Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Pacific wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just wait for the Primaris release to represent the super secret testing Cawl did!

.. And this is why HH players want a separation with their game

At the moment the Crusade/Heresy-era stuff is nicely isolated from any of the modern release nonsense of 40k; of GI Joe Super Team + Marines, Primarchs returning from the dead or new Tonka Toy STC template vehicles and wargear etc.

Gotta keep that 'brick with tank treads glued to the bottom of it' vehicle aesthetic going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mr. Grey wrote:
Even if a slightly tweaked edition of the 30k rules does reduce table size, that doesn't mean you have to play on that smaller board. Personally I'll stick to 6x4 or even larger when I can get it, because big HH games crowd the table enough as it is. Never understood this weird obsession to play on smaller board sizes just because the rulebook suggests it as the minimum size.

Players have poor grasp of meaning minimum and fixation to take gw's word as absolutes.

Were gw to write game rules as "dice roll off, winner won game" tournaments would be done soon with 2 handfull of dice rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Snrub wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's the new 'recommended' board size, and recommended specifically because it's what they sell. No other reason.

So 60" X 45" as opposed to the old 72" X 48"?

Hmm That seems smaller then ideal for a 2k points game. I know my local GW has an 2 4'x4' tables for use and historically, they've been fine for 1250-1500 point games. But typically if someone wanted a bigger points game, they'd push them together. So I don't really see how well 30k would work on what would be essentially a 5'xtouch-less-then-4' table given that a small 30k game is 2k points and they average 3k around these parts.

You assume GW gives a gak about how well anything works

Or even tournament organisers who admitted they initially opposed it but then realized they can cram more players and thus increase income.

It's about money.

Word minimum even tells it's not optimal.

Minimum is in no way mutually exclusive with optimal and for 40k, the smaller board works better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its because GW proscribes it as the standard for its officially sanctioned tournaments, which in turn means lower tier tournaments are also going to use it because everyone wants to "train like they fight" and prep for the next big tournament, which means those players are also going to play their non-tournament games in the same manner, which means all the casuals are going to play it that way too because thats what their tourney focused brethren are going to insist upon.

They can take my 6x4's when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

Ditto. I'll play on the new table sizes at the local shops if my friends insist on it, but at home I'm using one of the 27+ 6x4 mats I own.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They can take my 6x4's when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

No kidding. I've seen people actually cutting their mats. It's like people never heard about the miracle of masking tape.

Yeah, I have nothing but negative judgement for those people. A 6x4 mat has a lot more versatility and utility than the weird ass 60x45 or whatever it is that GW wants people to use.

 Snrub wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's the new 'recommended' board size, and recommended specifically because it's what they sell. No other reason.

So 60" X 45" as opposed to the old 72" X 48"?

Hmm That seems smaller then ideal for a 2k points game. I know my local GW has an 2 4'x4' tables for use and historically, they've been fine for 1250-1500 point games. But typically if someone wanted a bigger points game, they'd push them together. So I don't really see how well 30k would work on what would be essentially a 5'xtouch-less-then-4' table given that a small 30k game is 2k points and they average 3k around these parts.

IIRC 60x45 is for 1500 points, 2000 points uses a size larger (i.e. add 2 more of those small foldable boards to the 60x45). Likewise I think sub-1000 pts you remove 2 of those boards from the 60x45 to make a smaller table.

I doubt 30k would bother acknowledging board sizes. It's never been penned as a tournament game and I doubt FW writing it would have the mind to start now. Unless there's a dramatic shift towards a lot of tournament players getting involved, the community at large probably won't care either - that said, with most LFGS' moving over to the smaller sizes anyway, it's probably going to happen (unofficially) by proxy until it becomes the norm.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They can take my 6x4's when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

No kidding. I've seen people actually cutting their mats. It's like people never heard about the miracle of masking tape.

The guys who made Conquest talked about most mat-makers stopped making mats any bigger than 6x4 after 40k changed. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but I can believe it.

chaos0xomega wrote:IIRC 60x45 is for 1500 points, 2000 points uses a size larger (i.e. add 2 more of those small foldable boards to the 60x45). Likewise I think sub-1000 pts you remove 2 of those boards from the 60x45 to make a smaller table.

Like, I can see how that sort of makes sense. As you scale up your games, you just keep adding boards. Also good for some basic floor/table hammer I guess. But by that same token there's no reason they couldn't have done it with 12"x12" boards for example.

Was there any reason given as to why the changed the table size or was it just another one of "those" decisions?

edited by moderator

Gotta keep that 'brick with tank treads glued to the bottom of it' vehicle aesthetic going.

I like this aesthetic way more than the "everything floats now" one that they've got going with the Primaris tacticool stuff.

Unless there's a dramatic shift towards a lot of tournament players getting involved, the community at large probably won't care either - that said, with most LFGS' moving over to the smaller sizes anyway, it's probably going to happen (unofficially) by proxy until it becomes the norm.

All of the big gaming tables at my FLGS are 6x4 by default and they have a ton of the printed 6x4 mats. I don't see them cutting down the table size just to fit the new smaller GW standard.

Its because GW proscribes it as the standard for its officially sanctioned tournaments, which in turn means lower tier tournaments are also going to use it because everyone wants to "train like they fight" and prep for the next big tournament, which means those players are also going to play their non-tournament games in the same manner, which means all the casuals are going to play it that way too because thats what their tourney focused brethren are going to insist upon.

How many officially sanctioned tournaments does GW run these days? I think you're absolutely right, but things like this do make me glad that I'm not a tournament player and that I mostly play amongst a smaller group of like-minded friends. My main ork opponent and I have no idea what the ITC rules are and don't care to use them, we just throw down and play. Ditto my main 30k opponents.

 Snrub wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:IIRC 60x45 is for 1500 points, 2000 points uses a size larger (i.e. add 2 more of those small foldable boards to the 60x45). Likewise I think sub-1000 pts you remove 2 of those boards from the 60x45 to make a smaller table.

Like, I can see how that sort of makes sense. As you scale up your games, you just keep adding boards. Also good for some basic floor/table hammer I guess. But by that same token there's no reason they couldn't have done it with 12"x12" boards for example.

Was there any reason given as to why the changed the table size or was it just another one of "those" decisions?

I don't know if it was ever given as a reason officially (I doubt it - GW doesn't justify business decisions like that to the public) but when GW started selling those folding card boards some years back it was generally assumed that they chose their dimensions to fit into their existing box sizes rather than figure out how to get the new boards to match the board sizes in use at the time.

In my opinion it's best to assume that the suggested board size is all about material production and has no motivation in game mechanics.

 Geifer wrote:

 Snrub wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:IIRC 60x45 is for 1500 points, 2000 points uses a size larger (i.e. add 2 more of those small foldable boards to the 60x45). Likewise I think sub-1000 pts you remove 2 of those boards from the 60x45 to make a smaller table.

Like, I can see how that sort of makes sense. As you scale up your games, you just keep adding boards. Also good for some basic floor/table hammer I guess. But by that same token there's no reason they couldn't have done it with 12"x12" boards for example.

Was there any reason given as to why the changed the table size or was it just another one of "those" decisions?

I don't know if it was ever given as a reason officially (I doubt it - GW doesn't justify business decisions like that to the public) but when GW started selling those folding card boards some years back it was generally assumed that they chose their dimensions to fit into their existing box sizes rather than figure out how to get the new boards to match the board sizes in use at the time.

In my opinion it's best to assume that the suggested board size is all about material production and has no motivation in game mechanics.

Pretty much this. The boards predate 9th ed 40k by quite some time. I don't believe they were designed with 9th ed in mind, but rather I think they were motivated to try to sell more of them.

The new board size is based on the box footprint efficiency calculus GW does for their boxed games.

Which is based on their full sprue width.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the game and everything to do with wanting to be able to ship box sets with cardboard mats that add up to the standard board sizes.

 the_scotsman wrote:
The new board size is based on the box footprint efficiency calculus GW does for their boxed games.

Which is based on their full sprue width.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the game and everything to do with wanting to be able to ship box sets with cardboard mats that add up to the standard board sizes.

Sir you are wise beyond your years.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
The new board size is based on the box footprint efficiency calculus GW does for their boxed games.

Which is based on their full sprue width.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the game and everything to do with wanting to be able to ship box sets with cardboard mats that add up to the standard board sizes.

Sir you are wise beyond your years.

While this is 100% true, I do find I prefer the smaller board. I was never under any illusion about the change in size once I saw that it matched 4x kill team boards. I still like it, though, even if it was purely a $$ decision originally, and not gameplay related. That combined with new terrain rules has really toned down some of the 8th edition problems.

Call it a happy accident if you will.

I remember back in 2nd edition when armies were half the model count and the standard board size was 8’x4’, I try not to play on anything smaller.

FW did do upgrade sets for each legion for several mk’s of armour, and most were culled down to one set per legion a couple of years ago. They could just re-release the old sets?

 Tamereth wrote:
I remember back in 2nd edition when armies were half the model count and the standard board size was 8’x4’, I try not to play on anything smaller.

Yeah, maneuvering meant something when you had room to maneuver.

8x4 is still the best! Filled with lots of varied and LOS blocking terrain and interesting deployment zones/missions.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Tamereth wrote:
I remember back in 2nd edition when armies were half the model count and the standard board size was 8’x4’, I try not to play on anything smaller.

Yeah, maneuvering meant something when you had room to maneuver.

8x4 is still the best! Filled with lots of varied and LOS blocking terrain and interesting deployment zones/missions.

Back when your lascannon could fire 96 inches but lost a point of strength for every foot past 48 inches.

"What do you mean it's only S6 now?"

 the_scotsman wrote:
The new board size is based on the box footprint efficiency calculus GW does for their boxed games.

Which is based on their full sprue width.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the game and everything to do with wanting to be able to ship box sets with cardboard mats that add up to the standard board sizes.

That last part is the wrong way around. They didn't want to ship boxes to meet their new size, the new size came about because of the pre-existing map size.

Like you said, the current board size exists because that's what GW could fit in their boxes. They don't (or rather didn't) do boxes that can contain 1'x1' card tiles (or multiples thereof), so they made some different sizes (starting with the Moon Base Klaisus experiment), which in turn led to Killteam and Warcry boards. Then, because they had the manufacturing capability to make these boards, they suddenly invented the recommended/minimum/whatever board size for 40k (and now AoS 3rd).

In the end it's a bit like the switch to 32mm bases: Everyone and their dog was making 6x4 table mats, so GW decided to change the standard size of the game using the boards (that existed out of necessity due to box constraints) and make everyone dance to their tune. And the tournament crowd and mat makers scrambled like World War Z zombies to comply.

And then they went and made 1x1 plastic tiles for Necromunda, meaning that they could very easily change the size to allow for 6x4, but they won't.

 Tamereth wrote:
I remember back in 2nd edition when armies were half the model count and the standard board size was 8’x4’, I try not to play on anything smaller.

Spoiler:

FW did do upgrade sets for each legion for several mk’s of armour, and most were culled down to one set per legion a couple of years ago. They could just re-release the old sets?

8x4 with half the models and fewer big ones, shorter moves, overwatch and other unit order or status chits, lots of great things came together make that the golden age of the game. These days, the game of 40k is like pogs with more money - let us see how much expensive plastic that we can mash all up in the middle to make a big explosive mess as soon as we can so that we can do it again... whee...

not.

Best games of 30k I've had have been on 14x8 tables. 3000 points. When a flank falls, it falls. Also why I got basilisks and not medusa artillery.

Specifics aside this has got me excited for heresy era again. Sold off my stuff last year as well. I've cleared the garage for the airbrush and gaming board. Never played 30k in a shop.

We play on a 12' x 6' regularly and its amazing, so I imagine a 14' x 8' is even better. I honestly wouldn't walk across the room to play any 40K/30K game on a 6'x4' or smaller. Literally set two gunlines up 24" from each other and blast the crap out of each other, wow, fun.

Playing on much wider tables adds so much movement and strategy to the game, other than "ok I siezed here's 10 lascannons ".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We play 5-10k per side usually though.

Well if they do reduce the game to that size that shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the type of gamers that collect and play 30k.
Treating it as though it's some lightweight skirmish game like Warcry, from my experience 30k/HH players want to go bigger!

HBMC - I did lol at the Charlton Heston quote

 Pacific wrote:
Well if they do reduce the game to that size that shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the type of gamers that collect and play 30k.

So they're bound to do it then, right?

If they do reduce the minimum recommend size to 44x60, and you're already playing on 8x4 or 12x6 or whatever in your group, then what actual difference does it make to your group?

Lol, the conspiracy based hate for GW on Dakka is incredible. You really think they changed the board size to put the 6x4 mat makers out of business?!?

When they don't even make full size neoprene/equiv mats? You honestly think somebody in the market for a 6x4 mat suddenly decided to switch to a crappy fold up cardboard from GW because it's the right size?

You honestly think if GW wanted to take on the third party mat makers that would be their approach? You don't think they'd bring out their own mats? Or make the size a little bigger so that all those old 6x4 mats are useless rather than just being able to be masked off?

Most of the third party mat makers almost immediately started making the new size mats and selling them for no cheaper than the 6x4s.

I mean, even GWs premium Realm of Battle game board is 6x4 so they've just mugged themselves off there.

I've no doubt they made the recommended size to fit with their modular gameboards but the idea of this evil corporation spitefully taking on mat producers is ridiculous.

The gameboards are the size they are presumably due to cardstock/box constraints. If they could have made them 3'x2' I would imagine they would have...

Isn't it less than a standard board size and moreso a minimum recommended size?

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
We play on a 12' x 6' regularly and its amazing, so I imagine a 14' x 8' is even better. I honestly wouldn't walk across the room to play any 40K/30K game on a 6'x4' or smaller. Literally set two gunlines up 24" from each other and blast the crap out of each other, wow, fun.

Playing on much wider tables adds so much movement and strategy to the game, other than "ok I siezed here's 10 lascannons ".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We play 5-10k per side usually though.

So basically what you're saying is that lining up two gunlines 36" away from each other and saying 'ok I siezed here's 50 lascannons' is the way to go.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Isn't it less than a standard board size and moreso a minimum recommended size?

Yes, but people (well, tournaments) take it as gospel that recommended = what it's supposed to be. It's not an outright "you cannot, under any circumstances, use a different size board" but when it comes to GW games people cling desperately to RAW. Apparently there were actually tournaments enforcing things like the 120pt Neophyte Hybrid typo.

 Nurglitch wrote:
Isn't it less than a standard board size and moreso a minimum recommended size?

Yes. It's also not much different than 6x4 in 40k except the constraints it adds to deepstrikes. 6x4 still isn't exactly huge by modern army standards. Every long range gun is going to cover the majority of the board in either configuartion. In 44x60 though, landing things outside of 9" becomes much more difficult so deepstrike blocking becomes much practical and necessary.

People who play on massive apocalypse style boards or people who play huge point levels might have a reason to prefer the larger board, but at 40k 2k, squeezing deepstrike has far more gameplay impact than a 6" strip of dead land on the sides of the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Isn't it less than a standard board size and moreso a minimum recommended size?

Yes, but people (well, tournaments) take it as gospel that recommended = what it's supposed to be. It's not an outright "you cannot, under any circumstances, use a different size board" but when it comes to GW games people cling desperately to RAW. Apparently there were actually tournaments enforcing things like the 120pt Neophyte Hybrid typo.

The RAW is that its a recommended minimum size. Even 'clinging desperately to RAW' would allow for larger size tables. It has nothing to do with your ' tournaments see recommended as what it's supposed to be' claim. You're talking about two totally different things; Recommendations vs RAW.


Your argument doesn't accomplish anything but serve as a vehicle to shoehorn in some whinging about 120pt Neophytes.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
Isn't it less than a standard board size and moreso a minimum recommended size?

Yes, but people (well, tournaments) take it as gospel that recommended = what it's supposed to be. It's not an outright "you cannot, under any circumstances, use a different size board" but when it comes to GW games people cling desperately to RAW. Apparently there were actually tournaments enforcing things like the 120pt Neophyte Hybrid typo.

While I can understand highlighting the influence of tournaments and the associated crowd, it's also worth considering that GW doesn't just set the suggested minimum size arbitrarily but bases it on boards they don't just sell individually but that oftentimes come in starter sets. That means a lot of people will have them and some of them, for instance the ones only starting out, will only have them and no other boards or mats. So that's what they use. And through prolific use they simply become the standard for a portion of the players.

The rules may call it suggested minimum size, but product support from GW will do its share to make it an acceptable standard in the absence of more influential factors against it.

What's even the point of having a movement stat if everyone can see each other from the start and just shoots non-stop until everyone is dead?

Um, melee?

Abaddon303 wrote:
Um, melee?

At some point GW is gonna shrink their board sizes enough for your army to be able to punch the enemy from the deployment zone without moving, just you wait.

MESBG has scenarios were you start literally 3" away from your enemy and movement is infinitely more relevant there than in aos or 40k.