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.

Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Gordoape wrote:
Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Literally one person has said "cash ploy" in this thread, and you're going to tar and feather everyone with the same brush?

If I can get my hands on a appropriate sized battle mat that looks cool and is inexpensive and high quality, then yes. But until then I'll be using 6x4.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gordoape wrote:
Ya’ll have got to be the biggest whiners of all time. How is reducing the table size a cash ploy? Just put some tape over the other side.

Literally one person has said "cash ploy" in this thread, and you're going to tar and feather everyone with the same brush?

Didn't you know all of dakka is a single mind that always shares the same opinion of everything? I've also heard that there is a picture of dakkadakka on the back of the limited edition BRB for 9th.

I got the benefit of playing at a local club with friendly minded people who just want to have a good time out of the game.

We will try the new table size and if it is fun, it is going to stay. If not, we will change it to our needs.

I'll try out the new size, though perhaps not when I'm playing my Kabalites against my friend's Harlequins.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

Oh I think it matters a lot more, at least from the games of 9th ed I saw, people are getting stuck in turn 1 a lot more often, then they did in 8th. But maybe it is because people play missions with objectives in the middle and everyone races to get to them.

I meant tactical manouvering and not the blind Alpha strike Rush to the middle gw wants.

"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

 Jidmah wrote:
"Tactical maneuvering" in 8th meant backing away from mid-range and melee units for three turns, after which the game was essentially over.

A smaller table forces you to actually adapt to terrain and models for your tactical movement, instead of just relying on having enough space to move away from threads while shooting them with 48"+ guns.

Disagree , but then again transports were Bad for most factions allthroughout 8th, smaller tables won't Make them better aswell as the generic Reserve change...

I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

 Jidmah wrote:
I wasn't referring to transports. Both my armies move 5" a turn and their average guns shoot 24" or less. With the 6x4 tables, armies like craftworld eldar, space marines or guard had no troubles keeping their big guns outside of my range and just blast away, with little counterplay possible from my side.

When I think about it, my most successful lists were those which could close the distance faster than my opponents were backing away - ork buggies and DG daemon engines.

Frankly, i feel like that is an issue of the extreme offensive output of shooting that went through the roof...

6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

I'm fairly sure the main drive behind continuing to play on 6x4 is having existing 6x4 battlefields that required considerable effort and/or money to get, rather than feeling adventurous about odd table sizes.

Something interesting is also that there is no actual need for the table to rectangular. So if you have a table with round edges, you can just use that for gaming now as well.

Getting a battlefield to play on was one of the biggest struggles for me and my friends when we started playing 40k, so reducing the battlefield to a size that can fit on most dining or kitchen tables is definitely a good thing for new players.

I still think thats what killteam is for if you want to play the game on a kitchen table.

 Jidmah wrote:

Getting a battlefield to play on was one of the biggest struggles for me and my friends when we started playing 40k, so reducing the battlefield to a size that can fit on most dining or kitchen tables is definitely a good thing for new players.

Worth mentioning again that Ikea doesn't sell a single 44" wide dining table: https://www.ikea.com/ca/en/cat/dining-tables-21825/

Neither do almost all other furniture retailers. I've found exactly one 44" dining table searching for them, and it was $850. Otherwise, you're looking at some quite expensive custom carpentry if you want a dining or kitchen table that supports a Strike Force sized game.

You certainly can't fit it on most dining tables.

That's odd - while I also struggled to find tables that wide for sale, me and most of our group seem to own dining tables that are 120 cm (~47") wide.

Apparently ChickenMcNuggets aren't the only thing shrinking over time

Yeah, I have an old dining table repurposed as a wargame table that is exactly 60x44. I'm planning to just put a neoprene mat on top (letting the extra 6" on each end just hang off the side), which will be simpler than my previous method of laying three 4x2' MDF boards on top.

Getting the 44x30 size for a 1K game will be a bit trickier, but I have tape and other means of marking boundaries, so not a big deal.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
6'x4' in 8th was just a recommendation too, yet most people treated it as inviolable norm.

Why didn't the people asking other players to be a bit more free form with the new minimum promote a bit more variety away from the 6'x4' during 8th?

And if you wanna play larger than the new minimum, why 6'x4'? Maybe play 6'x5' or on one of those longish Star Wars Legion mats or some such.

6'x4' was largely a practical limit. It involves table height and how far the average player can reach without leaning down on the table (and knocking things over) without too much awkwardness. 5' wide starts making that uncomfortable for people, and even at 4', big scrums in the center around a lot of terrain can be awkward.

I'm actually a little (pleasantly) surprised that 44" as the new minimum hasn't turning into ranting about 'kiddifying' 40k again.

Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

IMO, it's not a terrible price, but I find cardboard mats to be suboptimal since they often don't lay flat and models tend to slide.

I think it's better in the long term to invest in a neoprene mat, and either make your own terrain for buy some laser-cut MDF terrain.

The issue with Moon Base Klaisus is that it comes with an anaemic amount of terrain. I got double that plus two of the Sector Fronteris Killzone complete buildings and that's about enough to cover the Klaisus stuff properly.

Also the Klaisus boards were one of GW's first forays into this whole tile/board shenanigans, so they're not quite the same size as the ones they've been producing for a while.

I'm going to be sticking with 6x4. Every local store I know is sticking with 6x4. If I've already got a 6x4, I don't see a good reason to deal with the fiddlyness of cutting extra bits off just for less play space.

I haven't attended a large tournament in years, an event that provided its own terrain and tables and all, so I have no idea how that will turn out, those can probably make better use of the space, but for most existing shops, the differences in min table size won't be anything they can actually make use out of, and I don't see them running out to replace their boards just...because.

Oh yeah, you'd definitely need a lot more terrain than what comes in the Moon Base set to have a decent game.

The main issue I have with GW's terrain is that it all tends to be small or non-solid, which in a game where an entire unit needs to be hidden to block LOS is a problem.

MDF buildings or ruins, or foam hills, take more work to make look good but make it much cheaper to get a playable amount of terrain.

I was in the hobby for a few years before drafting up and building my own table. And a few more years before we had proper terrain to cover said table. I really don't think that is going to change too much for many hobbyists, even with a different sized table.

If you're scratching up the money to put an army together piece-by-piece over time, you're likely not going to be in a position to get and decorate a table no matter what size it is. I think scaling down the size lowers that barrier just a little, but not significantly, but also limits some hiding and corner camping that happens in game a little as well. I think I said it before: we just got a little more space around the edges of the table to work with for storing out-of-game stuff, NBD. A 6x4 table WITH a little extra space for books and out-of-game models is a bit of a chore. If it doesn't have that, then storage of said books, models, and travels cases, and anything else you may want on there (drinks?) becomes exponentially more difficult.

I don't get the idea that a 6x4 table is now somehow useless or you need to cut/draw on it. I don't have a different mat for each deployment zone we play we simply mark off the boundary. I look at this change the exact same way you simply mark off a smaller total size with some dice or terrain. I could actually see people freaking out if they had made the table size larger because then you literally wouldn't have enough room. But the way they changed it, I'm now just adding some more imaginary borders instead of just deployment

I still miss 8x4...

Asmodios wrote:
I don't get the idea that a 6x4 table is now somehow useless or you need to cut/draw on it. I don't have a different mat for each deployment zone we play we simply mark off the boundary. I look at this change the exact same way you simply mark off a smaller total size with some dice or terrain. I could actually see people freaking out if they had made the table size larger because then you literally wouldn't have enough room. But the way they changed it, I'm now just adding some more imaginary borders instead of just deployment

Yeah, I'm not sure either. I just purchased a new size mat for my home table. You can even do something as simple as using tape. You by no means need to break out the tablesaw to fix this.

Now that I think of it, the reason I liked 6x4 is that it was nice and even numbers. It was easy to measure table quarters and deployment zones without too much thinking. Aesthetically, once the mat is laid on the table it doesn't make difference it's few inches too small or too big.

I don't have a 6x4 mat at the moment but if I did and wanted to try new recommended minimum size, I would simply declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (which they effectively are in any games that I play anyway). To strip one foot of the side, I would cover it with cloth to be used as an area for dice tray, reserves, casualties etc.

My only issue with new recommended minimum table sizes is that they are not mathematically pleasant.

jullevi wrote:
Now that I think of it, the reason I liked 6x4 is that it was nice and even numbers. It was easy to measure table quarters and deployment zones without too much thinking. Aesthetically, once the mat is laid on the table it doesn't make difference it's few inches too small or too big.

I don't have a 6x4 mat at the moment but if I did and wanted to try new recommended minimum size, I would simply declare first two inches of the board as non-play area (which they effectively are in any games that I play anyway). To strip one foot of the side, I would cover it with cloth to be used as an area for dice tray, reserves, casualties etc.

My only issue with new recommended minimum table sizes is that they are not mathematically pleasant.

The missions all measure form the center of the battlefield so they accommodate literally any table size.

jeff white wrote:I still miss 8x4...

I'm also of the opinion that we really should be going larger, not smaller. Like 8x6.

4' of board depth is just not enough to have any meaningful depth of operation or strategic maneuvering. There's no development of the attack because there's no depth. You can't penetrate and break through, because there's nowhere to break through to because everything is on the front line.

Mixzremixzd wrote:Does anyone have any experience with the GW moon base board https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Realm-Of-Battle-Moon-Base-Klaisus-2017?

It seems like decent value and might be roughly the right size for a 2000pt game if not a little smaller. Just wondering if it may be worth the investment along with the Indomitus box.

Probably not. I don't have it, but according to their website, it is not in fact at least the minimum dimensions.

It also doesn't come with anywhere near an appropriate amount of terrain. I'd just buy a mat. If you want 44'x60', just take a knife to it.