is no point.
"I'm so smart and infallible I don't have to defend myself lol".
I guess if that's what you need to feel like you won?
What are you actually hoping to achieve here?
If you personally don't think that a particular way of playing the game is worthwhile, that's fine... don't play that way. But don't gak in other peoples' pools by insisting it's not a valid way to play the game. That's not up to you anywhere other than at your own table.
JNAProductions wrote: Hecaton, do you think that people in poverty don’t deserve to enjoy a fun hobby?
I never said that. So try again, kid.
So why imply it?
Seriously-I get that the game is better with cool models and proper terrain, but what’s actually wrong with playing cheaply? You’re being a gatekeeper. Why?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Have you ever tried moving "a couple sheets of plywood" on the bus, into old ass elevators and then into an apartment that has no space to actually lay the board down?
You can play 40k at sub 25PL, that's literally what the rules for game size mean. It's still a real game.
You use the board as a table topper.
It's not the weirdest thing on the bus. Or get one of your friends with a car to help you out, the same way you would anything else big.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: We used to bring all our warmachine stuff and a 5x4 plywood board down to the local pub on foot, set up on a table outside in the beer garden and play our games with a few beers, then pack up and go home.
That's someone genuinely enjoying minis games as a hobby, as opposed to sitting on the internet complaining. Might not go over well with some people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: I said people don't want a 8 or 6x4 sheet lying around, which was the initial suggestion, because it takes a lot of space and looks scruffy resting on a wall. You responded with:
Ah, see, the problem is you don't know what you're talking about. Quarter sheets of plywood are 2 foot by 4 foot, so you can stack three of them on top of each other and lean them against a wall.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Sorry, could you clarify what exactly about having a disability requires you to play a 100 point pseudo-game instead of a real game of Kill Team?
No. Your argument is based in a kind of ignorance that would be entirely too boring to engage with further. You've already abandoned the rulebook, so there really is no point.
Nope, he's sticking to it. Certain opinions shouldn't be validated.
Seriously-I get that the game is better with cool models and proper terrain, but what’s actually wrong with playing cheaply? You’re being a gatekeeper. Why?
I didn't imply gak, you just thought I did because your values were trash.
I've been suggesting playing on bare plywood in this thread. That's not visually appealing.
I'm gatekeeping because some people deserve to be gatekept.
JNAProductions wrote: She plays the game.
She builds models.
I’m not sure if she paints them, but I barely paint either.
So what about her is so threatening that you want her excluded from 40k?
To be a hobby there has to be some kind of creative activity, not just consumer behavior. For miniature wargaming in general, the more people just cleave to consumer behavior, the more the scene suffers.
insaniak wrote: What are you actually hoping to achieve here?
The point is that "40k game" is a concept that has meaning. If you play a game with Infinity miniatures, Battletech rules, and Star Wars fluff you aren't playing a game of 40k. And no amount of "I enjoy it" or "it's my table" will change that fact. Similarly for a pseudo-game with the 40k rules and one unit per player, whether or not you enjoy doing it you don't have the gameplay elements of 40k. And you don't really have a game at all given the complete lack of meaningful decision trees or player agency. Things just don't function at that scale.
And the context here is that someone claimed that you can play 40k for $100, making a $20-50 table a major expense relative to everything else. But the reality is that a $100 budget isn't a realistic or useful standard, it isn't buying you enough to play anything that most people would recognize as a game of 40k. The real cost to play the game is significantly higher, and that $20 table becomes a much smaller expense relative to the total cost of playing.
If you personally don't think that a particular way of playing the game is worthwhile, that's fine... don't play that way. But don't gak in other peoples' pools by insisting it's not a valid way to play the game. That's not up to you anywhere other than at your own table.
Why is something only worthwhile if it is validated as Official Warhammer 40k? I really don't understand this obsession some people have with officialness. If you enjoy playing not-40k then play not-40k, the fact that I don't consider not-40k to be a game of 40k shouldn't impact your enjoyment of not-40k one bit.
JNAProductions wrote: “I enjoy playing the game in a way most people don’t,” needs to be invalidated… why?
Why does Blndmage need to leave the hobby?
What about her is so offensive to you?
Blndmage isn't part of "the hobby", as near as I can tell.
I'm curious as to how you can tell.
Afterall, they've told you how they play. What styles & scale of games they play (and why). Who they play with. And in other threads what forces they have.
So what's your criteria for being part of the hobby?
Blindmage should play whatever way they feel is best for them. My personal confusion was that we repeatedly provided ways to overcome the extreme hurdles of the hobby, whether it's money, availability, or physical space. Every time it felt as if they weren't good for a different reason. At the end of the day, I don't know what this player wants. They said they don't want it to look cheap, but they can't afford to buy or create expensive looking table arenas. They want the full 40k experience, however it's too difficult to play the full 2k point game for various reasons.
As I've said, I understand. I played this hobby SUPER slummy for the first two years. Bed sheet with markers, poker chips, a furby or two, and Tonka trucks from the dollar store. No paint, just a book and about 30$ worth of crap from the dollar store.
Point is, that was over 5-6 years ago. You can't get into this hobby SUPER quick, without dumping a ton of cash. It's not like DnD where you just need a book, a pencil, a character sheet and the ability to toss dice/do math.
40k is really not an easy hobby to get into on the cheap cheap, if you want the "Real 40k experience". But I have been "playing" for 5 years, and I have yet to know what the hell that actually means. It's entirely subjective. I'd rather play on the bedsheet at the park with poker chips and beers than at a GW hobby store where some greasy nerd is trying to rules lecture me on the paint scheme of my painted dolls.
Seriously, tell us what the "Real 40k experience" is, and I'll devote time to helping you achieve that as cheaply as I can conceive of.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Blindmage should play whatever way they feel is best for them. My personal confusion was that we repeatedly provided ways to overcome the extreme hurdles of the hobby, whether it's money, availability, or physical space. Every time it felt as if they weren't good for a different reason. At the end of the day, I don't know what this player wants. They said they don't want it to look cheap, but they can't afford to buy or create expensive looking table arenas. They want the full 40k experience, however it's too difficult to play the full 2k point game for various reasons.
As I've said, I understand. I played this hobby SUPER slummy for the first two years. Bed sheet with markers, poker chips, a furby or two, and Tonka trucks from the dollar store. No paint, just a book and about 30$ worth of crap from the dollar store.
Point is, that was over 5-6 years ago. You can't get into this hobby SUPER quick, without dumping a ton of cash. It's not like DnD where you just need a book, a pencil, a character sheet and the ability to toss dice/do math.
40k is really not an easy hobby to get into on the cheap cheap, if you want the "Real 40k experience". But I have been "playing" for 5 years, and I have yet to know what the hell that actually means. It's entirely subjective. I'd rather play on the bedsheet at the park with poker chips and beers than at a GW hobby store where some greasy nerd is trying to rules lecture me on the paint scheme of my painted dolls.
Seriously, tell us what the "Real 40k experience" is, and I'll devote time to helping you achieve that as cheaply as I can conceive of.
Well, 18yrs ago when I started playing, $100 got you alot more. Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
The current starter boxes, if bought in order, apparently give two players a decent collection and set of terrain. That's great for giving everyone a marine army, lol But it's at least a start, as Marines cover so much.
Blndmage wrote: Well, 18yrs ago when I started playing, $100 got you alot more. Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
Then, I'll be frank, you should be focusing on things other than a hobby like 40k. If you're at that level then rent and food security are an issue, and there are cheaper ways to entertain yourself (like ttrpgs).
Blndmage wrote: Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
Why not play Kill Team instead then? It's a way better game at a small scale and $50 can get you an entire new army (or more, if you ebay bargain hunt for used models).
Hecaton wrote: To be a hobby there has to be some kind of creative activity, not just consumer behavior.
A hobby is something you engage in for recreation. It doesn't need to include 'creative activity' unless you want it to.
Aecus Decimus wrote: Why is something only worthwhile if it is validated as Official Warhammer 40k? I really don't understand this obsession some people have with officialness. If you enjoy playing not-40k then play not-40k, the fact that I don't consider not-40k to be a game of 40k shouldn't impact your enjoyment of not-40k one bit.
So, to recap -
You: Your way of playing isn't official, and I insist that you accept that!
Also you: Why are people so obsessed with what's official?
It might be time to just, I dunno, let people play the way they want and stop trying to browbeat them into accepting your definition of 'official'...
insaniak wrote: It might be time to just, I dunno, let people play the way they want and stop trying to browbeat them into accepting your definition of 'official'...
I don't recall going over to anyone's house/store and declaring my verdict on the officialness of their games. But if someone is going to say "you can play 40k for under $100" it's absolutely fair game to question whether or not the "game" they're describing is really a 40k game as anyone else would recognize it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: A hobby is something you engage in for recreation. It doesn't need to include 'creative activity' unless you want it to.
To be fair, mere consumption isn't recreation. Someone who just buys a copy of every 40k release but never even takes them out of the box isn't really engaging in the hobby, they're suffering from a compulsive buying problem.
Blndmage wrote: Well, 18yrs ago when I started playing, $100 got you alot more. Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
Then, I'll be frank, you should be focusing on things other than a hobby like 40k. If you're at that level then rent and food security are an issue, and there are cheaper ways to entertain yourself (like ttrpgs).
Hey, genius, I think they are. Hence $50/year in disposable income being a big deal.
Blndmage wrote: Well, 18yrs ago when I started playing, $100 got you alot more. Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
Then, I'll be frank, you should be focusing on things other than a hobby like 40k. If you're at that level then rent and food security are an issue, and there are cheaper ways to entertain yourself (like ttrpgs).
Hey, genius, I think they are. Hence $50/year in disposable income being a big deal.
JNAProductions wrote: She plays the game.
She builds models.
I’m not sure if she paints them, but I barely paint either.
So what about her is so threatening that you want her excluded from 40k?
To be a hobby there has to be some kind of creative activity, not just consumer behavior. For miniature wargaming in general, the more people just cleave to consumer behavior, the more the scene suffers.
So are you going to answer JNAs question?
Are you going to answer mine about how you've determined they aren't participating in the hobby?
Blndmage wrote: Well, 18yrs ago when I started playing, $100 got you alot more. Now however, if we can afford $50 a year for me to devote to 40k, it's a huge year.
Then, I'll be frank, you should be focusing on things other than a hobby like 40k. If you're at that level then rent and food security are an issue, and there are cheaper ways to entertain yourself (like ttrpgs).
Hey, genius, I think they are. Hence $50/year in disposable income being a big deal.
Dudeface wrote: I said people don't want a 8 or 6x4 sheet lying around, which was the initial suggestion, because it takes a lot of space and looks scruffy resting on a wall. You responded with:
Ah, see, the problem is you don't know what you're talking about. Quarter sheets of plywood are 2 foot by 4 foot, so you can stack three of them on top of each other and lean them against a wall.
Ahh you're such a savant that obvously you clearly knew I spent 7 years playing games in a boarded loft with a folding table and 3 2x4 sheets over the top, so this is just faux arrogance to assume what I do or do not know?
I've moved into a bigger house without the boarded loft, don't have a garage or basement, so at present I'd be stuck storing sheets of wood in view in my house somewhere, which I don't want. Call me house proud, but a tidy family home means more to me. At such time I start hosting games again I'll likely splash out on a gamemat folding table or something.
I'm gatekeeping because some people deserve to be gatekept.
Oh goody, they're not being abusive or neglectful to any minorities or other people, they don't hold controversial or morally unacceptable views, they need gatekeeping because they don't play how you like.
Aecus Decimus wrote: I don't recall going over to anyone's house/store and declaring my verdict on the officialness of their games.
Nobody said you did. You're doing it here, though.
To be fair, mere consumption isn't recreation.
Never heard of Retail Therapy, then?
Someone who just buys a copy of every 40k release but never even takes them out of the box isn't really engaging in the hobby, they're suffering from a compulsive buying problem.
Or they're just someone who likes collecting miniatures. Which isn't really any different to collecting spoons, or shoes, or bar coasters, or action figures, or toy cars, or any other of the myriad things that people collect without having a functional or creative use for them.
Either way, this thread seems to have wandered considerably off the original topic.
insaniak wrote: Nobody said you did. You're doing it here, though.
On a public discussion forum where they initiated the discussion by saying "you can play 40k for under $100". If someone wants to make that argument then they should expect to see the counter-argument that no, what you can buy for $100 isn't a real game of 40k.
Never heard of Retail Therapy, then?
I have. Buying a thing you're actually going to use and makes you happy is one thing, buying a ton of 40k models to pile up in the closet and never use is an example of incredibly unhealthy hoarding behavior and poor impulse control that often leads to financial problems. That kind of thing should not be viewed as legitimate participation in a hobby.
The point is that "40k game" is a concept that has meaning. If you play a game with Infinity miniatures, Battletech rules, and Star Wars fluff you aren't playing a game of 40k. And no amount of "I enjoy it" or "it's my table" will change that fact.
Whilr youre not wrong, this line of thinking gets awfully reductive awfully fast.
Anybody not strictly adhering to a RAW reading of the current edition, or anyone playing with a smattering of House rules (whether one or loads) in theit games in their games is now apparently no longer playing 40k. I think that's silly considering how open ended the game in meant to be.
What constitutes a 'game of 40k' is a bit more nebulous than I think.youre willing to consider.
I think it's fairer to think of 'a game of 40k' as an umbrella term rather than a hyper strict and stifling/suffocating interpretation.
How many people do you know who , went there is you have to do X to get Y, will do X+1? And how many do you know who would not do it. There is a reason why with stuff like table size, models counting as painted/unpainted people ask for minimums or if something is enough. Same way with army size, no one stops the over all population of w40k to play 2000pts games with less then 2000pts, but there aren't many people bringing 1500pts to such games.
That's irrelevant to the point Hecaton is making. Also, when it comes to table size it's not uncommon around here for people to use the old 6x4 size for 1500+ point games, because that's what clubs and stores often have. I don't think any of the stores or clubs near me went to the trouble of cutting down existing boards when the new minimum size was introduced. They have often acquired some of the minimum-size mats since the change, but it's not uncommon to play one game on a 6x4 one week, then on the minimum sized board the next.
To solve the problem just use adhesive tape, to delimit the table, the paper one is just fine. Then if one day we go back to the old measures, remove everything and go.
Phoenix Lord wrote: To solve the problem just use adhesive tape, to delimit the table, the paper one is just fine. Then if one day we go back to the old measures, remove everything and go.
Or just play on a normal 6x4 and reject the idea that table size should be dictated by the dimensions of GW's standard cardboard box. There's no "going back" and no problem to solve if you don't ever accept the absurdity of 9th edition minimum sizes.
Hecaton wrote: To be a hobby there has to be some kind of creative activity, not just consumer behavior.
A hobby is something you engage in for recreation. It doesn't need to include 'creative activity' unless you want it to.
Then it's not a hobby.
So playing board games isn't a hobby? Or playing sports? Or collecting...pretty much anything? There are dozens of other examples of hobbies that don't require any creativity.
So maybe, just maybe, you're utterly wrong on this.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a standard sheet of Plywood or OTC is 8x4. That and two Saw horses is a regulation 2k table, and costs roughly 25-50$ at any decent constuction store. throw in 2 2x4x8s, and you can make borders for your tables. Those cost between 2-4 bucks. Free if you get em warped or tossed. It's not like it's hard to make a table to play standard 40k on. IT's actually cheaper than a set of models and a codex. And it was actually the first thing I made when I got into the hobby!
Lucky you have the space and ability (physically, monetarily, access to a vehicle, etc) to do so.
If you can't afford that you can't afford 40k. Also, you can get 2 quarter sheets of plywood cut at any hardware store, there's your 4 x 4.
You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
You just mentioned price that is waaaaay above simple 8'x4' board
Space is biggest hurdle with bigger boards. Not price. Space is def an issue. I have foldable table to which put foamboards for gaming. 6'x4' works but as much I would prefer to have 8'x5'...Yeah that would require me to basically move house. Or throw away several shelves for clothes etc I have And go japanese style sleeping solution ;-)
Aecus Decimus wrote: But the claim was made that you can play 40k for $100 and the reality is that you can't. You can only play a miserable pseudo-game with dollar store army men and piles of trash.
My buddies 3d printer + Battlescribe/Whahapedia says you don't know what your talking about.
3d printer costs way more than 100$ though. Nor is resin cheap. Especially when you factor in terrain you need to play with as well.
Table / play space does matter... but it's only one factor. I've played 10,000 points a side with fully painted armies on a large fully painted table at Warhammer World and had an all day blast. I've also played 40k in 40 minutes with half a dozen wrecked buildings and 500 points a side (or 200 if that's all the player had) on a bare school desk, and many points between the two. The table size does have an effect, but the players' attitude is what makes it fun. I count both my examples as "proper" 40k (the latter keeping the spirit of 40k but enabling a lunchtime game). One was more aesthetically pleasing than the other, but nor would I want to play at whw all day every day, fun as it was. As the priest anecdotally said to the minister, you play in your way and I'll play in His...." Have FUN whatever your play surface.... and please acknowledge that other people's different fun is still fun...
Blindmage, what faction do you play? Everyone is suggesting go killteam, and I don't know if that's possible for you. Also, do you have access to a local meta or are you having difficulty finding players at your preferred points range?
What about this hobby actually gives you the most pleasure?
Ahh you're such a savant that obvously you clearly knew I spent 7 years playing games in a boarded loft with a folding table and 3 2x4 sheets over the top, so this is just faux arrogance to assume what I do or do not know?
Given that you said that storing 3 quarter sheets of plywood took 6 feet by 4 feet of space, I can be pretty confident.
JNAProductions wrote: You can play 40k for pretty cheap. Not with the official models, but if you use stand-ins and just buy the rules, dice, and a tape measure, you can play 40k for maybe $100.
It's not the same as playing with awesome terrain and the real models, but it's still 40k.
Don't be a gatekeeper.
And you can get a 4 x 4 table (in the form of two quarter sheets of plywood) for like $20. $30 for a 6 x 4.
I'll gladly gatekeep people who won't do that.
But what if they don't want a honking big 6x4 sheet of plywood lying around their place because it looks scruffy? Just because someone can buy a cheap sheet of wood it doesn't mean its the right answer for someone.
Where you don't explicitly say you mean 3 x quarter sheets of wood, which I'm pretty sure is a made up measurement, given that sheets of wood are sold in many sizes and I've never seen them referred to as such.
Where you don't explicitly say you mean 3 x quarter sheets of wood, which I'm pretty sure is a made up measurement, given that sheets of wood are sold in many sizes and I've never seen them referred to as such.
A quarter sheet of plywood is a specific thing. A sheet of plywood is 8 feet by 4 feet. Each quarter sheet is 2 feet by 4 feet. If you go into a hardware store and ask for a "quarter sheet of plywood" that's what you're going to get.
Where you don't explicitly say you mean 3 x quarter sheets of wood, which I'm pretty sure is a made up measurement, given that sheets of wood are sold in many sizes and I've never seen them referred to as such.
A quarter sheet of plywood is a specific thing. A sheet of plywood is 8 feet by 4 feet. Each quarter sheet is 2 feet by 4 feet. If you go into a hardware store and ask for a "quarter sheet of plywood" that's what you're going to get.
Weird, I just go and either ask for the size I want or get it off a shelf. Maybe it's not a UK thing.
I have no interest in playing 40k on a smaller size than 8x4 or 6x4. The game suffers on a smaller board
What a bunch of nerds above. This is a dumb argument. You paint little dollies and put them on a table with christmas houses. Have fun with it. Blindmage doesnt even play according to the posts above so it doesn't matter enough to have an argument over it.
