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.

Again, youre discounting the effect of healthy terrain density. Alpha strikes aren't that big of an issue when the terrain density prohibits granting LOS on the entire army in T1 movement phase.

Larger boards made more sense when you still moved your units when you "failed" a charge.

Old 1500 were essentially todays 1750 pt army, and it wasnt THAT bad until introduction of plaskit baneblade, flyers and eventually knights. Of course we had those BS outliers due to Matt Ward during these times.

I do agree 60x44 is crowded for 2k games. It does feel more like playing 6/7th ed @ 2000 pts. This is the reason why I've brought up the whole "1k is more balanced, even with OP codex" argument because every unit really counts. Youre not simply adding redundancies and doubling up on guns in 1k - you need each unit to fulfill their roles, both defensively and offensively. In 2k, you dont play defense. Its just hide and seek.

 skchsan wrote:
It's not hyperbolic. I personally know someone who's been collecting basilisks since 3rd ed and we sometimes play open play games across 3 strikeforce boards for the hell of it. Who's to say we don't do that in matched play? The board sizes are RECOMMENDED MINIMUM after all, am I right?

It's absolutely hyperbolic. Maybe you play an artillery army on a giant table for a special narrative scenario (with balancing factors to offset the table size, like infinite respawning waves for the attacker) but I have never seen anyone try to argue that a normal matched play game should be played on a 10' table so their artillery parking lot can auto-win. It's like the theoretical TFG in older editions who would try to argue (correctly, by RAW) that models with helmets could never shoot or charge. Nobody ever did that IRL because it was obviously stupid and a great way to guarantee that nobody would play a game with you.

The move from 6'x4' to 60"x44" was probably driven by the fact that the latter is closer to standard dining table dimensions, not because they wanted to save money on packaging (although arguably it IS a benefit they dipped on for sure). Do you even realize how hard it is to find a 6x4 flat surface (that is not floor) you can play 40k on?

No. This is not speculation, it's literal fact. GW cut the board size to fit into their standard box size, it's the exact dimensions to fit the box. No more, no less. And it didn't even start with 40k. GW originally made the boards for Kill Team and only later decided to make 40k use them.

(And it's very easy to find a 6x4 surface. Put a sheet of plywood or insulation foam on top of your kitchen table, or even a cheap folding table. And that's assuming you're playing at home. If you play in a store getting a standard 6x4 table is easy because 6x4 is the standard that stores know they need to support.)

If you are playing incursion on a 60x44 or any other larger boards (than the recommended minimum), you are giving advantage to the army with better shooting capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

If you play on a smaller than standard (6x4) board you are giving an advantage to the army with better melee capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
with 6" M and 24" range weapon

And that makes it an unrealistic scenario. Footslogging tactical marines haven't been a relevant unit in decades. Anything that wants to get up close, whether for melee or close range shooting, has some way of increasing its movement distance. Bikes/cavalry, deep strike, jump infantry, units in transports, all of these things have way more than 6" movement speed and even on a 6x4 table will be getting into range on turn 2.

to start hitting units hugging the rear 6" from board edge

This is also unrealistic. If you deploy your whole army hugging the back table edge you automatically lose because you can't score any of the mid-table objectives. In a real game you might have some artillery hiding in the back but the majority of your army will be deployed farther up and much of it will be moving forward to claim mid-table objectives. So yes, those back artillery units will be hard to reach for footslogging tactical marines but "I have to take fast units to reach and counter enemy long range artillery" is hardly a bad thing.

 skchsan wrote:
Again, youre discounting the effect of healthy terrain density. Alpha strikes aren't that big of an issue when the terrain density prohibits granting LOS on the entire army in T1 movement phase.

but this has nothing to do with the board size
you can play 3x3 and without enough terrain there is a problem, yet you need to buy extra terrain as there is never enough in any box to fill neither 72x48 nor 60x44 with enough LOS Blocker

and the argument that having old terrain, from previous editions that not filled up 72x48 is now filling 60x44 and therefore makes a better game does not work as the old terrain has the wrong size and shape anyway

 kodos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Again, youre discounting the effect of healthy terrain density. Alpha strikes aren't that big of an issue when the terrain density prohibits granting LOS on the entire army in T1 movement phase.

but this has nothing to do with the board size
you can play 3x3 and without enough terrain there is a problem, yet you need to buy extra terrain as there is never enough in any box to fill neither 72x48 nor 60x44 with enough LOS Blocker

and the argument that having old terrain, from previous editions that not filled up 72x48 is now filling 60x44 and therefore makes a better game does not work as the old terrain has the wrong size and shape anyway

How do you mean "wrong size and shape" ?

that old style terrain is most often full of windows, so does not block LOS (and if not multiples stores does not get the 5" for obscured)

so the argument that you have more LOS Blocker on the table, if you put your old terrain on a smaller table depends more on the terrain itself rather than the table size as you can still have no LOS blocker at all if your terrain was made for a different version of the game that used different rules for terrain

and if you need to buy/build new terrain for the new rules anway, you build enough for the given size and "more" because the table is smaller

"Because GW decreased the table size, people benefit from more LOS blocking terrain" is just a stupid argument to find something to justify the change that is not "more profit for GW, no advantage for the player"

PS: this (random pic from google search) 72x48 table does not magically get more LOS Blocker just because you would cut off the edges to 60x44
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Planetstrike3.jpg

 kodos wrote:
that old style terrain is most often full of windows, so does not block LOS (and if not multiples stores does not get the 5" for obscured)

so the argument that you have more LOS Blocker on the table, if you put your old terrain on a smaller table depends more on the terrain itself rather than the table size as you can still have no LOS blocker at all if your terrain was made for a different version of the game that used different rules for terrain

and if you need to buy/build new terrain for the new rules anway, you build enough for the given size and "more" because the table is smaller

"Because GW decreased the table size, people benefit from more LOS blocking terrain" is just a stupid argument to find something to justify the change that is not "more profit for GW, no advantage for the player"

PS: this (random pic from google search) 72x48 table does not magically get more LOS Blocker just because you would cut off the edges to 60x44
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Planetstrike3.jpg

Looks like you missed the point that led to this digression.

The argument that was being made, which was blown to stratosphere from a red herring by Grimtuff, was that "OP units/codex isn't as OP in lower point games, in particular, incursion under nephilim ruleset; 1k games can support wider range of models that are often considered useless in larger games, thus enabling GW to sell more models instead of overpowering a codex to do so."

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
It's not hyperbolic. I personally know someone who's been collecting basilisks since 3rd ed and we sometimes play open play games across 3 strikeforce boards for the hell of it. Who's to say we don't do that in matched play? The board sizes are RECOMMENDED MINIMUM after all, am I right?

It's absolutely hyperbolic. Maybe you play an artillery army on a giant table for a special narrative scenario (with balancing factors to offset the table size, like infinite respawning waves for the attacker) but I have never seen anyone try to argue that a normal matched play game should be played on a 10' table so their artillery parking lot can auto-win. It's like the theoretical TFG in older editions who would try to argue (correctly, by RAW) that models with helmets could never shoot or charge. Nobody ever did that IRL because it was obviously stupid and a great way to guarantee that nobody would play a game with you.

The real life situation I’ve laid out is simply a rebuttal to the red herring by Grimtuff. By RAW, the 60x44 is minimum size and I can go as large as I want as long as my opponent agrees with me.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The move from 6'x4' to 60"x44" was probably driven by the fact that the latter is closer to standard dining table dimensions, not because they wanted to save money on packaging (although arguably it IS a benefit they dipped on for sure). Do you even realize how hard it is to find a 6x4 flat surface (that is not floor) you can play 40k on?

No. This is not speculation, it's literal fact. GW cut the board size to fit into their standard box size, it's the exact dimensions to fit the box. No more, no less. And it didn't even start with 40k. GW originally made the boards for Kill Team and only later decided to make 40k use them.

Please provide citation from GW stating this literal fact of "box-came-first-then-the-board" to be true. Based on your argument, it could be that they designed killteam to be played on 30x22, made a box for it, and decided to stick to the 30x22 board size. Then the board would've came before the box.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
(And it's very easy to find a 6x4 surface. Put a sheet of plywood or insulation foam on top of your kitchen table, or even a cheap folding table. And that's assuming you're playing at home. If you play in a store getting a standard 6x4 table is easy because 6x4 is the standard that stores know they need to support.)

That’s exactly my point. If you need to “make” a 6x4 with materials that can be readily acquired, then it’s a surface that can be readily acquired, not a surface that is readily available.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
If you are playing incursion on a 60x44 or any other larger boards (than the recommended minimum), you are giving advantage to the army with better shooting capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

If you play on a smaller than standard (6x4) board you are giving an advantage to the army with better melee capabilities.

False dichotomy. Smaller boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make melee armies more favorable than range focused army.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
with 6" M and 24" range weapon

And that makes it an unrealistic scenario. Footslogging tactical marines haven't been a relevant unit in decades. Anything that wants to get up close, whether for melee or close range shooting, has some way of increasing its movement distance. Bikes/cavalry, deep strike, jump infantry, units in transports, all of these things have way more than 6" movement speed and even on a 6x4 table will be getting into range on turn 2.

That’s the point. Why should it be unrealistic to use a model/unit with 6” M or less in a game that has more than 50% of its model range with 6” M or less? It’s clear that 6”M is 1 turn too slow even on the reduced board size. Why must it be necessary to have more than 6" movement to be considered a viable inclusion in your list when the game is still designed around 6"M and 24" range gun as the baseline?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
to start hitting units hugging the rear 6" from board edge

This is also unrealistic. If you deploy your whole army hugging the back table edge you automatically lose because you can't score any of the mid-table objectives. In a real game you might have some artillery hiding in the back but the majority of your army will be deployed farther up and much of it will be moving forward to claim mid-table objectives. So yes, those back artillery units will be hard to reach for footslogging tactical marines but "I have to take fast units to reach and counter enemy long range artillery" is hardly a bad thing.

 skchsan wrote:
1k games can support wider range of models that are often considered useless in larger games, thus enabling GW to sell more models instead of overpowering a codex to do so."

but this has nothing to do with the board size but only with less amount of points meaning less diverse army lists and limited options

going further, some trash units would be better if 1k points would be played at 72x48 as well as their unique feature which is useless otherwise can shine
the argument that GW would sell more models with smaller boards because more units are useful does not hold as just some get better while others get worse

 kodos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1k games can support wider range of models that are often considered useless in larger games, thus enabling GW to sell more models instead of overpowering a codex to do so."

but this has nothing to do with the board size but only with less amount of points meaning less diverse army lists and limited options

going further, some trash units would be better if 1k points would be played at 72x48 as well as their unique feature which is useless otherwise can shine
the argument that GW would sell more models with smaller boards because more units are useful does not hold as just some get better while others get worse

Incursion is designed to be played on a smaller board with less units evidenced by smaller recommended minimum board size and smaller points limit set forth by the rule. So, it actually has everything to do with board size (and the ensuing terrain density, blah blah blah).

It doesn't matter whether this was a conscious balancing decision by GW or as arbitrary as "because I (GW) said so". That's not the point. There exists a minimum board size, and the game changes drastically if you actually play by the minimum board size.

The only "limit" in your option is that you can't spam your WAAC units as much as you would in a 2k game.

 skchsan wrote:
The real life situation I’ve laid out is simply a rebuttal to the red herring by Grimtuff. By RAW, the 60x44 is minimum size and I can go as large as I want as long as my opponent agrees with me.

Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

Please provide citation from GW stating this literal fact of "box-came-first-then-the-board" to be true. Based on your argument, it could be that they designed killteam to be played on 30x22, made a box for it, and decided to stick to the 30x22 board size. Then the board would've came before the box.

GW's standard box size existed before Kill Team. And regardless of the order it happened in it's still a matter of box size dictating table sizes for 40k. There is no reason to assume that the ideal table size for 40k is a multiple of Kill Team mats side by side, that decision was made purely because GW didn't want to have a separate line of products and boxes for 40k.

That’s exactly my point. If you need to “make” a 6x4 with materials that can be readily acquired, then it’s a surface that can be readily acquired, not a surface that is readily available.

A RAW minimum-size table isn't something most people have available already. Most people are going to be playing by putting a board on a table regardless of size.

False dichotomy. Smaller boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make melee armies more favorable than range focused army.

False dichotomy. Larger boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make shooting armies more favorable than melee focused army.

That’s the point. Why should it be unrealistic to use a model/unit with 6” M or less in a game that has more than 50% of its model range with 6” M or less? It’s clear that 6”M is 1 turn too slow even on the reduced board size. Why must it be necessary to have more than 6" movement to be considered a viable inclusion in your list when the game is still designed around 6"M and 24" range gun as the baseline?

You may have a point in theory but footslogging tactical marines haven't been relevant in decades and aren't relevant on tiny 9th edition tables either. Like the "WHAT ABOUT 99999 BASILISKS ON A 10' TABLE" example it's a situation that has very little to do with real games.

Then your experiences must be limited to tailored match ups. The “sit-back-and-kill-as-many-units-as-you-can-so-that-your-opponent-can-no-longer-retaliate-and-play-objectives-in-latter-rounds” is THE most popular strategy in 2k games. You don't need to physically contest for center objective when you have enough guns to prevent your opponent from scoring it. You can deny your opponent's primary while playing your secondaries to keep up with victory points until turn 3 after you've made your opponent's army into mush.

Um, what? How are you just sitting back and killing anything in 9th when tables are full of LOS blocking terrain? You aren't denying primaries if you camp at the back of your table because you can't see anything and indirect fire is nerfed into uselessness. It seems like maybe the problem here is that you're trying to play on a table with a single tree in the center as the only terrain, with no real tactics beyond gunlines and "run straight at the enemy across an open field."

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

??????????????? wtf are you talking about??????

IIRC there was some rule about LoS being measured from the eyes of the shooting model. A lot of models had full helmets without eye sockets so RAW those models couldn't draw LoS to their targets. It was beyond the pale but some TFGs tried it anyway.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
IIRC there was some rule about LoS being measured from the eyes of the shooting model. A lot of models had full helmets without eye sockets so RAW those models couldn't draw LoS to their targets. It was beyond the pale but some TFGs tried it anyway.

This was an issue when TLOS was enforced to a ridiculous level. The argument back then was that there was a "rule" that if there is any doubt whether you have LOS or not, bring yourself to the "eye level of the model." Some people TFG'ed that literally and said if you can't see the eye, there is no way of knowing exactly where the eye level was, therefore you cannot determine if it has LOS or not, and because its indeterminable, it cannot draw LOS to anything. It was never an actual RAW discussion but a "modelling for advantage to claim RAW" shenanigans. A good, actually arguable example was the devilfish screen where pathfinders/fire warriors modelled in prone/crouched position can draw TLOS to an enemy toe under the tank because their eye level was modelled lower, and the enemy couldn't draw TLOS against it because the devilfish was in the way.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

??????????????? wtf are you talking about??????

At this point, I suspect he's angry-replying without even proofreading. Take a look:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

False dichotomy. Smaller boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make melee armies more favorable than range focused army.

False dichotomy. Larger boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make shooting armies more favorable than melee focused army.

He's just playing the "no, YOU!" game now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The real life situation I’ve laid out is simply a rebuttal to the red herring by Grimtuff. By RAW, the 60x44 is minimum size and I can go as large as I want as long as my opponent agrees with me.

Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

Literally never actually happened. You probably cherry picked this hyperbole off of some post trying to make a point. IIRC, this was one of the counter arguments for the TLOS + modelling for advantage discussion.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Please provide citation from GW stating this literal fact of "box-came-first-then-the-board" to be true. Based on your argument, it could be that they designed killteam to be played on 30x22, made a box for it, and decided to stick to the 30x22 board size. Then the board would've came before the box.

GW's standard box size existed before Kill Team. And regardless of the order it happened in it's still a matter of box size dictating table sizes for 40k. There is no reason to assume that the ideal table size for 40k is a multiple of Kill Team mats side by side, that decision was made purely because GW didn't want to have a separate line of products and boxes for 40k.

So... What you're telling me is that you DON'T have a proof for your "literal fact", am I right? But of course, your assumption must be more correct than my hypothesis because its your assumption is fact and mine is just a speculation based various factors that may or may not have had any effect on the decision. FYI, the bigger 'standard' size box GW offers actually measures 11.5x17 and has been since 2nd 5th ed (AoBR was the first box of this size IIRC). It seems quite arbitrary that GW would say "11x15 fits in 11.5x17!" Why not just go 11x17 with the board? That would be closer in proportion to old 6x4.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
That’s exactly my point. If you need to “make” a 6x4 with materials that can be readily acquired, then it’s a surface that can be readily acquired, not a surface that is readily available.

A RAW minimum-size table isn't something most people have available already. Most people are going to be playing by putting a board on a table regardless of size.

My dining room table fits a strikeforce. I'm so sorry that my house had enough room for a 6 seater dining table.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
False dichotomy. Smaller boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make melee armies more favorable than range focused army.

False dichotomy. Larger boards make some units that are utterly useless into ‘viable’ or ‘niche’ category. It doesn’t necessarily make shooting armies more favorable than melee focused army.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma You have to learn the game before you play it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
That’s the point. Why should it be unrealistic to use a model/unit with 6” M or less in a game that has more than 50% of its model range with 6” M or less? It’s clear that 6”M is 1 turn too slow even on the reduced board size. Why must it be necessary to have more than 6" movement to be considered a viable inclusion in your list when the game is still designed around 6"M and 24" range gun as the baseline?

You may have a point in theory but footslogging tactical marines haven't been relevant in decades and aren't relevant on tiny 9th edition tables either. Like the "WHAT ABOUT 99999 BASILISKS ON A 10' TABLE" example it's a situation that has very little to do with real games.

Yeah... and this just shows that you've never actually played a proper incursion and just pulling arguments out of thin air because apparently GW wronged you so. Footslogging wasn't viable because GW never issued rules for playing on smaller boards until 8th ed. Models with 6" M pulls so much more weight in incursion than they do in strikeforce. You would see this if you actually tried it out.

EDIT: Actually, thinking back, foot slogging was remotely viable, as long as the unit was tough enough, when we still had the night fight rule.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Then your experiences must be limited to tailored match ups. The “sit-back-and-kill-as-many-units-as-you-can-so-that-your-opponent-can-no-longer-retaliate-and-play-objectives-in-latter-rounds” is THE most popular strategy in 2k games. You don't need to physically contest for center objective when you have enough guns to prevent your opponent from scoring it. You can deny your opponent's primary while playing your secondaries to keep up with victory points until turn 3 after you've made your opponent's army into mush.

Um, what? How are you just sitting back and killing anything in 9th when tables are full of LOS blocking terrain? You aren't denying primaries if you camp at the back of your table because you can't see anything and indirect fire is nerfed into uselessness. It seems like maybe the problem here is that you're trying to play on a table with a single tree in the center as the only terrain, with no real tactics beyond gunlines and "run straight at the enemy across an open field."

So... You PURPOSELY bring your units closer than they need to be to shoot at things? That's just bad tactics. The name of the game is 'keep your enemies beyond arms length, pummel it down to manageable levels, score objectives" in strikeforce. It's almost beginning to sound like you haven't even played a strikeforce game either.

So... You PURPOSELY bring your units closer than they need to be to shoot at things? That's just bad tactics. The name of the game is 'keep your enemies beyond arms length, pummel it down to manageable levels, score objectives" in strikeforce. It's almost beginning to sound like you haven't even played a strikeforce game either.

I would like to see the army that could do that vs pre nerf harlis or DE. The good armies in w40k are either ones that have the game in the bag end of turn 2 vs normal list, or they are like pre Omen necron&SoB, where the interaction level,in order to win, is close to zero. And this goes even worse for elite armies, because they scale really bad in to lower then 2000pts.

Karol wrote:

So... You PURPOSELY bring your units closer than they need to be to shoot at things? That's just bad tactics. The name of the game is 'keep your enemies beyond arms length, pummel it down to manageable levels, score objectives" in strikeforce. It's almost beginning to sound like you haven't even played a strikeforce game either.

I would like to see the army that could do that vs pre nerf harlis or DE. The good armies in w40k are either ones that have the game in the bag end of turn 2 vs normal list, or they are like pre Omen necron&SoB, where the interaction level,in order to win, is close to zero. And this goes even worse for elite armies, because they scale really bad in to lower then 2000pts.

We can talk about meta-counters all day long and we'll just be going in circles. But, I'll bite.

Harlequins rely on Invul and high AP. They have tough time in a mirror match and against mortal wound spams. Hell, I've even seen a ballsy dude who took Null Zone on his librarian to counter harlies. I would suspect new Votann would give harlies run for their money from what I've seen so far (haven't played against them yet).

Druhkaris rely on MSU's that can be equipped to reliably deal with pretty much everything except T8. Combining that with the codex as a whole being undercosted, what you ended up with is every trade was in DE's favor. But it still wasn't unbeatable - it's just that current meta at the time wasn't ready to deal with it. (and the codex was arguably OP).

These two were effective against the meta in that they are fast army that can bypass your meat wall to do damage where it hurts the most (the backline where your heavy hitters are), which matter of fact, was one of the prime reasons why aircraft spam became so popular because aircrafts didn't care where you were on the board because of its ridiculous M.

The Necron/SOB issue? It's an issue of critical massing and rules gimmick. They're just a different flavor of "mathematically impossible to wipe" type of horde army.

1k game meta is completely different from 2k. It's not a simple downsizing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

??????????????? wtf are you talking about??????

Before 8th edition the LOS rules said that you draw line of sight from the model's eyes. Not "head", not "optical sensors", not "center of body", specifically eyes. A space marine with a helmet does not have eyes, it has lenses on a helmet. A Tau drone or crisis suit does not have eyes, it has optical sensors. Etc. By strict literal RAW none of those models could ever draw line of sight to anything and therefore could not shoot or charge.

Obviously this is an absurd argument that only ever appeared in forum YMDC arguments, and was only made by people who treated rule debates as some kind of weird e-sport instead of a genuine attempt to help people understand the game. If you ever seriously tried to pull it IRL in a real game you'd be labeled an idiot TFG and nobody would ever play with you. And that's the same category that "LOL WHAT IF I WANT TO PLAY 99999 BASILISKS ON A GIANT TABLE" is in. Yes, technically by RAW you can play on a 10' table. If you show up with 18 artillery tanks and ask your opponent to use a 10' long table so you can automatically win the answer is going to be "no".

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:


Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

??????????????? wtf are you talking about??????

Before 8th edition the LOS rules said that you draw line of sight from the model's eyes. Not "head", not "optical sensors", not "center of body", specifically eyes. A space marine with a helmet does not have eyes, it has lenses on a helmet. A Tau drone or crisis suit does not have eyes, it has optical sensors. Etc. By strict literal RAW none of those models could ever draw line of sight to anything and therefore could not shoot or charge.

No it didn't. It told you to get down to it's eye level to determine whether or not something was 50% obscured for the sake of determining whether you can claim cover save or not. This then got skewed and got applied to things like devilfish screens.

TLOS got determined by visual inspection. Weapon range was measured from the muzzle of the weapon.

The forum has rules. Please stop trying to derail the discussion with your baseless "facts."

 skchsan wrote:
Literally never actually happened.

Neither has some TFG bringing 18 artillery pieces and demanding to play on a 10' table to auto-win. Now you're starting to get it.

So... What you're telling me is that you DON'T have a proof for your "literal fact", am I right? But of course, your assumption must be more correct than my hypothesis because its your assumption is fact and mine is just a speculation based various factors that may or may not have had any effect on the decision. FYI, the bigger 'standard' size box GW offers actually measures 11.5x17 and has been since 2nd 5th ed (AoBR was the first box of this size IIRC). It seems quite arbitrary that GW would say "11x15 fits in 11.5x17!" Why not just go 11x17 with the board? That would be closer in proportion to old 6x4.

I notice that you're very stubbornly nitpicking whether it's technically true that it's "fact" that it's about box size and ignoring the larger issue I raised: that 40k table size was determined by Kill Team, not by the needs of 40k. Even if I grant your alternative theory that the box size could have accommodated something closer to 6x4 it was still a business decision, not a game design decision, to make 40k use multiple Kill Team boards.

My dining room table fits a strikeforce. I'm so sorry that my house had enough room for a 6 seater dining table.

Oh really? Your dining room table is exactly 44"x60"? You play directly on the table surface without putting any board/mat/etc on top of it to form the battlefield? I suppose if you have this magical table that is exactly the perfect dimensions for a 40k game you could do that but it's going to look like garbage compared to putting down a board with some ground texture and paint or using a printed mat.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma You have to learn the game before you play it.

Yes, I am aware that this is a fallacy you are posting. Thank you for recognizing this.

So... You PURPOSELY bring your units closer than they need to be to shoot at things? That's just bad tactics. The name of the game is 'keep your enemies beyond arms length, pummel it down to manageable levels, score objectives" in strikeforce. It's almost beginning to sound like you haven't even played a strikeforce game either.

You do understand that line of sight is a requirement for shooting, right? And that the few units that don't need line of sight have been nerfed into uselessness? The only way you're going to "keep your enemies beyond arms length, pummel it down to manageable levels, score objectives" from your back table edge is if you're playing with laughably inadequate amounts of terrain. On a normal table those units on the back edge won't be able to draw line of sight to anything and your opponent can sit safely on the center objectives while running up a VP lead that is impossible for you to overcome. The only way to get line of sight is to move up and engage at closer ranges.

 skchsan wrote:
No it didn't. It told you to get down to it's eye level to determine whether or not something was 50% obscured for the sake of determining whether you can claim cover save or not. This then got skewed and got applied to things like devilfish screens.

TLOS got determined by visual inspection. Weapon range was measured from the muzzle of the weapon.

The forum has rules. Please stop trying to derail the discussion with your baseless "facts."

 skchsan wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
The real life situation I’ve laid out is simply a rebuttal to the red herring by Grimtuff. By RAW, the 60x44 is minimum size and I can go as large as I want as long as my opponent agrees with me.

Ok? It's RAW but it's RAW in the same way that "models with helmets can't shoot or charge" was RAW in previous editions. Nobody is playing that way because it's an obvious TFG move that gets you shunned from a group.

Literally never actually happened. You probably cherry picked this hyperbole off of some post trying to make a point. IIRC, this was one of the counter arguments for the TLOS + modelling for advantage discussion.

This absolutely did happen LMAO. It didn't happen a LOT, but enough for concern on how GW writes their rules.

Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

Dai wrote:
Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

You'd just say that "there's transparent glass in the helmets", the same way you'd say "lol no" to someone wanting to play a pick-up game on a huge table with lots of infinite-range weapons. I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to deliberately play on a larger table, the same way I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to play with huge amounts of terrain or almost no terrain.

 skchsan wrote:

The smaller battlefield is because they wanted to stop spilling their profits to mom and pop stores who are actually able to host 6x4 tables in their store.

Close, but not quite. I'd say it's all about getting the tables out of their stores more than caring about tables in a FLGS.

overpowering new codex?

did ORKS get overpowered?( I haven't read that new ORKS codex yet)

if ORKS get overpowerde,that is GOOD!

Since ancient times, ORKS has alway been too weak. It's time to compensate them.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

You'd just say that "there's transparent glass in the helmets", the same way you'd say "lol no" to someone wanting to play a pick-up game on a huge table with lots of infinite-range weapons. I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to deliberately play on a larger table, the same way I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to play with huge amounts of terrain or almost no terrain.

How much larger are we talking here, though? Is a 6' by 4' table for a 2k game enough to set alarm bells ringing, or is that acceptable?

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

You'd just say that "there's transparent glass in the helmets", the same way you'd say "lol no" to someone wanting to play a pick-up game on a huge table with lots of infinite-range weapons. I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to deliberately play on a larger table, the same way I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to play with huge amounts of terrain or almost no terrain.

How much larger are we talking here, though? Is a 6' by 4' table for a 2k game enough to set alarm bells ringing, or is that acceptable?

Yeah, it's enough. I'm sure you'd quickly dispel any worry. I expect people to have their alarm bells ringing when I bring a casual spam list if they don't know that the things I am spanning aren't undercosted they might assume I am spamming them because they are undercosted. If someone has a 6x4 table I'd be assuming we'd be playing on the whole table though, just to be clear.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

You'd just say that "there's transparent glass in the helmets", the same way you'd say "lol no" to someone wanting to play a pick-up game on a huge table with lots of infinite-range weapons. I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to deliberately play on a larger table, the same way I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to play with huge amounts of terrain or almost no terrain.

How much larger are we talking here, though? Is a 6' by 4' table for a 2k game enough to set alarm bells ringing, or is that acceptable?

Yeah, it's enough. I'm sure you'd quickly dispel any worry. I expect people to have their alarm bells ringing when I bring a casual spam list if they don't know that the things I am spanning aren't undercosted they might assume I am spamming them because they are undercosted. If someone has a 6x4 table I'd be assuming we'd be playing on the whole table though, just to be clear.

OMG! The table is 2" deeper on each side than GWs recommended minimum! My opponent must be trying to pull something over on me!
OMG! The table is 6, 7, maybe even 8 feet long! Whatever shall I do??
Hmmm... I think I'll start by deploying things accordingly.
If this is the standard table I play on? Then I'll make sure to adjust my forces a bit to account for that in future games. Same as I do if I know I'll be fighting on smaller tables.
(The average size table I've played most miniature wargames - whatever the genre/MFR - is 6x4)


Seriously, I'm more suspicious of those who WONT play on anything other than the minimum recommended sizes. If +2" on each of the long sides sets them off? If they can't handle another foot or two length wise? Then they've likely got more problems that'll torpedo our game.

Huhr duhr, I'm sure my opponent isn't trying to abuse my goodwill by bringing a gunline to an 8 foot bowling ball table. Being suspicious isn't a crime if you're not hurting anyone.

Back when I was a teen, I had a very wealthy friend and we used to play massive 4-5 way Warhammer battles on his full-sized snooker table. It was an amazing spectacle (even with our rubbish home-made scenery) but did my 3"-moving dwarfs no favours whatsoever...