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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vim_the_good wrote:
That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been

Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.

Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.

Citadel Miniatures - Buy All Our Playsets & Toys!™



*puts on tinfoil had!

The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).

No tinfoil hat required. They've been upfront for many years that you can be completely self contained in GW's gaming worlds without needing to visit any other FLGS, toy shop or DIY store.

I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.

Ice_can wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4

Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.

Their min sizes have nothing to do with common table sizes. They're literally determined by blocking up the 22"x30" Kill Team set folding maps next to each other in progressive amounts.

But wouldn't a 4x5 be better for melee armies since there's literally less space on the board for the long range guns to hide? This might be one of the ways GW thinks they've buffed melee for 9th..

I wonder if they'll try to push that new size as the tournament standard.

alphaecho wrote:
The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).

Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.

You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?

And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.

This wasn't done for the good of the game or to match some mythical 'average' table. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.

Honestly it's genius. I'd be singing their praises if it was't so diabolical.

alphaecho wrote:
I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.

First of all, it's HHHobby. You've added too many H's.

Secondly, it's not about loving or hating it. HHHobby is a method of making fun of GW's insistence that they are a hobby, rather than part of a larger hobby.

Wakshaani wrote:
"Stu's Space Marine Army has lost one unit"

That's kind of open-ended, isn't it?

From "Lost one five-man unit of scots" to "Lost a 10-man Hellblaster squad" is a wide range.

(Mind you, I lean more towards the former, but.)

It also doesn't mention the scale of game he was prepared for. A single squad at 500pts or 3000pts? He said he prefers 1000pts so I'd lean toward that, but again who knows? Sp basically he responds to reactions framed upon vague bad data by providing further vague garbage data.

It's hilarious that they accuse the community for over analyzing, when the fault lies entirely at their own feet for releasing such vague garbage leaks. I'd rather they had said everything is going up in points to change the games scale and not leaked specific points if they weren't expecting people to latch on every word.

This is why I find it hard to play optimist for them. I am all for waiting for the entire picture, but it really does ding their credibility and wreaks of overall incompetence when you willingly choose to leak hot garbage and act as though it is gold. Somebody who wrote the new rules had to think that cut them down strat was good enough to lead with as marketing... that's... troubling. I find it harder and harder to talk folks off the ledge when GW actively provide it's own damning evidence.

I liked 8th quite a bit, despite it's short comings and bloat at the end and I am hopeful for 9th. However it is GW's MO to over compensate. Something is bad? Make it good AND cut it's cost. Something too good? Nerf it into oblivion AND increase it's cost. Personally I feel this was mostly due to releasing patches that were aimed at target dates and in print, which is entirely misguided and outdated, and means they are more pressured to implement change at once. Gotta get it right or its another entire year! The thing I am most excited for is the AP, which I am hoping means they get off their and patch things ASAP rather then letting it run loose for 6 months or more, which in the past has enticed folks to purchase based on bad design and timing, only to risk invalidating their armies later. You remove those feels bad moments and a monolithic conflict of interest when you fix your mistakes sooner rather then later.

Time will tell.

Nice trollin H.B.M.C

 vim_the_good wrote:
Nice trollin H.B.M.C

Trolling is the act of posting things specifically to get a rise out of someone. It's about one step down from "gak-posting".

I have done neither.

Ice_can wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?

seems easy to get the max 15.

What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?

Primary is limited to 15 points per turn in yoir command phase.
75 points can be scored via primary mission objectives if you max score every turn

Secondarys can be scored upto 15 and their is 2 or 3, so maximum score from 3 secondary mission objectives is 45 points.

You can score upto 120 victory points in a game your more likely to score around 60-90 but theoretically (very theroy hammer) it should be possible between both players to score 225 victory points in a game so it keeps the winning and loosing of the game much more in doubt till the game is over.

what, how much book keeping is that! so it works:

have 1 obj this turn my primary gets me 5 (one or more)
I have 2 next turn i get 10 (one or more + two or more)
turn 4 i have 1 again i get 5 (one or more)
turn 5 i have 1 and more than my opponent i get 10 (one or more + more than opponent)
turn 6 i have 2 and more than opponent i get 15 (one or more + two or more + more than opponent)

this game i scored 45?

not a fan, plus you know some of them are gonna be in 1's and odd numbers like 3points...

ugh, its constant book keeping

Do any of you know if first blood, slay warlord and occupy wall street still exist or not ?

I'm inclined to think the min board size is for people who HAVE Kill Team boards to be able to put multiple boards together to get the table sizes so that those people can use their fancy, expensive GW made tabletop for something other than Kill Team.

People thinking it's GW trying to force us to buy Kill Team boards can now take off their tinfioil hats and go paint some miniatures (or keep them on just in case Big Brother is trying to snatch secrets out of your brain).

Don't worry, I'm sure we can buy Citadel brand Laminated Victory Point sheets with special Citadel Brand Marking Pens for tracking our score.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Don't worry, I'm sure we can buy Citadel brand Laminated Victory Point sheets with special Citadel Brand Marking Pens for tracking our score.

That's the spirit!

 Red Corsair wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
"Stu's Space Marine Army has lost one unit"

That's kind of open-ended, isn't it?

From "Lost one five-man unit of scots" to "Lost a 10-man Hellblaster squad" is a wide range.

(Mind you, I lean more towards the former, but.)

It also doesn't mention the scale of game he was prepared for. A single squad at 500pts or 3000pts? He said he prefers 1000pts so I'd lean toward that, but again who knows? Sp basically he responds to reactions framed upon vague bad data by providing further vague garbage data.

It's hilarious that they accuse the community for over analyzing, when the fault lies entirely at their own feet for releasing such vague garbage leaks. I'd rather they had said everything is going up in points to change the games scale and not leaked specific points if they weren't expecting people to latch on every word.

This is why I find it hard to play optimist for them. I am all for waiting for the entire picture, but it really does ding their credibility and wreaks of overall incompetence when you willingly choose to leak hot garbage and act as though it is gold. Somebody who wrote the new rules had to think that cut them down strat was good enough to lead with as marketing... that's... troubling. I find it harder and harder to talk folks off the ledge when GW actively provide it's own damning evidence.

I liked 8th quite a bit, despite it's short comings and bloat at the end and I am hopeful for 9th. However it is GW's MO to over compensate. Something is bad? Make it good AND cut it's cost. Something too good? Nerf it into oblivion AND increase it's cost. Personally I feel this was mostly due to releasing patches that were aimed at target dates and in print, which is entirely misguided and outdated, and means they are more pressured to implement change at once. Gotta get it right or its another entire year! The thing I am most excited for is the AP, which I am hoping means they get off their and patch things ASAP rather then letting it run loose for 6 months or more, which in the past has enticed folks to purchase based on bad design and timing, only to risk invalidating their armies later. You remove those feels bad moments and a monolithic conflict of interest when you fix your mistakes sooner rather then later.

Time will tell.

He did say it was a 2000 points list

 addnid wrote:
Do any of you know if first blood, slay warlord and occupy wall street still exist or not ?

Firstly, LOL, that was funny.

Secondly, they haven't been mentioned (such a massive level of detail is not on the cards for these previews, you see).

If I had to guess, I'd say they'll just be part of the gaggle of optional secondaries. Might be for the best.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 addnid wrote:
Do any of you know if first blood, slay warlord and occupy wall street still exist or not ?

Firstly, LOL, that was funny.

Secondly, they haven't been mentioned (such a massive level of detail is not on the cards for these previews, you see).

If I had to guess, I'd say they'll just be part of the gaggle of optional secondaries. Might be for the best.

I'm thinking they might be tertiary scoring options since they can't be scored multiple times (unless they make first strike per turn or something).

Have they mentioned "tertiary objectives" as being part of the new mission structure?

The article today featured this image.



I don't recognise those game boards from the various Kill Team releases, and they are not from the Moon Base Klaisus set. Is this a new product hidden in plain sight? Those two boards with the depicted terrain would certainly make a good all-in-one terrain starter set for 9th Edition...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Have they mentioned "tertiary objectives" as being part of the new mission structure?

They haven't mentioned a lot of things.

But I can't imagine those being good secondaries since they only score once unless they're a lot of points. Like 25 for slaying the warlord.

 Morskul wrote:
I don't recognise those game boards from the various Kill Team releases, and they are not from the Moon Base Klaisus set. Is this a new product hidden in plain sight? Those two boards with the depicted terrain would certainly make a good all-in-one terrain starter set for 9th Edition...

I don't recognise them either. They're not from Warcry as there are half-buried pipes and barrels, so they might be from one of the OOP Killzone boxes, or maybe a new set of two (coincidentally 22x30!) boards that have yet to come out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).

Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.

You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?

And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.

This wasn't done for the good of the game or to match some mythical 'average' table. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.

Honestly it's genius. I'd be singing their praises if it was't so diabolical.

alphaecho wrote:
I could never work out whether you loved or hated typing 'HHHHHobby'.

First of all, it's HHHobby. You've added too many H's.

Secondly, it's not about loving or hating it. HHHobby is a method of making fun of GW's insistence that they are a hobby, rather than part of a larger hobby.

When the debuted the maps GW said that the dinning table thing was why it was such a random size, your right it could be marketing BS or it could actually have been a thing.

Its justnone of those odd things I noticed when buying a table that most of them don't hit 6x4 but the GW size they would or atleast be close enough.

For a very long time the table I played on was 3" wide, and it had big half-circle ends. It wasn't great, but we made do. Eventually got a 4x8 piece of wood to go over the top. That was great.

But again, this isn't about making sure games can be played on any mythical "average" dining room table. This is about shifting whatever the miniature equivalent of the Overton Window is to make GW's products the "new normal" for game sizes.

They did it with bases (28mm to 32mm) and now they're doing it here.

Ice_can wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The new table sizes are odd.
Before it was 6' x 4', right? Or 72" x 48"?

Now its 44" x 60" for 2k, which gives you 3.6' x 5'.
That's an odd size. I think most players will play it on 4' x 5' to get a nice, rounded size.

I do wonder why they reduced the table size though. Is it to help melee? Or are weapon ranges going to be shorter?

Likely kitchen tables. But those are minimums so i expect existing players use 6x4

Yeah was about to say it's pretty close to the size of my dinningroom/kitchen table.
Though most people I know use Game tables at clubs etc which are 6 by4 or larger and arn't likely to be trying to shave a foot off just because.

Why would you shave the tables? Now everyone will have a foot of space to place reserve and/or dead models, as well as books, bags, drinks, nachos, etc.

People aren't going to move away from 6x4 simply because of the number of neoprene mats owned.
Nobody is going to trash them and start over, 6x4 will still be the norm.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

alphaecho wrote:
The reasoning at the time is that GW decided to set their game mats to just under the average dining room table size (for the UK?) thereby avoiding the need to buy boards to place across the top to achieve 6ft by 4ft. Unless you wanted to go full Realm of Battle boards (no MDF required).

Would you like to buy this bridge I have. I'll warn you, it is slightly smaller than all the other bridges I have for sale.

You can't actually believe that GW just chose these sizes at random or because it's make to the fit the 'average dining room table'. I mean, what the feth is the 'average' dining room table, anyway?

And, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, GW's own products hit these exact measurements.

...or maybe 22x30 boards were chosen in the first place because they fold up to fit neatly into existing standard packaging sizes. Wait that can't be right, everything on the Internet must be a conspiracy instead.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

And I'm not talking perfect balance. The thing is there isn't even a chance in hell we'd come close to hitting perfect balance in this game. There are too many interactions to do it. Too many options. 8th as at least shown that they're trying to get the game more balanced and while the initial C:SM threw that off (though it got nerfed, we just haven't seen if those nerfs were enough or not) GW seems to be trying to get armies somewhere close to what I've heard called "the fat middle". Hopefully 9th will give armies enough tools to actually hit that more successfully.

I've always said that game balance is a unicorn. Even putting aside the functionally infinite combinations of moving parts, constant flow of new releases & changes, and unavoidable human bias involved in all decisions there's a still a fundamental problem: no one knows what 'balanced 40k' looks like. There's no consensus what the end destination is.

You'll have an idea. I have an idea. HMBC sure as hell does. But they're not all the same idea, and we'd be incredibly lucky to get even a plurality to agree on the same one, nevermind a majority. At the end of the day 'balanced 40k' is such a subjective concept that anyone claiming it's obvious or in any way simple are just deluding themselves.

 Latro_ wrote:
I dont get this (progressive) scoring stuff. So like if you have 2 objs on turn 2 thats 10 pts?

seems easy to get the max 15.

What about the secondary, can you only get that 5 for being in your opponents obj once?

There are at least two, and probably three, scoring options.

The first is progressive, which you can score each turn. So, in the scenario shown above, in turn 2, if you control an objective, you get five points. If you control one objective in turn 3? 5 more points (10 total). Have one in turn 4? 5 more points. (15 total) and so on. These have a cap of 15 points a turn in the versions shown, so you could get 15 in turn 2, 15 more in turn 3, and so on.

The second that we've seen is End Game, where you score if a certain thing is handled at the end of the game, earning points one time and one time only. For example: at the end of the game, Assassinate gives you 3 victory points for each character model killed. If you killed three characters, that'd be 9 points. None of those yet shown have a cap, like the progressive style/s 15/turn limit.

Those are the two that we've seen.

There might be an "instant" one as well, to get points immediately (for example, destroying an objective marker in games where that's possible) … Slay the Warlord could be one of these or it could be an End Game (Is the enemy Warlord still alive? If the answer is no, gain X victory points.) we don't know for certain if a third category yet exists.

For now, however?

Progressive can be scored each turn.
End Game can be scored a single time.

 xttz wrote:
...or maybe 22x30 boards were chosen in the first place because they fold up to fit neatly into existing standard packaging sizes. Wait that can't be right, everything on the Internet must be a conspiracy instead.

Conspiracy theory? That implies underhanded or clandestine. This is right out in the open. There's nothing secretive about it.

And the reasoning behind their choice is likely more mundane than that - manufacturing costs, boxes sizes limitations, shipping methodology. I mean the tiles in Newcromunda are annoying not exactly 1x1, but that's because to make them 1x1 the box would have to be bigger, and GW has set height and length dimensions for boxes that is probably entirely to do with inventory space, international shipping container usage, or both and maybe even more.

So their stuff is the size it is for a bunch of likely really uninteresting reasons... but then they go and make the standard size fit their weird sizes. That's not a conspiracy. It's intentional and right out in the open. And it's genius.

Gw releases generic rules that their product sometimes doesnt work well with (8th terrain):

"Haha gw so stoopid cant even make their products work with their game, dumdums"

Gw releases rules with their products in mind as a baseline with allowance within the explicit rules to use any product desired:

"Wow evil corporation much nasty genius gw acting to screw the competition over"

I don't think the goal is to seal GW boards as much as it is to make it easier for new players to have an easier time escalating out of Kill Team and into regular 40k with less stuff on hand.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vim_the_good wrote:
That is MIN recommend size. It actually says in the article that 4' x 4' or 6' x 4' or whatever you want is fine, as it has always been

Of course it does, because they cannot dictate the size of people's tables, as they don't have that level of control (yet!*). But they've added min-sizes that are literally their own map products put together.

Amazing... I'm almost speechless at that.

It's pretty neat. That means you can easily get a cool table from your local GW. And since it is explicitly just a minimum size, not a required size, it doesn't invalidate already existing table, or event concurrent products. I like it.

We can say what we want about GW, but the latest years has been nothing but a history of success.

http://imgur.com/gallery/fpxmpnC


Can't post gak from work