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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.

Yeah I agree there isn't even a restriction on playing on larger tables.

 Crimson wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?

Yeah, absolutely!

very much so. if tournies go to the bare minimum table size that's not GW's fault. tournies should, IMHO be he;d to a higher standard then "bare minimum of effort"

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?

Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.

If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.

This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.

That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?

Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.

I don't see much point speculating about motive. What we do know is that the at this point semi-official voice of GW (though he'd obviously deny it), and the only party to tell us the reasons behind the change, has told us that it is 100% about the dimensions of the Kill Team boards. That's it. Not about tournaments, not about good gameplay. Just about uniting GW's product lines.

One thing we can be pretty sure of is that with how closely he's working with GW these days, he would not have offered this explanation if he had been told not to by GW. So it is safe to say this is either the real reason, or the reason GW is comfortable with people being told. Which is interesting - they are not even trying to say it's about good gameplay.

This doesn't mean it'll be a disaster. It could turn out well, despite the original motive. But it does seem clear that creating a better game was not the reason for the change.

 Red Corsair wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?

Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.

If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.

This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.

That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?

Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.

especially as ITC has made far larger modifications to 40k then "yeah we're using X size for our tables"

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.

Actually I see nuanced civil discussion up until folks like you decide to paint the entire discussion in a broad stroke and blasting the entire forum, as if dakka was one entity and not individuals.

Whats more ironic is the guys like you that pop in and complain about what they perceive as complaining. With zero substance or relevance to the discussion.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Oh come on Grotsnik, you know as well as everyone here, if geedub put values in, they'll become gospel.

It's also interesting to see a 75% table size reduction along with a base size increase (over the past few years) of 60%.

"Just push all the models to the middle and roll some dice". - if they don't all start there anyway.

I'm glad there's the lore, the building and painting to make the hobby worthwhile for all the money sunk into it.

I think that's fair, but I also think it's fair to point out that the ITC folks did not used to collaborate so directly with GW. GW has made a big deal in 9th of pulling in a bunch of people they previously more or less ignored and getting them on board with their new edition. You can characterize that as selling out, or as people genuinely trying to help to make the game better. But things are legitimately different now than they were before.

It's the same reason that ITC is adopting the new missions, even though they are not exactly what they wanted - there is a massive push right now to adopt uniform standards. I personally think it's far too cynical to interpret this as just shilling and selling out, but either way - there is a spirit of cooperation right now that didn't exist before. You're going to see TOs more willing to go with the official GW line, at least initially.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see much point speculating about motive. What we do know is that the at this point semi-official voice of GW (though he'd obviously deny it), and the only party to tell us the reasons behind the change, has told us that it is 100% about the dimensions of the Kill Team boards. That's it. Not about tournaments, not about good gameplay. Just about uniting GW's product lines.

Did you miss the part where they adopted the new size for all their hosted events? It doesn't matter if it happens to be kill team board dimensions or not, or even if GW had the idea initially because when you tell the public you opposed of the implementation of the new standard upon playtesting, but then adopt it for your events do to space saving and logistics immediately it creates a real stinking situation. Period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think that's fair, but I also think it's fair to point out that the ITC folks did not used to collaborate so directly with GW. GW has made a big deal in 9th of pulling in a bunch of people they previously more or less ignored and getting them on board with their new edition. You can characterize that as selling out, or as people genuinely trying to help to make the game better. But things are legitimately different now than they were before.

It's the same reason that ITC is adopting the new missions, even though they are not exactly what they wanted - there is a massive push right now to adopt uniform standards. I personally think it's far too cynical to interpret this as just shilling and selling out, but either way - there is a spirit of cooperation right now that didn't exist before. You're going to see TOs more willing to go with the official GW line, at least initially.

Where are you getting that idea from? Reece and Mike Brandt have been on the play testing team since 8th. Furthermore the leaked missions are NOVA/ITC missions with different wall dressings. If Reece is suggesting he didn't want those missions, which are based off his in a heavy way, that is extremely odd.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think anyone has claimed doa , but healthy scepticism is imo advised what with the remaining rules Block that carries over.
Which honestly could've done with a bit of consolidation?

I mean, there is a thread in the 40k general section literally titles "9th is DOA!"

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.

And yet, some ITC tournaments will still be on 6x4 tables because Reese is only making it a thing at FLG run ITC events and leaving it up to TOs for all others. Which means you need to practice on both sizes depending on which events you participate in.

And like I said, check back in 3 months and see what has become the standard. I do hope I'm wrong, truly. I just know how most gamers are.

Resistant to change?

Obviously, otherwise so many people wouldn't be so adverse to getting rid of IGOUGO for a more tactical game experience

I was thinking about how the community has been freaking out everytime GW says they're changing something and how it'll ruin the game forever (or so I've been told).

Personally I just don't think AA is the magic patch everyone says it is, but each to their own on that hill. I don't feel like dying on it today.

You're missing the large number of people saying they aren't changing enough and the game will remain ruined forever.

Wakshaani wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Because if I'm practicing for LVO, or other ITC events, I need to use the same rules they do. The game is completely different on a 30" wide table than it is on a 48" wide table. Every game I play on a 6x4 would be a total waste of time because it isn't representative of the games I'm trying to practice for.

(hope I have the right person attributed here)

The LVO, ITC, and so on? While big names in the competitive scene, they're just a small fraction of the overall 40K experience and GW's aiming at bringing in a lot of new players for this edition, so giving minimums that focus on the average dinner table or folding tables in a garage is *extremely* smart.

My local store uses 8' X 4' boards for bigger games (such as 2K), scaling down to 6' x 4' for 1500. It's not what everyone uses, but you get used to it.

If your focus is more on "I want to travel the tourney circuit!" then you need to practice on tables matching what they use.

If your focus is more on local games, then you can use smaller tables *if you want*, but it isn't required.

This just makes the minimum size a bit more firm.

It's seriously not a big deal. The sky's not falling. Just vreathe, play locally, and wait for the major tournies to release what size they'll be using, then shift gears to practicing for that. There's no point getting worked up on this one.

Kick back, relax, crack open a beverage, and focus on enjoying the game for a month or two. Training mode's down the road, you know?

Man, people can't have it both ways in GW product design. They can't just cater to old faithful whales that will shell out for every price increase and then try and "entice" new people into paying THEM more money. GW's attempts to get new players seem more like "Man realms of battle aren't selling a lot. But we're making some flimsy cardboard products and that can undercut the actual well made neoprene and get us more money". The quality of the kill team boards? It's bad. They won't survive regular club use.

sieGermans wrote:
Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.

I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.

Sir, this is DakkaDakka, where the beardiest of neckbeards come to complain about the game changing too much, not enough, in the wrong way, or what have you, to be countered by another collection of neckbeards who derive enjoyment from telling the first group that everything is perfect, nothing is wrong, and the first group are just whiners.

It is distilled internet.

Iunno, try reddit? Or discord. Most folks are unsure of the table size changes.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.

Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.

Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.

It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.

(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)

The people playing tournaments don't have a real choice.

And I warrant the people playing in GW shops (So a very large proportion of the US community) Will also not have a choice.

What really bothers me is that the game I play the most is entirely reliant on 4 by 4 tables, and if GW stores do away with that base size, I'm gonna have difficulty playing LotR.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't think anybody will lose money betting on Marines being one of the first two codexes. 9th edition 40k is still 40k, folks.

A year or less since the last one too. Man if I was actively playing my marines, my head might explode.

Darsath wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.

It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.

It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".

And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.

This pretty much. Games Workshop, and those directly affiliated with it, have an incentive to promote the new edition. On top of not being allowed to say anything negative about the state of the game (only ever in passing as a fixed solution), you can see where it could arise. The only thing you can do is trust your own opinion to be as objective as possible when information comes out, and find a few reviewers whom you genuinely trust, who are not affiliated with Games Workshop, to give an honest opinion.

The funniest part.... actually I noticed in some responses to questions, Reece's wording seemed a bit... well... mad about the change.

But he can't actually be vocally against GW. They're his revenue. He can't alienate GW and a mass exodus hurts him financially. So, no matter what GW does, Reece is pushed pretty hard to present it in the best way possible. He can only ever be really angry years later when GW's moved on from something.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?

Yeah, absolutely!

very much so. if tournies go to the bare minimum table size that's not GW's fault. tournies should, IMHO be he;d to a higher standard then "bare minimum of effort"

Tournies are not independent from GW. The big ones are actually quite heavily involved with, and maybe even reliant on GW support. Reece is certainly heavily involved. And, like, GW just hired one of the guys who ran NOVA to co ordinate events. Failure to adopt GW preferences could lead to GW limiting or stripping their support of an event. They don't even have to be overt or vocal about it. We see this sort of thing literally constantly in business. Like, crunch. The company never has to tell you you'll be fired if you don't sleep under your desk, but man do your fellow employees and your boss keep giving you dirty looks when you dare go home at a reasonable hour.

So, yes, it is very likely GW's fault.

 Red Corsair wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?

Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.

If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.

This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.

That unmasks his bias even more, and actually makes him less trustworthy. If he actually opposed the idea then why on earth would he apply it whole cloth upon announcement by GW?

Looks more like he is trying to play both sides. Have it his way but pretend he opposes it in order to look like the peoples champion.

In the relationship between reece and GW, GW is much MUCH stronger. He can be mad about something all he wants, but he'd have to be stupid to let being angry jeopardize the relationship he bases his business on. I am not going to ask Reece to sacrifice his well being, and the well being of his employees, to spite GW over board sizes. That's be remarkably selfish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think some people are missing the darker side of GW becoming far more savvy at marketing. Where old GW arrogantly sat on its plastic throne and barely deigned to notice the peons playing its game, new GW is super involved with the community.

And this means they have a say in what parts of the community get brought on the inside. Who gets to be playtesters. Who gets previews of new products. Who gets GW staff to show up at their events and sell their very lucrative product. And who doesn't. It's basic marketing to manage a wide network of "influencers" (to borrow a gaming term). They aren't directly employed, but their business is reliant upon GW's. And GW can make or break some of these businesses.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yes, because people on Dakka have to be outraged over something, even if they have to make it up.

Yes because a large tournament runner saying that the minimum size would become the size used for those events doesn't alter anything in the average players games. Of course not, much like those " optional " rules for tournaments stayed just in those places eh ? Oh wait, they became the standard. People will take the minimum as the standard if they are pushed in tournament games and it feels very much like they want to try and standardize 40k. So sure if you play at your house with reasonable people, do what you want. However, for most people who play in events or against people who play events that suggested minimum that's being pushed as standard will be the de facto way to play.

The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.

There’s a significant difference between adopting a suggested tournament rule designed to curb broken unit spam, and deciding it’s impossible to play on a 6x4 table anymore and you have to throw our your mats/saw a foot off your table. One is adopting a simple, practical rules hot fix (that ain’t perfect but that’s for another thread). The other is not remotely comparable.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Yes because a large tournament runner saying that the minimum size would become the size used for those events doesn't alter anything in the average players games.

You are indeed correct, it doesn't.

Of course not, much like those " optional " rules for tournaments stayed just in those places eh ? Oh wait, they became the standard. People will take the minimum as the standard if they are pushed in tournament games and it feels very much like they want to try and standardize 40k. So sure if you play at your house with reasonable people, do what you want. However, for most people who play in events or against people who play events that suggested minimum that's being pushed as standard will be the de facto way to play.

Why would I want to play with unreasonable people? That just sounds like asking for trouble. And if you have a problem with ITC ruling, then tell it to them. Reece is not some sort of a king, he only has tournament because people attend them.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.

Well, this is a little naive, too. Because in fact, GW has gone out of its way this edition to bring in the TOs and get them on board, through various inducements. So to say it's not GW's fault if TOs go along with the suggestions set by GW that GW has spent a huge amount of time and energy getting them to buy into...seems a bit silly. If someone offers you a lot of money to punch somebody in the face, and you do it, the fault may primarily be yours - but to say they had nothing to do with it is not very convincing.

I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.

 jeff white wrote:
I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.

This is maybe a little hyperbolic, but I do think it cuts to the heart of the issue: this was not a change that was made for better gameplay, it was a change made (essentially by GW's own admission) in order to unify their product lines.

It could still end up well, but it's not surprising that people are going to be skeptical of a change that is clearly motivated by commercial considerations rather than gameplay considerations.

If they had done the same thing but articulated a carefully thought out rationale for why this was better for the game - especially if it was genuinely the reason they were doing it - I think a lot of the hostility would be diminished. There would still obviously be a few people complaining, but the tenor of the reaction would have been different.

Ok, you all can live in the fantasy land where the tournament scene doesn't change the game for a great many people. Wish I could believe that, but I've seen it. If you play with people who compete at events most of them want to do it all by the book in all the ways. That means following the specific victory conditions, board sizes to be used, etc, etc.

Much like how Legends is the kiss of death for many units. People will deny to play against them because " They aren't in tournaments they are broken ! " Same will happen with board size. " That's the right size any changes to that aren't balanced ! " " Why would I play on a board other than the size I'll have to play at events with ? " Insert all the reasons you like.

Group think is huge, larger than I wish it was in this game or in life in general. This minimum size talk will be the standard and anyone thinking it won't be are silly.

That said, if you only play at friends houses, and with people who don't care about these events then just keep playing the game as usual as really none of this will flow your way, maybe. Unless the powers that be say the size is just better for reasons then you may see it bleed over.

 jeff white wrote:
I am a fan of the flexible board size proportional to points and mission and so on, but to publish a purely arbitrary standard or so called minimum based on their proprietary box size without regard to how the move might affect so many other aspects of the game and hobby, well beyond table sizes, is simply going to breed resentment.

We have no information on how GW decided on the table sizes for the various points limits, so it's a bit disingenuous to call them 'purely arbitrary' at this time without seeing how they actually work.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.

Well, this is a little naive, too. Because in fact, GW has gone out of its way this edition to bring in the TOs and get them on board, through various inducements. So to say it's not GW's fault if TOs go along with the suggestions set by GW that GW has spent a huge amount of time and energy getting them to buy into...seems a bit silly. If someone offers you a lot of money to punch somebody in the face, and you do it, the fault may primarily be yours - but to say they had nothing to do with it is not very convincing.

It is not Naive to say that there is nothing in the rules that requires tournaments to use the minimum table sizes. Nothing. That is why they are called MINIMUM, as in that is smallest your table needs to be not it cannot be any bigger. Again, you are blaming GW for the decisions of tournament organisers. That is an irrefutable fact, not naivety.

And it's also an irrefutable fact that GW has worked extremely hard this edition to get the biggest TOs on board ahead of time. They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play (as they should - if they are going to make this change, it makes no sense for it to be piecemeal, when it comes to competitive play).

Nothing in the rules ever require TOs to do anything. They could say the game must be played on proprietary GW mats while wearing proprietary GW pajamas, that wouldn't mean TOs couldn't decide to do otherwise. But if in 10th GW decides to do that and gives special perks and access to all the TOs to get them to go along, it would be pretty silly to only blame the TOs and say GW had nothing to do with it.

Well to be fair the original 6 x 4 table size wasn't chosen for gaming reasons either, it just happened to be the standard size of a sheet of hardboard a the builders merchants of the day

so table size was chosen to fit an arbitrary size determined by convenience, just as the new size is going to be now

the fact Minimum RARELY = OPTIMUM. And tournies should focus on OPTIMUMS rather then MINIMUMS.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well to be fair the original 6 x 4 table size wasn't chosen for gaming reasons either, it just happened to be the standard size of a sheet of hardboard a the builders merchants of the day

so table size was chosen to fit an arbitrary size determined by convenience, just as the new size is going to be now

Sure. But the current rules are built for the 6x4 size. If they were redoing all the threat ranges of everything in the game with the 9th release, I don't think people would care nearly as much. The big concern here is that they have made a piecemeal change to the size while explicitly stating that they are not doing a comprehensives rules update.

It is possible that the rules they are changing will mitigate the impact of the change. We'll have to see. But it's reasonable to say "hey, wait a minute, you're making a commercially motivated change to the board size and telling us it's going to work out fine even though we're still using the old numbers, that seems unlikely."

BrianDavion wrote:
the fact Minimum RARELY = OPTIMUM. And tournies should focus on OPTIMUMS rather then MINIMUMS.

Yeah thats fine, but what the big tournaments will do, will be the way. As we've seen pretty much for awhile at this point.

yukishiro1 wrote:
They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play

[Citation needed]

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play

[Citation needed]

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

Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?

If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

There wouldn't be any ? Why would they make a claim like that ? Better to push those they aid to make it so, like Reece. Then they can just be like " Well isn't it nice you love the new table size so much. " For all we know they did tell him they wanted that and who is he to deny ?

As was said, GW is becoming self aware and can much more effectively use its muscle to guide things in a path they want them to go and this may well be one of the signs of that.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play

[Citation needed]

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

Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?

If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

ITC doesn't need GW's command to make bad rulings that are detrimental to the game, they have a history of making far worse on their own.

As for GW's wishes, if they stop selling their current Realm of Battle boards, then I might believe you.