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.

Yea at least it's a scale down. The evil course of action would have been to set the new minimum to 5X7 or some other larger odd size that invalidates other game mats. Now if that ever happens I'd say have at it, but it's a minimum that suddenly legitimizes the smaller boards they already produce and ties kill team into the core game neatly.

If the missions/rules are designed to take smaller table in to account it could be a good thing given there may be changes to communal gaming spaces and perhaps more games will move back to kitchen tables/garages where it can be more challenging to fit a 4x6. That being said, the more room to maneuver on a 4x6 is probably better. Movement distance and. Weapon ranges have ballooned somewhat from when I started back in the Neolithic, so goof that direction could help with board size, but really is neither here nor there given we won’t see those drastic changes in this addition.

Yeah basically that.

If they'd picked minimum sizes of say 24x24" or 36x36" for entry level games, then I'm sure HMBC would instead be furiously posting about GW screwing over Kill Team players by not allowing them to use their existing boards.

I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.

There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.

I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.

Lowering the size of the battle map is a bad thing. It makes movement and positining even less relevant.

The funny thing is, those are the MINIMUN recommended table size. Just under that they talk about using your 6x4 tables. But the general community, I can see it, ITC crow etc... are so up under GW ass that they'll take as gospel the change of size as if it has anything to do with equilibrium or balance. Is just a cinical move because thats what they sell NOW.

Reece of frontlinegaming has just stated they will be switching to the new standard of 44x60 so there's that..

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-all/#comments

As expected.

 Galas wrote:
Lowering the size of the battle map is a bad thing. It makes movement and positining even less relevant.

The funny thing is, those are the MINIMUN recommended table size. Just under that they talk about using your 6x4 tables. But the general community, I can see it, ITC crow etc... are so up under GW ass that they'll take as gospel the change of size as if it has anything to do with equilibrium or balance. Is just a cinical move because thats what they sell NOW.

Smaller table, with the quite heavy assumption that movement doesn't change because vigilus + PA + dexes are initially there....

Tell me, what was the point excactly from lowering the model count when we now also lower the space to manouvre again?

There is a huge advantage to a 30" width that you add multiples of. Standard folding table widths.

Kill team and warcry boards fit on standard folding tables that tons of game stores use so you can have two games going on one table, just like 2 games of Magic the Gathering fit on one of these tables.

Combat Patrol and Incursion at 30" tables means that you can have one game per table for events and still have room on each side for books, dice, reserves and so on.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.

There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.

I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.

They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.

Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My problem with the accross the board price points rise is that, as always, it fails to address the actual problems of relative unit costs.

Let's take the worst case scenario based on the information at hand and say that horde units are going to be easier to kill with blast weapons going up buy 50%.

So Cultists, Guardsmen, Gaunts, Orks/Gretchin. If there are others I'm forgetting let me know.

So let's look at Gaunts. Termagants are 4 points per model. People take them over Hormagaunts as we know that Hormies are not worth 6 points each.

"But Hormagaunts are 5 points each?"

Find me a Tyranid player alive who doesn't take Adrenal Glands on Hormies. As I said, they're 6 points each.

So say things go up 50%, and Termagants are now worth 6 points each... and H-Gaunts are now 9 each? If they weren't worth it at 6, they're certainly not worth it at 9. Now I'm still bringing Termagants, just less of them.

They haven't increased granularity here. They've just made a unit that wasn't worth its current cost cost more. The net result will just be Tyranid players waiting for an FAQ or new Codex to come out to fix the problem we've been waiting for them to fix and that they made worse with the start of a new edition.

And a new Tyranid Codex means there's a chance that Cruddace might get a third attempt at fething us over again.

a higher base cost for units allows them to make upgrades more desirable. when a base unit cost is 3 or 4 points, very few upgrades are deemed "worth it" because people tend towards boys over toys.

Hmmm, different table sizes endorsed by a company that sells gaming mats? You don't say.
Nah, 6x4 works for me. Don't need to waste time taping off edges. Sorry, just seems arbitrarily silly.

I like it. I’m curious if they will be adjusting movements and weapon ranges to compensate for the smaller tables.

Smaller tables is great, especially when game stores here in the US get crowded with MtG and other tabletop events.

Yea, this is great. A lot of the shops in the U.K. don’t have infinite floor space, so making the official board size smaller is a great change. Hopefully, everything will get balanced around that new concept.

Obviously, people can home brew whatever they want (my table at home was built to 6x4 and I won’t be changing that); but I know of at least one local shop that was struggling to fit more than 6 players at a time (3 games) on just 4x4s, let alone 6x4s.

 slave.entity wrote:
Smaller tables is great, especially when game stores here in the US get crowded with MtG and other tabletop events.

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of benefits from this standardization (with a side order of 'absolutely keep those 4 inches if it means that much to you').

In particular, smaller games on smaller tables makes a lot of sense to me, since it avoids obvious problems like corner camped basilisks (or whatever- there are factions with a lot of long range and others with next to none) with a big empty space the enemy has to cross (especially since GW seems to love opposite corner deployment, and there are already deployment shuffling strats)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.

There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.

I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.

They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.

Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.

Yeah, but none of that addresses the issue really. You can still have combat units that can literally strike any point on the table T1. You still have most ranged firepower able to hit anywhere not covered by LOS-blocking, and most indirect can hit any point on the table.

I mean consider a 500 point list with a patrol of 1 shadowseer, 1 troupe, and 6 skyweavers. Those skyweavers can literally hit any point on the table T1, shoot, charge, then fight twice (you'd be at 1CP at that point, 0 if you gave them a 3++ or spent a CP for +1 to wound). 90% of lists will simply lose to this army T1 if it goes first, with no possible counter-play. It can't be move-blocked. With only 500 points to work with, you're not going to be able to castle to protect your key units. The only counters to this list are abaddon-level counter-charge characters you can protect from the alpha, or lists made up wholly of stuff the skyweavers simply can't touch.

And this isn't even close to the nastiest 500 point list you can come up with in terms of a T1 alpha that cannot be defended against.

On the plus side, they're right that these 500 point games will be fast...10 minutes fast, unless both players deliberately agree not to take competitive armies.

 bullyboy wrote:
Hmmm, different table sizes endorsed by a company that sells gaming mats? You don't say.
Nah, 6x4 works for me. Don't need to waste time taping off edges. Sorry, just seems arbitrarily silly.

Since it's a minimum size recommendation, there's no need to tape off the edges.

10 old marines on old 25mm bases.
Base area = pi x 12.5 squared. Multiplied by 10 is approx 4900mm squared

10 new marines on 32mm bases.
Base area = pi x 16 squared. Multiplied by 10 is just over 8000mm squared.

So in terms of games, the models are now taking up 1.6 times as much room on the table, and they plan on shrinking the table size?
40k seemed to have limited movement as it was. With all the accumulated changes who knows how it will play.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm more puzzled about their insistence that the same game can be balanced for a 500 points force on a 44 x 30 table as for a 3000 point army on a 44 x 90 table. It just doesn't work, in basic ways.

There is just no possible way to do it. The smaller game size and table size, in particular, invalidates basic concepts in the game like range threats, because it means you are literally vulnerable anywhere on the table on T1, not only to many ranged weapons, but also to some of the more ridiculous combat threat ranges that have appeared in 8th edition.

I can see the 500 point games working if everyone just brings uncompetitive junk for fun. But as a competitive format, it's a joke. It will 100% boil down to "whoever goes first wins," unless it comes down to "I simply cannot win with this list against that list because he hard counters me" instead. It seems odd they have wasted any effort on matched play missions for game sizes that are never going to be vaguely competitive without a whole different set of rules and points values.

They did it by limiting the number of detachments, writing missions sprcific to that game size and limiting CP to lower amounts.

Time will tell how well that works, but there are limits built in to balance the game at smaller points instead of the unregulated free-for-all it'd been for some time.

Yeah, but none of that addresses the issue really. You can still have combat units that can literally strike any point on the table T1. You still have most ranged firepower able to hit anywhere not covered by LOS-blocking, and most indirect can hit any point on the table.

I mean consider a 500 point list with a patrol of 1 shadowseer, 1 troupe, and 6 skyweavers. Those skyweavers can literally hit any point on the table T1, shoot, charge, then fight twice (you'd be at 1CP at that point, 0 if you gave them a 3++ or spent a CP for +1 to wound). 90% of lists will simply lose to this army T1 if it goes first, with no possible counter-play. It can't be move-blocked. With only 500 points to work with, you're not going to be able to castle to protect your key units. The only counters to this list are abaddon-level counter-charge characters you can protect from the alpha, or lists made up wholly of stuff the skyweavers simply can't touch.

And this isn't even close to the nastiest 500 point list you can come up with in terms of a T1 alpha that cannot be defended against.

On the plus side, they're right that these 500 point games will be fast...10 minutes fast, unless both players deliberately agree not to take competitive armies.

I doubt any of this is relevant though. They said the combat patrols are aimed at people starting out and building their collection, not at tournaments or competitive play. It’s at 1000 and 2000pts the competitive game is aimed, with 2000 being the standard and possible some 1000 point competitions.

I’m looking forward to the combat patrol scale. I used to love 40k in 40 minutes back in the day.

So... we are going down in the size of the tables because "games will be smaller promise!"...


And what when GW starts dropping points again? Tables were small now with how many miniatures theres in your typical list and how big are weapon ranges. I really think is a very bad move to change table sizes to a smaller one. But alas.

I don't understand the view here. 6x4 is too big, but 5x3'8" is perfect! I don't see how that will create more space in game stored who already have tables built.

I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.

Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".

Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL

I for one am looking forward to playing moshpit hammer.

Just cram your guys on the table, don't worry everything will be so lethal you will soon be removing them.

They had me excited that this edition would be movement and manouevre driven with things like flag planting and more progressive missions.
And then they shaved a foot off the table and rendered all that utterly pointless.

Dont worry though battlemats in the new sizes coming soon from GW and other outlets

jivardi wrote:
I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.

Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".

Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL

Thats what I'm saying. But thats the world we live in now. Only GW approved™ recommendations even when they themselves say you can absolutely still use any 6x4 board because they themselves sell fething 6x4 boards.

Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it

jivardi wrote:
I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.

Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".

Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL

Its not about recommended though, its about what becomes the standard. The owner of FLG has said he will be moving to this size and selling mats accordingly. That means ITC games will all follow and watch other companies start selling these mats and possibly replacing 6x4 lines. That seems silly over what has been a standard for so long and didn't really need change. IMHO.

jivardi wrote:
I don't get this logic. Nowhere in ANY rulebook going back to 2nd edition was there a mandatory table size. It was always "this size table recommended/minimum for this size of game" and players have always chosen to use 4x4 or 4x6 for standard games.

Now the minimum is 44" and people are taking that as literally "this is what you must play on and we at GW are going to redo movement and shooting distances for smaller boards".

Yikes. 1/2 of Dakka must be jumping through their own building walls jumping to conclusions so incessantly. LOL

You realize that the organizers of the LVO have already said they will be adopting the new size right?

That's just one of the biggest tournaments out there, do you not think other TO's might do the same thing?

Nobody was asking for smaller tables, table size if anything was considered too small, unless you were playing a super elite force.

 CoreCommander wrote:
Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it

Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
Without some kind of short/long range mechanic (like in KT) the recommended smaller table sizes are somewhat pointless. Shooting becomes an iota duller when you can cover the entire field with a bolter and not bother about moving. Probably more realistic , but gameplay wise - not so great... Charging could also be problematic if you get to move before it

Who knows what GW has in mind. Maybe target priority is coming back.

I miss that rule. Maybe it's just nostalgia,but it would atleast be another use for leadership besides 'more damage'...