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.

 aphyon wrote:


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

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

 Sasori wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

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

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

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

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

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

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

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


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

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

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

It does feel quite a bit like cognitive dissonance though.

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

 catbarf wrote:


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

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

Voss wrote:

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

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

Asmodios wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voss wrote:

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

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

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

Voss wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

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

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

.

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

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

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

Banville wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

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

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

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

Banville wrote:

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

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

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

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

No. Just Europe, but poetically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayniac wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

Voss wrote:

Banville wrote:

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

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

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

No. Just Europe, but poetically.

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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