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 listening to the Independent Characters' last podcast talking about Shadow War when one of them mentioned early on that new bigger vehicles and other kits to match the new bigger marines was to be expected. This reminded me of a concern that I have had for a while about the way that rules were being written and newer bigger more killiier models brought into the standard 40k game. The concern is for the sense of space on the table. As is well known the Independent Characters have been positive about AoS and they went through some of their reasons why but mostly it comes down to speed of play. They like to mention that AoS has strategy even with simple rules and though in this last podcast seemed to acknowledge the "grognards" as they call them - neckbeards maybe? - the attitude is basically that if you don't like the way the A train is going then get off the A train. My concern is realism of simulation while theirs is more speed of play and convenience plus ease of play for noobs and people without interest in details. So for them a five hour fine grained battle sim is not optimal while a more coarse grained ninety minute game is... They dismissed the old rank and file of Fantasy and the idea that games\battles are won in the resource allocation or deployment and movement phases rather than I suppose new model count, mathhammer and hot dice. It was in building to this general discussion that mention was made of the phasing out of the current range and introduction of or reintroduction of appropriately sized transports and tanks and so on to match the numarine bigness. Here is where my concern arises. When I started in this hobby, tables were 4x8 feet and this got cut to 6x4 and then power creep and !ords of war and so on made the table effectively smaller. Already the sense of space diminished, now we are told to expect bigger models and bigger vehicles alongside less realism. The guys made an interesting observation that these days we have virtual reality computer games and that no one is interested in similar realism on the table top but I am not so sure about that. So my question in all of this is if bigger models will crowd the table making movement and deployment less an issue? And at the same time are they right that people don't want the realism anymore and are really looking for 3d MtG with its a metas and focus on list building the new hotness? And in the end to what do you attriibute the change in focus from old historical and accuracy to fast gameplay with less detail? Is it a changing generation coupled with the availability of realism in virtual realities so that people simply don't want or have the patience for wargame realism and are more interested in list building and dice rolling? Anyways whether you listened to this part of their podcast or not, I am interested in your thoughts on these subjects.

Jup they are shrinking the relative table area for years now. This is something that I don't like that much. But hey you can't have anything and bigger tables aren't that viable in most gaming area's.

This correlation between actual table size, model size and relative table size is also the main reason that I like to use <15mm miniatures for RPG games.

Yeah, 8x4 is what I started with, but battlemats mostly only come in 6x4.

My preference is 9x5 because it's easy to find tables in (regulation table tennis size) and allows for some actual depth to deployment zones and flanking tactics to work reasonably well.

Could be worse - X-Wing and similar games are shrinking the table to 3x3.

Tables should be 8X4. #neckbeard

Table tennis is where its at. My trouble is that we just don't have space for anything like that in the city here. Not easy anyways. So this leads me to suspect that we are looking at GW recognizing this limit in a lot of possible markets and are maybe looking to 4x4 and smaller tables to appeal to these people. Three ways to play should be Necromunda Mordheim and maybe Epic and Titanicus on 4x4 and 40k on 6x4 and Apocalypse style with big models on 8x4.

This brings me to another point. That points costs should reflect the model footprint in a way. If a model or unit controls big area just in virtue of its being on the table then it should cost more points.

Also can average points be lowered with a similar effect, shorter games with the added bonus that the table isn't so crowded?

Honestly? Yes. The game is being changed to entice younger, more time-sensitive, players.

The average gamer wants a faster play experience, with more action, and the appearance of something epic. The problem is that those things are not necessarily compatible using this medium, so something's gotta give, and that something is realism and "battlefield size". With battlefields that are, essentially, "smaller" due to bigger and faster models, you make the game come to a natural conclusion sooner, with lots of stuff appearing to happen, and it gives many players the sense that an epic battle is occurring.

And I believe that this is the correct course of action for the long-term survival of the game.

There are niches for making more realistic games, but when you do that, you run into a lot of problems. First, it becomes incredibly complex, as there needs to be a system in place to account for all the possible events that occur during a game. You would have to roll for ricochets and running out of ammo/fuel, did the truck lose a wheel, which finger did the Colonel lose, and who takes over for the Colonel when he bites it? This extra complexity takes a lot longer to resolve, slowing down the game. You spend a long time doing, effectively, nothing. This makes the game feel less epic. I know I'm over-exaggerating here, but it's to get the point across that "more" is sometimes "less". While some people might like such a game, the majority of people wouldn't, and the company would shrink, as would the chances of coming across someone that also plays.

Realism is much better left to computer simulations, because they can take into account weather, whether the troops had a good meal the night before, or stretched (but not broken) supply lines. It can add 0.000154% to a unit's effectiveness for specific advantages or disadvantages, and it does so instantly, meaning it doesn't slow the game down for doing so. Even most games forgo realism in order to deliver the right experience (if you played Xcom, you know what I mean when sometimes you shoot through solid objects or people).

There's a chance that the game is becoming less about the experience that you're looking for. That's totally possible. There are ways to mitigate that, but it's going to become increasingly more difficult as time goes on. At this point, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to change to stay with the game, or if it's time to back away. It's okay to back away, that tells GW that you're looking for something else. If enough people do the same, GW will change it. However, I suspect that's not the case, and if anything GW is going to grow from this change as it embraces a younger demographic that likes different things.

 Yarium wrote:
Realism is much better left to computer simulations, because they can take into account weather, whether the troops had a good meal the night before, or stretched (but not broken) supply lines. It can add 0.000154% to a unit's effectiveness for specific advantages or disadvantages, and it does so instantly, meaning it doesn't slow the game down for doing so. Even most games forgo realism in order to deliver the right experience (if you played Xcom, you know what I mean when sometimes you shoot through solid objects or people).

This is true here. It is easy to simulate how a headshot would do more damage in an FPS where it is easier to acuatally track a headshot, but in a tabletop game it requires a roll on a table. There is nothing wrong with rolling on a table for determining damage or outcomes, but a cumbersome game takes more time to play.

Every game in any system in any medium comes down to its degree of simulation: representation or abstraction. On the more representative side of the spectrum, we have RPGs, going into historical wargames, then abstract games like Age of Sigmar, and then even more abstract like Mage the Gathering and then Chess. It's all a matter of what you, as a gamer and consumer of games, want out of your time. It's all a matter of your desired experiences and what you are looking for in a game. There is no right or wrong answer here, because it all comes down to your definition of fun.

I am greatly enjoying Age of Sigmar right now. Why? Because it is a simple, abstract game, with a lot of variety in army and unit choices and options provided to the game by the General's Handbook with its layered and modular method for stacking on additional rules. Age of Sigmar games take far less time to play, which is a great boon in my position: I have a new family, a full time job that will start working me overtime in the coming months, and my commute to work is at least an hour and a half EVERY work day I just don't have time to invest in hours and hours of studying army books and tactica sites just to get an idea of if my army will even be viable or "competitive"; I can just grab my army and know it has a chance against any other army.

I greatly enjoy Warhammer Fantasy, and still am keeping some of my models on square bases in order to play it later. But I do have complaints about it as a game system: rank-and-file models being time-consuming to paint and hard to fit together in formation, the over-dependence on the magic system, and the lack of opportunity to create your own factions in comparison to other wargames. These are not BAD things to have, but it's just not what I am looking for in a game anymore. I am lacking in time to paint and play, and I would rather get in two or three games in my one game night/day a month with a more abstract rules set, than one game in that same time which is slowed down by looking up/checking rules and any amount of bookkeeping.

If I want something much more complex, I will play an RPG. If I want to escape from the real world for a few hours with my buddies and relax, I'll stick to a more abstract game.

As for dealing with table sizes and scale creep? That's up to you and your gaming group to figure out. I like the ideas of playing on larger tables, and I like the ideas of bringing lots of big models with lots of small ones with them. I wasn't around during the time of 8'x4' standard table sizes, but I do see the appeal, and I can see the appeal of having a deeper deployment zone to deployment, artillery, and outflanking more significant. To go against the standard rules of a game is to make houserules, and some people are not keen with that. Try playing a scenario that utilizes the larger table space and see how it goes, or play a game where only Infantry are allowed.

 Yarium wrote:
Honestly? Yes. The game is being changed to entice younger, more time-sensitive, players.

The average gamer wants a faster play experience, with more action, and the appearance of something epic. The problem is that those things are not necessarily compatible using this medium, so something's gotta give, and that something is realism and "battlefield size". With battlefields that are, essentially, "smaller" due to bigger and faster models, you make the game come to a natural conclusion sooner, with lots of stuff appearing to happen, and it gives many players the sense that an epic battle is occurring.

And I believe that this is the correct course of action for the long-term survival of the game.

There are niches for making more realistic games, but when you do that, you run into a lot of problems. First, it becomes incredibly complex, as there needs to be a system in place to account for all the possible events that occur during a game. You would have to roll for ricochets and running out of ammo/fuel, did the truck lose a wheel, which finger did the Colonel lose, and who takes over for the Colonel when he bites it? This extra complexity takes a lot longer to resolve, slowing down the game. You spend a long time doing, effectively, nothing. This makes the game feel less epic. I know I'm over-exaggerating here, but it's to get the point across that "more" is sometimes "less". While some people might like such a game, the majority of people wouldn't, and the company would shrink, as would the chances of coming across someone that also plays.

Realism is much better left to computer simulations, because they can take into account weather, whether the troops had a good meal the night before, or stretched (but not broken) supply lines. It can add 0.000154% to a unit's effectiveness for specific advantages or disadvantages, and it does so instantly, meaning it doesn't slow the game down for doing so. Even most games forgo realism in order to deliver the right experience (if you played Xcom, you know what I mean when sometimes you shoot through solid objects or people).

There's a chance that the game is becoming less about the experience that you're looking for. That's totally possible. There are ways to mitigate that, but it's going to become increasingly more difficult as time goes on. At this point, you need to ask yourself if you're willing to change to stay with the game, or if it's time to back away. It's okay to back away, that tells GW that you're looking for something else. If enough people do the same, GW will change it. However, I suspect that's not the case, and if anything GW is going to grow from this change as it embraces a younger demographic that likes different things.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Why are younger people as you say so time sensitive?
Not that I mind a shorter game.
But couldn't this be done with smaller games better?
If one is so time sensitive then where does one find the time to paint and convert a standard sized 1850points in the first place?

These games have never and will never be about either "simulation" or "realism." They are about playing with toy soldiers.

A certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required, but at best the models are abstractions and should be treated as such.

GW strained this concept mightily when they introduced "true line of sight." That was, in my opinion, a mistake, as it definitely caused players to look for other "realism" type things.

So I certainly don't blame players for starting to view the game in those terms, as TLOS corrupted the idea of abstraction.

 3orangewhips wrote:
These games have never and will never be about either "simulation" or "realism." They are about playing with toy soldiers.

A certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required, but at best the models are abstractions and should be treated as such.

GW strained this concept mightily when they introduced "true line of sight." That was, in my opinion, a mistake, as it definitely caused players to look for other "realism" type things.

So I certainly don't blame players for starting to view the game in those terms, as TLOS corrupted the idea of abstraction.

I prefer TLOS over abstracting the model out of having any meaning, like in Warmahordes. For that game system, you could just have marked bases to play your games and never actually have to buy or paint the models. When each model has a standard base, and that standard base has a standard height, regardless of the model's profile, then you no longer need the model to even be in the game. And considering how many times I had to charge a model in sideways or backwards, that breaks the immersion. Sure, it makes things easier to balance out, but I would rather my model have a purpose on the table, otherwise I would just play a card or board game.

And you are correct; suspension of disbelief is absolutely required in playing the game.

Table space has been an issue for several editions now, its been getting increasingly bad for over a decade. Even in 5E, my tournament IG list had 17 independent AV12 vehicles and 85 infantry in a 2000pt game. Some Space Marine armies using Gladius detachments rivalled that model count in 7E. With big models like Riptides, Knights or Baneblades, the space issue got stretched further. Scale as a whole is a major issue, and through the last few editions units like the basic Tac marine or Guardsmen have become increasingly irrelevant as anything but board control with stuff like TWC deathstars, Titans, Necron Wraiths, Knights, Riptides, etc have come to dominate battlefields.

I'm not sure if 8E will provide much relief, but it's something people need to be aware of.

 jeff white wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Why are younger people as you say so time sensitive?
Not that I mind a shorter game.
But couldn't this be done with smaller games better?
If one is so time sensitive then where does one find the time to paint and convert a standard sized 1850points in the first place?

No problem, always happy to give my opinion.

I'm not 100% sure why younger people are more time sensitive, and there are likely massive reports and analyses of that for many other companies, but it's definite a real phenomenon. Maybe it's because our other entertainment sources have also sped up, or maybe it's because even though we have more wealth and technology and options than at any other time in history, those same things also eat up a lot more time. Maybe it's because there are lots of other game systems that are much faster to play (Attack Wing, Magic, Flappy Bird, etc.) that things that take a lot longer are experienced on a comparative scale, so they feel exceptionally longer than they felt at first to us. Whatever the case, what matters most is that the game be willing to change and adapt. It needs to still have its own space (it can't be too mutable, otherwise you can't hold an audience), and that space will always mean that it takes longer to play, but it needs to do more with that space then.

Touching on Attack Wing again, a lot of people like it because it's a fast model game, and you don't have to paint your miniatures. It really is great for the time sensitive person, which is why it EXPLODED into the market - it hit a bigger demographic that were able to quickly and easily pick it up. But even ignoring that, some people may have an hour to paint every day for a year, but never really have 4 hrs to play a game. They could easily paint up 1850 points in that time and never play it, because painting can be broken down into portions, while an 1850 point game really can't be.

Maybe play at a lower point level?

So, I started out playing hex-based wargames with die-cut tokens with numbers and NATO unit symbols printed on them.

I moved to playing 40k when it was in it's 5th Edition, and I don't think then it was a much of a simulation in the least, and I don't think it was any more of a realistic simulation then than it is now.

I like bigger tables and longer games too, but I don't think bigger models are creating a problem with that. I like bigger models too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Why are younger people as you say so time sensitive?
Not that I mind a shorter game.
But couldn't this be done with smaller games better?
If one is so time sensitive then where does one find the time to paint and convert a standard sized 1850points in the first place?

That's the problem, one doesn't.

Kids these days have a half-dozen extra curricular activities and an entire class schedule of AP classes so that they can get into a half-decent college, and there's just not time for miniatures anywhere in that schedule. Between Science Olympiad, Quizbowl, Track and Field, Soccer, Violin, Robotics, Speech and Debate, Piano, and the homework for AP Calculus II, AP Macroeconomics, AP US History, AP English Literature, AP Computer Science, AP Art, and what-have- you, there's no time in the day.

So we're competing with League and DOTA and Battlefield and what-else-have-you for the last 30 minutes of a kid's day. And we don't offer instant gratification, so we're not winning in that contest.

And it doesn't get much better in college. One of my friends has bases with legs. Somewhere, he's got the sprues, and I've offered to loan him my knife and saw and glue and paint, but he still doesn't have the time to take care of it.

Yarium,

What you say with the younger generation is very true, but in my life I have noticed a bit of the reverse as I get older. When I was younger and fewer obligations like work, spending time with my wife, working on the house or fixing my vehicles myself to save money, I greatly enjoyed a longer and more in depth game. That is why I fell in love with Fantasy and the earlier editions of 40k. Now though, I would rather have a faster more streamlined game so that I can play more than one game in an evening, or be able to get a game in where I might not be able to if it was to take longer. My wife enjoys painting and crafts, so I have far more time to spend building models while she is doing her art stuff than I do to play games, and the days that I can go out to play are far more limited now as well.

It is also in part that I really don't like to play games smaller than 1500 for 40k, I spent a lot of time and effort getting my army together and like to use as many of my little toy soldiers as possible.

But, back to your point about the younger generation, I have a feeling that our now instant access to any media we want hasn't helped the larger scale tabletop games at all. Why would a younger individual want to spend a lot of time reading a rulebook to play 40k when they can play Dawn of War and get a similar satisfaction of having their Space Marines crush an opponent? It has to be fast enough to keep them engaged without being bogged down by constantly needing to open a book.

You mentioned Attack/X-Wing, and games like that, Malifaux and other streamlined small scale games have really taken off recently. Because like you said, with some of them you don't have to paint (instant gratification), and other you only need to "go through the chore" of building and painting a few models. For many, starting up a 40k army isn't fun since you need so much more of an investment to play.

 3orangewhips wrote:

GW strained this concept mightily when they introduced "true line of sight."

'Introduced'...? 40K and (as far as I remember) WHFB have always used true line of sight.

Hmm, all told I do think 9x5 would be an interesting choice both due to ease of acquisition (as mentioned, it's a standard ping-pong table) and due to creating more room for space-hungry things like superheavies, big infantry blobs, or speedy fliers with a large minimum move. Pool tables (and the small end of billiards tables) also have similar dimensions in their playable area, a bit longer and a bit narrower, but adequate for someone who is improvising.

Especially since model sizes have also been creeping up, individual models take up more space now than they used to, even infantry, so perhaps re-scaling the table to fit may be appropriate.

Though a bit of searching seems to indicate that 6x4 is a common size for rectangular dinner tables, which may have been the motivation for the original choice of board size. Of course, just because it's common doesn't mean everyone has one... plenty of people with square or round dinner tables for example.

 insaniak wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

GW strained this concept mightily when they introduced "true line of sight."

'Introduced'...? 40K and (as far as I remember) WHFB have always used true line of sight.

Not quite. More like true line of fire, where a model behind a low wall could also fire its weapon, despite its eyes not being able to trace a line to the target, as the rules 'asume' the warrior represented by the model could actually move so it would fire over the wall. Just to name but one example.

Also, true line of sifght for any model on the sides of a block of warriors in Fantasy would actually be the front 180 degrees arc, plus the 'free side' the warrior is on. True LOS would include the warrior (not the model) being able to turn his or her head sideways to the unibstructed flank to spot incoming enemies.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yarium,

What you say with the younger generation is very true, but in my life I have noticed a bit of the reverse as I get older. When I was younger and fewer obligations like work, spending time with my wife, working on the house or fixing my vehicles myself to save money, I greatly enjoyed a longer and more in depth game. That is why I fell in love with Fantasy and the earlier editions of 40k. Now though, I would rather have a faster more streamlined game so that I can play more than one game in an evening, or be able to get a game in where I might not be able to if it was to take longer. My wife enjoys painting and crafts, so I have far more time to spend building models while she is doing her art stuff than I do to play games, and the days that I can go out to play are far more limited now as well.

It is also in part that I really don't like to play games smaller than 1500 for 40k, I spent a lot of time and effort getting my army together and like to use as many of my little toy soldiers as possible.

There is a lot to this here. I loved Warhammer Fantasy, and I (kind of) enjoyed Warmahordes. But as the years wear on, it seems as though there isn't enough time to do anything like we used to, so the quicker, simpler games come in.

Plus, as a dad and husband, I look for ways to include my wife and daughters in on my hobby, and for them, the simpler game not requiring as many rules and as much complexity wins out. Aside from the difficulties in them finding an army that is aesthetically pleasing, large tomes full of rules are kind of intimidating to them in a gaming sense.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
But, back to your point about the younger generation, I have a feeling that our now instant access to any media we want hasn't helped the larger scale tabletop games at all. Why would a younger individual want to spend a lot of time reading a rulebook to play 40k when they can play Dawn of War and get a similar satisfaction of having their Space Marines crush an opponent? It has to be fast enough to keep them engaged without being bogged down by constantly needing to open a book.

You mentioned Attack/X-Wing, and games like that, Malifaux and other streamlined small scale games have really taken off recently. Because like you said, with some of them you don't have to paint (instant gratification), and other you only need to "go through the chore" of building and painting a few models. For many, starting up a 40k army isn't fun since you need so much more of an investment to play.

I got into 40K because of the Dawn of War games. I enjoy PC gaming, but for different reasons than 40K, and for different reasons from other games and hobbies as well. PC and video games are good if all you want is to GAME, but miniature wargaming is a hobby made up of several hobbies, with the GAME aspect being but one aspect. I much prefer the tactile experience of moving around models, rolling dice, and the modelling aspect of the hobby. I greatly enjoyed putting together model cars with my dad when I was younger, and I spent many days lost in my Lego bricks. Board games have always been fun, and creating personal stories around what my figures do greatly appeals to the RPG player in me.

Yes, time is a great motivator in what you can do. But for some of us, the full experience of the hobby is worth those hours in building, painting, and playing.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
....
Kids these days have a half-dozen extra curricular activities and an entire class schedule of AP classes so that they can get into a half-decent college, and there's just not time for miniatures anywhere in that schedule. Between Science Olympiad, Quizbowl, Track and Field, Soccer, Violin, Robotics, Speech and Debate, Piano, and the homework for AP Calculus II, AP Macroeconomics, AP US History, AP English Literature, AP Computer Science, AP Art, and what-have- you, there's no time in the day.

So we're competing with League and DOTA and Battlefield and what-else-have-you for the last 30 minutes of a kid's day. And we don't offer instant gratification, so we're not winning in that contest.

And it doesn't get much better in college. One of my friends has bases with legs. Somewhere, he's got the sprues, and I've offered to loan him my knife and saw and glue and paint, but he still doesn't have the time to take care of it.

Help them remember about Summer Break though

But you are right. That's why I'm going to help my daughters get started on the hobby early on to see if they like it, and encourage them to not just follow the standard track of "gotta-have-college-degree-or-else", as that is not necessarily the best course for everyone. Yes, youth should be spent on preparing for real life, but it should also be enjoyed, just like the rest of life. Without sufficient reasons, one can lose motivation. It's a matter or perspective and helping your kids find what they enjoy doing, and helping them to balance that with all of the "have to" they will find in life.

 ross-128 wrote:
Hmm, all told I do think 9x5 would be an interesting choice both due to ease of acquisition (as mentioned, it's a standard ping-pong table) and due to creating more room for space-hungry things like superheavies, big infantry blobs, or speedy fliers with a large minimum move. Pool tables (and the small end of billiards tables) also have similar dimensions in their playable area, a bit longer and a bit narrower, but adequate for someone who is improvising.

Especially since model sizes have also been creeping up, individual models take up more space now than they used to, even infantry, so perhaps re-scaling the table to fit may be appropriate.

Though a bit of searching seems to indicate that 6x4 is a common size for rectangular dinner tables, which may have been the motivation for the original choice of board size. Of course, just because it's common doesn't mean everyone has one... plenty of people with square or round dinner tables for example.

My brother and I played on our parents's full size billiard table for a while, but never measure it. It was probably a hair over 8'x4' in size of the play area where the balls go.

I had a thought a while back for having a different rules set for large Apocalypse games. Basically it boiled down to playing Epic for Apocalypse for a more streamlined game and not worrying so much about the model-to-model bookkeeping that regular Apocalypse brings.

 insaniak wrote:

 3orangewhips wrote:

GW strained this concept mightily when they introduced "true line of sight."

'Introduced'...? 40K and (as far as I remember) WHFB have always used true line of sight.

As I recall, there was a time when you could hide all but one member of a unit and still shoot with all those models.

IIRC Warhammer 40,000 started with 6x4 as the table standard and only moved to 8x4 in 4th edition. This change to a much larger table size was not met with open arms - not one bit. Going back to a 6x4 when 5th edition came was heralded in with trumpets and cheers like a fething Thanksgiving day parade.

 oni wrote:
IIRC Warhammer 40,000 started with 6x4 as the table standard and only moved to 8x4 in 4th edition. This change to a much larger table size was not met with open arms - not one bit. Going back to a 6x4 when 5th edition came was heralded in with trumpets and cheers like a fething Thanksgiving day parade.

I am pretty sure 2nd was 8x4, but it was a long time ago.

For me, the problems started when they introduced basic weapons with a range of more than 24", yet deployment zones stayed at 24" apart.

8x4 was 2nd ed standard

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I got into 40K because of the Dawn of War games. I enjoy PC gaming, but for different reasons than 40K, and for different reasons from other games and hobbies as well. PC and video games are good if all you want is to GAME, but miniature wargaming is a hobby made up of several hobbies, with the GAME aspect being but one aspect. I much prefer the tactile experience of moving around models, rolling dice, and the modelling aspect of the hobby. I greatly enjoyed putting together model cars with my dad when I was younger, and I spent many days lost in my Lego bricks. Board games have always been fun, and creating personal stories around what my figures do greatly appeals to the RPG player in me.

Yes, time is a great motivator in what you can do. But for some of us, the full experience of the hobby is worth those hours in building, painting, and playing.

I got into this because it was the logical intersection between building model tanks and playing old wargames.

Videogames also lack the social aspect of tabletop gaming. I like going to the store and meeting my friends in person, rolling dice, and standing around the table chatting. At the very least, I know the people I'm playing with.

When it comes to Dawn of War, I do find the games fun, if somewhat mediocre as RTS game, but I'm easily offended with people who don't realize that Dawn of War is based off a tabletop game.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Help them remember about Summer Break though

But you are right. That's why I'm going to help my daughters get started on the hobby early on to see if they like it, and encourage them to not just follow the standard track of "gotta-have-college-degree-or-else", as that is not necessarily the best course for everyone. Yes, youth should be spent on preparing for real life, but it should also be enjoyed, just like the rest of life. Without sufficient reasons, one can lose motivation. It's a matter or perspective and helping your kids find what they enjoy doing, and helping them to balance that with all of the "have to" they will find in life.

It's not just getting a degree, it's getting a useful degree. There's a difference between a degree in mechanical engineering and a degree in english literature.

Having some post-high-school education is almost essential, though. High school nowadays manages to do a dismal job of preparing one to have a career. High school managed to do a dismal job preparing me for much of anything at all, actually. Any sort of truly practical classes have been purged from the curriculum.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I got into 40K because of the Dawn of War games. I enjoy PC gaming, but for different reasons than 40K, and for different reasons from other games and hobbies as well. PC and video games are good if all you want is to GAME, but miniature wargaming is a hobby made up of several hobbies, with the GAME aspect being but one aspect. I much prefer the tactile experience of moving around models, rolling dice, and the modelling aspect of the hobby. I greatly enjoyed putting together model cars with my dad when I was younger, and I spent many days lost in my Lego bricks. Board games have always been fun, and creating personal stories around what my figures do greatly appeals to the RPG player in me.

Yes, time is a great motivator in what you can do. But for some of us, the full experience of the hobby is worth those hours in building, painting, and playing.

I got into this because it was the logical intersection between building model tanks and playing old wargames.

Videogames also lack the social aspect of tabletop gaming. I like going to the store and meeting my friends in person, rolling dice, and standing around the table chatting. At the very least, I know the people I'm playing with.

When it comes to Dawn of War, I do find the games fun, if somewhat mediocre as RTS game, but I'm easily offended with people who don't realize that Dawn of War is based off a tabletop game.

Yeah, I would get aggravated as well. I remember my earliest Google searches for more about Warhammer 40K and Games Workshop, and getting lost in the wikis and YouTube hobby tutorials. Good times, good times....

And yes, the social experience for tabletop gaming is much greater than for PC and video games. Unless you have a LAN party (does anyone do that anymore?), you are losing out on that physicality of being in the same room with other humans who share your interests.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Help them remember about Summer Break though

But you are right. That's why I'm going to help my daughters get started on the hobby early on to see if they like it, and encourage them to not just follow the standard track of "gotta-have-college-degree-or-else", as that is not necessarily the best course for everyone. Yes, youth should be spent on preparing for real life, but it should also be enjoyed, just like the rest of life. Without sufficient reasons, one can lose motivation. It's a matter or perspective and helping your kids find what they enjoy doing, and helping them to balance that with all of the "have to" they will find in life.

It's not just getting a degree, it's getting a useful degree. There's a difference between a degree in mechanical engineering and a degree in english literature.

Having some post-high-school education is almost essential, though. High school nowadays manages to do a dismal job of preparing one to have a career. High school managed to do a dismal job preparing me for much of anything at all, actually. Any sort of truly practical classes have been purged from the curriculum.

And here I am with a degree each in IT and Digital Media, and am working in a call center with a grand total of 3 and a half years of working experience in my life, nearly 6 years after I graduated, because I focused on academics and extra-curricular activities instead of getting more "experience". Yes, college can help, but anecdotally speaking, it didn't do for me what it has for others of my graduating class with the exact same degree from the same school. I will just make sure that my kids know that there are trade schools and other options available in addition to the "college experience" that can be just as beneficial to having a fulfilling career and steady job.

I was homeschooled for most of my life, so my parents made sure I got some practical education (personal finance, home economics aka. chores, etc), so I am right there with you. My wife complains all the time that her high school removed their home economics class, because she was looking forward to learning all the things her parents refused to teach her.

Anyways, this might be a conversation for another time; we should be here to talk Warhammer

 3orangewhips wrote:

 oni wrote:
IIRC Warhammer 40,000 started with 6x4 as the table standard and only moved to 8x4 in 4th edition. This change to a much larger table size was not met with open arms - not one bit. Going back to a 6x4 when 5th edition came was heralded in with trumpets and cheers like a fething Thanksgiving day parade.

I am pretty sure 2nd was 8x4, but it was a long time ago.

Yeah, 8x4 was standard in 2nd edition. It shrank to 6x4 in 3rd edition, although I don't think that was due to anything specifically said by GW... people just started using smaller tables.

 Lord Xcapobl wrote:

Not quite. More like true line of fire, where a model behind a low wall could also fire its weapon, despite its eyes not being able to trace a line to the target, as the rules 'asume' the warrior represented by the model could actually move so it would fire over the wall. Just to name but one example.

That's never been a thing in 40K. The model in your above example wouldn't have had LOS in any edition of 40K.

 3orangewhips wrote:

As I recall, there was a time when you could hide all but one member of a unit and still shoot with all those models.

Nope. In some editions you could kill all of those models, but models have always needed LOS from them to at least one model in the target unit in order to shoot at it.

Different editions have handled the specifics of it in different ways, but right back to Rogue Trader 40K has always asked players to get down and check the model's eye view for establishing LOS. The perception that 'true LOS' was a more recent addition tends to come from people either misremembering or having misinterpreted how LOS worked in 4th edition, where area terrain and close combats used a more abstract system.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Yeah, I would get aggravated as well. I remember my earliest Google searches for more about Warhammer 40K and Games Workshop, and getting lost in the wikis and YouTube hobby tutorials. Good times, good times....

And yes, the social experience for tabletop gaming is much greater than for PC and video games. Unless you have a LAN party (does anyone do that anymore?), you are losing out on that physicality of being in the same room with other humans who share your interests.

I'm always happy to demo a game of real 40k. And maybe I'm kind of elitist, but I don't really consider the people who don't actually play 40k to be members of the 40k hobby. There was a lot of talk about the "new 40k game", and my usual response was "did they announce 8th Edition and I missed it?" If only GW had announced the Primaris Marines earlier, I could have weighed in when they were commenting on how they liked/disliked the art style and animation of Dawn of War III

The social part of gaming is one of the most important parts of it, I think. It sets us apart from other hobbies, at the very least.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
And here I am with a degree each in IT and Digital Media, and am working in a call center with a grand total of 3 and a half years of working experience in my life, nearly 6 years after I graduated, because I focused on academics and extra-curricular activities instead of getting more "experience". Yes, college can help, but anecdotally speaking, it didn't do for me what it has for others of my graduating class with the exact same degree from the same school. I will just make sure that my kids know that there are trade schools and other options available in addition to the "college experience" that can be just as beneficial to having a fulfilling career and steady job.

I was homeschooled for most of my life, so my parents made sure I got some practical education (personal finance, home economics aka. chores, etc), so I am right there with you. My wife complains all the time that her high school removed their home economics class, because she was looking forward to learning all the things her parents refused to teach her.

Anyways, this might be a conversation for another time; we should be here to talk Warhammer

My school was brand new at the time, and was outfitted with 3 different theaters, but no machine shop and no room for home ec. The only "technical" class there was was AP Computer Science. I visited there again recently, and they've actually since removed almost all the books from the library because the district had decided that it was obsolete.

But yes, at some point a discussion about education turns into politics.

 jeff white wrote:
Table tennis is where its at. My trouble is that we just don't have space for anything like that in the city here. Not easy anyways. So this leads me to suspect that we are looking at GW recognizing this limit in a lot of possible markets and are maybe looking to 4x4 and smaller tables to appeal to these people. Three ways to play should be Necromunda Mordheim and maybe Epic and Titanicus on 4x4 and 40k on 6x4 and Apocalypse style with big models on 8x4.

{snip}

We played Epic and Adeptus Titanicus on 8 x 4 tables. 8x4 and 9x5 were the traditional table sizes for miniature wargames back in the day. Larger tables and more terrain will make for more interesting games.

bortass wrote:


We played Epic and Adeptus Titanicus on 8 x 4 tables. 8x4 and 9x5 were the traditional table sizes for miniature wargames back in the day. Larger tables and more terrain will make for more interesting games.

We rarely went wider than 4', because it starts getting too hard to reach the middle of the board... but we did have quite a few massive 40K games in 2nd and 3rd ed on table setups that were up to 20' or 30' long...

 insaniak wrote:

bortass wrote:


We played Epic and Adeptus Titanicus on 8 x 4 tables. 8x4 and 9x5 were the traditional table sizes for miniature wargames back in the day. Larger tables and more terrain will make for more interesting games.

We rarely went wider than 4', because it starts getting too hard to reach the middle of the board... but we did have quite a few massive 40K games in 2nd and 3rd ed on table setups that were up to 20' or 30' long...

Hmm... I like to play long ways, with the short ends of the board as my and my opponent's backfield. Gives me space to hide my artillery. Playing 6x6 or 8x8 does sound pretty fun. We did 14x10 one time in an apocalypse game.