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.

I was initially very skeptical of the reduced size, but coupled with the reduced size of armies it tightens up the gameplay without getting too cluttered. It's not a huge difference, but you will notice it when reserves come on from the side of the board and have longer to slog to get to the objectives, or when artillery hides in a corner.

One thing that I don't see people talking about is how the point levels match up with boards- 1500pts on a 44x60" table is going to feel more empty than 2000pts on a 48x72" table, despite the former being the 'official' size and the latter being beyond the minimum. If you want to stay closer to the 'intended' play experience while keeping your existing board size, you can always just play 2500pts on a 48x72, which will produce comparable board density to 2000pts on 44x60. There's also terrain to take into consideration, as with more stuff blocking LOS now, playing on a large board doesn't necessarily mean backfield units can make use of greater range.

All my mats are 48x72", but I've discovered that my coffee table is 44x66, so just laying a mat on the table and using the 44x60 size for 2000pt games is a lot easier than getting MDF board from the basement to get the old size. I'll probably still keep the MDF, and use it for larger games as described above. YMMV.

If you're a tournament player you'll use the tournament sizes, if you're a casual player it's not that big a deal what size you use. Not sure why there's heated debate over this of all things; I'd argue it's a lot less impactful than the types, size, and amount of terrain you use, but I don't see much discussion about that.

Do note it is 25% smaller. It may not always feel smaller, because no man's land is the same (usually).

The length got squished more than the width and the result creates a much tighter space to fight over objectives and subsequently a more difficult placement for reserves.

The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

* The tables at the shop I frequent are 4x8 & 4x6.
While we do occasionally play games using only 4/5/6/or 7 feet, we do it based on # of players, size of game, theme of game, etc. NOT because some company says "Blah blah blah...."
(hell, we play X-wing on 4x6-8 & that's designed for what, 3x3?)
As for shrinking the boards to 44" across? LOL. We're just lazy. We're not going to waste a moment thinking about doing that or zoning it out or any such. Boards 48" across. Deal with it.

* Those of us with tables at home? Most of our tables are 4x6. Some are 4x8. Depends upon space available (a compromise of physics & SOs opinions).
Other than that? See comments above.

 bullyboy wrote:
The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

Smaller boards were picked for ££££££. GW wants to sell more of their boards, ITC wants more prooooooooofits for themselves.

Balance or what's good for game never played in it. In game all it does is reduce meaning of movement and tactics.

tneva82 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The way I see things going is this..

Many will continue to play on 6x4. Along the way they will encounter some issues with certain armies, and post remarks on various forums. The responses will soon be..What table size did you play on? 6x4? Ah, that's why...the game was tested at smaller sizes and your army will play better that way. Mark my words.

Smaller boards were picked for ££££££. GW wants to sell more of their boards, ITC wants more prooooooooofits for themselves.

Balance or what's good for game never played in it. In game all it does is reduce meaning of movement and tactics.

ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle) and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway, even then you have a choice of the 2 board pack that makes a 44x30 or nothing from GW. I don't disagree the choice was made to allow GW to monetise the table size, but they're hardly ramming it down peoples throat.

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...?

Go far enough east, and it's the whole globe (except for the Atlantic itself).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

To be fair, you're both being naive by using "balance" to describe anything to do with 40k...

Dudeface wrote:
ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW

Of course they did. Because GW want to sell their new board size.

Dudeface wrote:
...and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle)

At this stage that's an ancient product and clearly not in keeping with their new product strategy.

Dudeface wrote:
... and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway

Like that matters. They've been making them in that size for a couple of years now, and decided to go all in with that size and start selling them. And so they start bringing out products to fit with their new recommended standard minimum table sizes.

tneva82 is 100% correct about this. The change in board size had nothing to do with balance or gameplay. It was decided purely by product requirements (which, in and of themselves were decided purely by shipping requirements).

I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
ITC publicly stated the had the board size dictated to them by GW

Of course they did. Because GW want to sell their new board size.

Dudeface wrote:
...and GW sell 6x4 boards (realm of battle)

At this stage that's an ancient product and clearly not in keeping with their new product strategy.

Dudeface wrote:
... and until the launch of 9th you actually can't buy any kill team boards anyway

Like that matters. They've been making them in that size for a couple of years now, and decided to go all in with that size and start selling them. And so they start bringing out products to fit with their new recommended standard minimum table sizes.

tneva82 is 100% correct about this. The change in board size had nothing to do with balance or gameplay. It was decided purely by product requirements (which, in and of themselves were decided purely by shipping requirements).

I didn't disagree, it just seems disingenuous to point fingers at FLG/ITC at this point as being a factor in the size change. Likewise as I say, they're not overly aggressively pushing a smaller table size, the community is doing that for them.

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Or gw could stop nonsense transport rules, actually make them work for all transports and not just for primaris, lower the extreme hike in fire output and doubleshooting for everyone .

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

Lol, incompetent or refusing to play with a style that I don't like? I hate outflanking, deepstriking, teleporting, reserve and nonsense like that. I'm willing to give up some competitiveness in order to play the game I want to play. Now this edition set a standard table that is smaller than before and game mechanics push the action towards the centre of the board. I welcome those changes, and I'm not putting a single unit in reserve except maybe the Gorkanaut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

Still better than nothing. And combined with the new edition's way to score points and army rosters being slightly smaller due to price hikes it's definitely an improvement.

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

Yeah! Because now you'll just come onto the board from reserve. That's completely different than deep striking.

Seriously, if you couldn't cross the board & get to melee in 8th it's because you were incompetent.

Lol, incompetent or refusing to play with a style that I don't like? I hate outflanking, deepstriking, teleporting, reserve and nonsense like that. I'm willing to give up some competitiveness in order to play the game I want to play. Now this edition set a standard table that is smaller than before and game mechanics push the action towards the centre of the board. I welcome those changes, and I'm not putting a single unit in reserve except maybe the Gorkanaut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

Still better than nothing. And combined with the new edition's way to score points and army rosters being slightly smaller due to price hikes it's definitely an improvement.

I think the only reason its come to this point is from poor game design in previous editions. There seems to be almost no actul thought to how Close Combat should be achieved in 40k until the rules are written, and often a lot of factions dont have the tools available to even start in a good place.

As someone who plays on coffee tables and desks, my ambition is to be able to get UP to these minimum sizes.

The new boards fit on my dining table, the old one doesn't easy choice.

I'm also going to build some barricades to add to any 6x4 table so my armies don't have to suffer through another edition where mobile long-range shooting absolutely dominates the game.

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

This.

If you don't want to use the minimum sizes offered, who cares! Find whatever size that works for you, and use that!

Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

tauist wrote:
Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

Lots of terrain hampers slow mid-range and assault armies which are also handicapped by larger tables. This is why smaller tables are good.

 Jidmah wrote:

tauist wrote:
Heck yeah, ignoring it completely. I've recently preferred table sizes that were larger than the specs (love Kill Team on a 4'X4'), and I'm not seeing how 9th will change my opinion.

Bigger table sizes are only a concern if your terrain is lacking IMHO, just like the whole "Alpha strike" nonsense.. If you dont have enough terrain to mitigate alpha strikes, you need to go and get some.

Lots of terrain hampers slow mid-range and assault armies which are also handicapped by larger tables. This is why smaller tables are good.

I would agree for 8th, but I've found terrain to be a boon for mid-range/assault armies in 9th. While it does make it harder to get to the enemy's deployment zone, it makes it much easier to chill at midfield and occupy objectives without getting shot.

For bigger games yes. So far we haven't liked the feel of a 2000 point 9th ed game on the smaller table size. For anything under 1500, the recommended sizes feel about right, but yeah, too cramped at 2000 so at least for now, 6x4 it is.

For my 6x4 tables, I could easily see marking off 12' to bring it down to 60", but wouldn't waste time with the 4" across, seems pointless. So basically 5x4 table.

Maybe GW did start off with an ulterior sales motive to the small board sizes. I think it's pretty likely.

However.... after playing a few games on them already, it does make a noticeable difference. "Short" (24") range weapons are more effective, melee units are much harder to get away from, objectives are harder to hold. I expect it to catch on quickly in the local scene because any event bigger than a basement is driven by the competitive players.
Any discussion about balance or meta is going to be contingent on the smaller board size.

I know if you want to be a pedant it's only a "minimum" board size, but then again last edition was only a "recommended" board size, you could totally have gone larger...but no-one really did.

At the store? 6x4. At the armory or in the garage? 6x5 or 8x5

I built my gaming table twenty years ago and no corporate sleazebag from Nottingham will mess with it in any way.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I love the smaller table. Now close combat units might actually reach fight without deepstriking.

4" less width on the table is that significant, huh?

The missions dictate where units are, which means units aren't in their deployment as often. That means melee works more.

I’ve absolutely no intention on changing the size of board I use to play on. We have a bunch of 6x4 mats and a realm of battle board. We are quite happy with how they work.

Remember these are MINIMUM sizes, not compulsory or even recommended.

I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

 xeen wrote:
I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

I think herein lies the problem. The new size is a *minimum*, not something the rulebook clearly recommendeds as a standard to wholesale transition towards, and I think the perception that the minimum is supposed to be such a standard now is what people are really irked about more than anything else. If you already have a 6x4, why bother marking it down just to adhere to the new minimum for its own sake instead of just...playing it as it is, unless physical space is a particularly huge requirement?