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.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Considering the genesis of this edition, i'm fairly sure that many TOs of popular events will go for the 66x40.

What are you smoking? I Seriously have to ask that now, no TOnis going to start cutting up tables to shave them down to 5'6" and 3'4"
They will stick with 6x4 as GW have already implied they are doing.

Didn't Reece announce that effective immediatly they were going to follow this recommendation from GW at all ITC events?

 Togusa wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Considering the genesis of this edition, i'm fairly sure that many TOs of popular events will go for the 66x40.

What are you smoking? I Seriously have to ask that now, no TOnis going to start cutting up tables to shave them down to 5'6" and 3'4"
They will stick with 6x4 as GW have already implied they are doing.

Didn't Reece announce that effective immediatly they were going to follow this recommendation from GW at all ITC events?

All FLG events, any tourney organiser running ITC events can still do as they please as I understand.

And the full details on what Reese said are here. They basically mirror much of the discussion here, except he points out that FLG had no say in the decision:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/flg-the-itc-and-the-new-40k-play-surface-size/

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you. .

So the actual answer is 'not many' based on that anecdotal evidence.

If you're reducing the table width by a foot, you gain an extra table for every five that you reduce... but to do that, you would need to have had the tables in a row of 5. So your 8 table store would at most have gained one additional table... at the expense of replacing or chopping up all of their additional boards. And assuming they don't still need those boards for other games, in which case they're going to the trouble and expense of making all new table tops for no real benefit given that the game can still be played on the tables they already have.

And yes, I'm well aware that floor space is a valuable commodity in retail. My point was that the space you gain has to be actually useful... and reducing the size of the tables only really achieves that for stores with multiple rows of tables in lots of 5.

Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions? I am close friends with several store owners, whos shops I play at and I can tell you as a business owner myself that your dead wrong. Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, which is 2-300 dollars in entry fees if it's a $50 dollar event. Ones that often sell out and turn players away do to space btw. But now you will tell me that isn't worth the 5 minutes to zip a foot off the table tops right? Alternatively it means adding 12-18 TCG players or a few board games rather then telling them to come back on a none 40k designated day, which also happens. What you really fail to understand is the extra space doesn't need to be allocated 100% back into more 40k tables to be of value. You also fail to understand how valuable even a single extra table is. Even gaining a single table adds increased revenue in an ever exceedingly tough industry. This is how I know your speaking out your bum.

BTW my anecdotal evidence is more important then your baseless assumptions from half way around the planet. Care to give me any actual examples or experience with FLGS owners or events you have helped organize? Or are you going to just make assumptions on gaming stores in the US from a computer desk in Oz? People on these forums like to toss all real experience out, but contrary to that practice, anecdotal evidence is extremely valuable from time to time.

Part of your failed logic here is you think only massive events are incentivized because they gain more tables. What you fail to understand is just how valuable space is on the lower end OVER TIME. Sure a 100 person event can add say 10 more tables and jump to 120 players, but that event is at a special location with additional variable costs. It's also generally once a year. For a shop, even 1 table added provides 2 more players every weekend for RTT's, thats 104 players gained over the course of the year.

 alextroy wrote:
And the full details on what Reese said are here. They basically mirror much of the discussion here, except he points out that FLG had no say in the decision:
https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/flg-the-itc-and-the-new-40k-play-surface-size/

It’s also been related to us that this size fits particularly well on many common kitchen tables such as those you can purchase at Ikea to make it easier for new players or players with no access to a club or FLGS to play at home

there is not a single Ikea table with 44"/112cm
are the US Ikea tables that much different from Europe?

Yeah I would assume that the claims that it will fit on your kitchen table are pure hyperbole and marketing speak. I think most people won't have a table big enough

 Red Corsair wrote:

Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions?

Dial down the hostility a tad there, fellow. Calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal is not a personal attack, nor is it a statement that it is wrong.

Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, ...

Yeah, you've missed the point here. Reducing the size of your tables only actually gets you more tables if you reduce enough tables to make up another table. Hence my reference to 5 tables in a row - If you have 6' long tables, and you're reducing them to 5' long, then for every five you reduce, you gain an additional table. So stores only gain extra tables by reducing them if they are in rows of at least five.

I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.

 insaniak wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Ah OK, so I give you clear examples not pulled out my arse and you go ahead and label it as anecdotal first, as if that means it's wrong, then draw your own conclusions?

Dial down the hostility a tad there, fellow. Calling anecdotal evidence anecdotal is not a personal attack, nor is it a statement that it is wrong.

Tables are set up in a row, and they don't have to be in lots of 5 to be of value. Adding 2-3 tables means another 4-6 players at and event, ...

Yeah, you've missed the point here. Reducing the size of your tables only actually gets you more tables if you reduce enough tables to make up another table. Hence my reference to 5 tables in a row - If you have 6' long tables, and you're reducing them to 5' long, then for every five you reduce, you gain an additional table. So stores only gain extra tables by reducing them if they are in rows of at least five.

I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.

Its quite likely that you can get a foot or two from "spare" space you had anyway. I'd say it's rare that the tables fit so perfectly in the room that you have absolutely zero room left to work with. I mean this isn't a math problem, it's the real world.

 insaniak wrote:
I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.

Or by having suitable sized tables rather than using just old 6'x4' boards and marking areas accordingly.

Rather than have 2 boards 6' wide split to 3 tables have 3 individual tables.

tneva82 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I didn't 'fail to understand' that even a single extra table is potentially valuable. I just pointed out that reducing the table size doesn't automatically mean that you actually get extra tables.

Or by having suitable sized tables rather than using just old 6'x4' boards and marking areas accordingly.

Rather than have 2 boards 6' wide split to 3 tables have 3 individual tables.

??

6'x2 = 12'
-1' per Table => 5'x2 = 10'
5'x3 = 15'

so the saved 2' result in an extra 5' for a 3rd table?

Presuming game balance etc etc, I don't mind the change to 5' length. You can definitely see that helping get more game tables in. The 48" to 44" width though, that one is a serious pain. It's not enough to be worth redoing tables for, so everyone is going to be taping off those 2". Which from a card holder and model safety perspective is actually nice, but it looks worse and doesn't save space. Realistically those 4" isn't going to save anyone more table space unless talking a huge convention with new 44" tables where 12+ tables becomes 13+.

But allowing the game to now be played on a dining table without a plywood topper is pretty laughable, as noted around 36" width is as close to standard as the very unstandardized tables get. If that was a real concern they'd reduce all ranges by 1/3rd and make the game 3'x4'. Finding a 44" table is nearly as hard as a 48". I recently was looking for a new dining table (more for board gaming than 40K) and the largest table I found locally without going custom sized order was 42", most were 32-36".


And yes, you can bet that all shops will be converting to the new size. If GW goes to that size and ITC goes to that size, you think shops aren't going to tape those inches off?
The competitive meta drives everything, even for those of us who don't play competitive. Whether it's 40K, Magic, or any other game. If a designer "suggests" something, people are going to assume that is intent and/or better for balance. We're on sites discussing meta tactics and army tiers despite 99% of us not being tourney players and most of us use rule of 3. Most people want to play by the same rules as the pros even if they will never play as a pro.

Now, forgive me since I don't attend many events (they're often occurring at conventions I attend, but that's the extent of my experiences). A table is a table. The overwhelming majority of tables I see at events are either the older wooden 8' ones, or more modern folding tables which are almost exclusively 6' long. If anything the new "size" would really just give you a small lip around the table which is more amenable for placing models, dice, rulers, etc. This would help avoid stashing so much stuff under the table.

Most major conventions have hundreds of 6x4 mats, which means they need to tape them off, use a marker...or in the most drastic case, cut them down to size if they want to pretend to benefit from the new change. A company like FLG of course will try to make them in new sizes to appeal to that narrow market.

It does mean less terrain as well, meaning less cost for tournaments, etc. I think this is a cost-saving measure for large conventions and has very little to do with a logical game change, or pretending that you'll suddenly be playing 2000 point games on your kitchen table, etc.

Smaller tables! Smaller armies! Higher prices! Sounds like a solid business plan!

 insaniak wrote:
A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.

A venue could use their current 12 sheets of 4'x8' ply for a 60' run, but instead of fitting 10 games you can fit 12.

At least it isn't like Magic where cramming an additional 20% into the same space would be classified as a WMD.

Basing recommended minimum table sizes on multiple of Kill Team boards only makes sense if they plan to re-release Killzones or come up with new matching products. Most people do not have 2, 4 or 6 KT boards and they were limited print runs and no longer available. However, even if did have enough KT boards to make a bigger table, I likely wouldn't because cardboard is not a good material for playing larger games.

My ideas for converting 4'x6' board into 44"x60":

1) don't or

2) declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (no need to hassle with tape) and cover 12" of the side with black cloth to increase area for books etc. Or just play full width.

Warhammer Community wrote:
A Word on Battlefield Sizes…

A number of you have been getting in touch regarding the minimum size battlefield measurements we introduced in last week’s article. We’re happy to confirm that, yes, you can still use your 6′x4′ (or larger) gaming tables, be they gorgeously detailed Realm of Battle boards or lovingly created battlefields of your own design.

The minimum size battlefield guidelines for Combat Patrol, Incursion, Strike Force and Onslaught battles are just that – minimum sizes. They’ve been specifically designed to make the game more accessible and compact at smaller sizes (and fit on most dining room tables), but they can just as easily be played on larger battlefields as you see fit. The minimum sizes also ensure that armies in bigger games won’t be cramped on a battlefield that’s too small for them, so will still have plenty of room to manoeuvre.

(and fit on most dining room tables

it doesn't become true just because they repeat it over and over again

true. No Ikea table in my country is proper size.

This doesnt make any sense at all to change table size

I assume we'll have a noticeable points decrease in gaming to accommodate the already tight space of a 6x4

They said its the same size but now a minimum size, there is a difference.

 Stevefamine wrote:
This doesnt make any sense at all to change table size

I assume we'll have a noticeable points decrease in gaming to accommodate the already tight space of a 6x4

The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).

That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.

 alextroy wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
This doesnt make any sense at all to change table size

I assume we'll have a noticeable points decrease in gaming to accommodate the already tight space of a 6x4

The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).

That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.

They literally said that lol

If we are really allowed to deploy from board edges when arriving from reserves, the table dimensions will have a huge impact on the game.

Someone posted some guys who playtested the 9th ed, and aside for the everyone is awesome and has no bad sides, they did say, among many things that while no one can force anyone to play on any table size, and they do not advice people to cut off stuff. The missions are tested to work optimal at the new table size, and that playing regular sized games on a miss matched results for certain armies.


the other interesting thing they said is that in UK IKEA sells tables the exact fiting sizes. Which is very interesting, because in Poland they do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
The change in table size was probably motivated by the dimensions of the Kill Team boards (22 x 30) and letting small games (1000 or less points) actually fit on the average kitchen table (44 x 30 being that table size).

That being said, a smaller board has many impacts on the game. Fortunately GW both play-tested for the smaller size and is increasing the value of all models. Thus, you will actually be playing a 2000 point game on a smaller board with less models than in 8th edition.

Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.

120x75 is a common IKEA dimension in Italy too.

Karol wrote:


Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.

Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:


Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.

Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.

Nice optimism. Of course last time GW upped points across the board(8th ed) the players upped the game size to get their old armies fit again.

Karol wrote:

the other interesting thing they said is that in UK IKEA sells tables the exact fiting sizes. Which is very interesting, because in Poland they do not.
.

A quick check of the Ikea UK website shows that they don't, either. The widest kitchen table they have is 100cm, which is still 12cm too narrow.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:


Or people are goint to want to play with all the models they bought. the games are going to be 2200 or something similar, and everyone is going to be forced to play on the old tables anyway, because stores won't invest in to tables just for w40k.

Stores would need to force players to use house rules then, because min table size for 2001+ armies is huge, and playing with 8th edition table would only be allowed by house rules. I don't expect it to be a thing, people will play with just a fewer models, not a big issue and I think that it's something that the majority of players wants, to play with lesser models I mean. In fact I think standard armies should be the size of 1500 8th edition points, not 1800-1900.

Nice optimism. Of course last time GW upped points across the board(8th ed) the players upped the game size to get their old armies fit again.

Because they could. Now GW gave us min size table. Playing 2001+ points games in tables smaller than 44'' x 90'' would be illegal, and playing with a table that size sounds more discouraging than shelving a few models.

Then again it's not like players have played by the book before.l

People want to play with their models. 2200 for more CP(to get back where they were before) and more points(so they get models they used) while commonly agreeing to same 6'x4' they already have is quite reasonable scenario. It's not like GW comes knocking down. Player consensus is bigger impact than GW's writing anyway.