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.

 bullyboy wrote:
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.

12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.

Yea no shock frontline will jump to the new min as a standard, cash in on selling mats to folks all over again.

Guarantee gw are about to reveal a new line of mats too

Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.

I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 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'...

They said they were going to push to make Leadership more important, so it's not impossible.

sieGermans wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
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.

12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.

Sorry, trying to understand the point you're making, can you elaborate?

 Therion wrote:
Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a.

Yep, its by far the most far reaching change to the game.
It also means you can't get out of range of that unit of Dev Centurions that your opponent places front and centre.

Shrinking the space also does damage to the faster armies in the game as they will no longer be able to keep people at arms length.

It's just a terrible change, that will dumb down the game for sure, games will become less tactical and less interesting.

Nobody was asking for smaller tables

 Therion wrote:
Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.

I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.

Well, it would work out ok if they reworked all the ranges and movement abilities and everything to account for the new table sizes. But they have explicitly stated this is not the case. So I agree, it's going to be a mess at first.

There has been such tremendous range and movement creep in the game over the years that we are at a point where even on 6x4 boards it can be very hard to avoid a T1 alpha strike. Reducing the board size in these circumstances without also redoing threat ranges just seems like a really strange decision.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

 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'...

They said they were going to push to make Leadership more important, so it's not impossible.

Target Priority may have been before my time, but I think it would 100% fix a lot of problems that have been going on with recent editions.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Anybody with a decent grasp of the game would understand the game doesn’t work (the same way) on smaller tables. This is a critical change and in my mind disastrous. Think of the classic scenario, assault orientated army with bikes and jump packers deployed ”on the line” and going first, you with your Astra trying to set up some screens and outranges. On that table, there’s nothing you can do. Everything hits you 1a. The table is nearly 25% smaller.

I think reducing the effect of mobility is counter productive to a tactically interesting game. You can’t ”kite” anything either with your mobility and weapon ranges. It’s a kid’s game where both shove all in and see who draws out.

Well, it would work out ok if they reworked all the ranges and movement abilities and everything to account for the new table sizes. But they have explicitly stated this is not the case. So I agree, it's going to be a mess at first.

There has been such tremendous range and movement creep in the game over the years that we are at a point where even on 6x4 boards it can be very hard to avoid a T1 alpha strike. Reducing the board size in these circumstances without also redoing threat ranges just seems like a really strange decision.

Maybe the dream of a uniform 40K worldwide is dead already. WTC guys influence Europe and keep 6x4, Reece pushes for the mini tables in the US. Different game, different metas, again.

The only reason they put smaller minimun size is because thats what you have mixing kill team GW mats. That the ITC crow has been so fast to adapt it after years and years of going anti-GW is just a show in how much a shill they have become.

Wonder if the starter box will have at least a kill team mat in which might explain the price jump.

Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I always hate this argument because it misunderstands how game balance works. To nail the sort of balance everyone claims they want we'd need to strip out over 75% of the stuff in the game. Units would have a fixed wargear and unit size and you'd just package them in as is.

And, presumably, you can show evidence of this, yes?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Heck, even AAA competetive video games with budgets the size of GW's yearly earnings don't have perfect balance and they have dev teams that dwarf GW's by quite a bit.

Ah, there's the classic strawman: "perfect balance". Perfect balance is impossible, but at the same time, there are so many glaring holes in 40K that it's obvious what needs to be done.

To balance 40k as well as, say Warmachine, we'd need to strip out a lot of that customization. Fixed unit sizes and wargear loadouts so you can better dial in the cost of models and units for every interaction.

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 felt that 40K is a game of TOO MANY CHOICES. Rarely during an edition will I use more than about 40% of the options available to me in my codex. Some units are just plain bad or out dated. Etc.

That's why I like Primaris, each unit has a purpose and you don't have to waste a lot of time trying to find every bit for each unit. 10 bolt rifles. Done. Next!

Acehilator wrote:
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

 Therion wrote:

Acehilator wrote:
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.

A lot of doomsayers are forgetting terrain density and the rules that will come with them. Untill we know how they works, shouldn't we have some caution with our statements?

Dudeface wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Acehilator wrote:
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.

I played about 200 games (not hard to keep track since we report every match in sheets) this past year pre-covid, and the majority of those tournament games against some of the best and most active players in the world. I wonder how many actually competitive games Reece played. But nice try bro.

There’s a million different things we can do to make assault more competitive, playing on minitables isn’t one I would have chosen, and based on initial whatsapp discussions I’m not alone.

 Therion wrote:
Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

I don't need to be a tournament player to see how this plays out (nice thinly veiled ad hominem btw, almost well done *slowclap*).

The meta will change, news at 11.

Dudeface wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Acehilator wrote:
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.

I don't think this is really accurate. Though they may have had a few tournament players involved in play-testing 9th edition, none of the biggest names were, at least not that I'm aware of.

What needs help is not melee generally but melee without extreme movement options. In 8th melee units are good if they're quick, and bad if they're slow. Cutting four inches off the width doesn't make unmobile combat units any better, but it does make the mobile ones even more able to reach anywhere on the table.

The cutting the length of the table actually has the bigger impact BTW, again because of how it interacts with those extremely quick units. Units with 40"+ threat ranges are not unheard of in 8th edition. With a 6x4 board, you can just about avoid a T1 strike by a unit with a 40 inch threat range; on the new table size, that becomes impossible. But Khorne Bezerkers are useless either way.

Basically the change further overvalues movement on combat units, without actually helping the combat units that need the help.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Emicrania wrote:
A lot of doomsayers are forgetting terrain density and the rules that will come with them. Untill we know how they works, shouldn't we have some caution with our statements?

Yes and no. The main issue is that the units with these huge threat ranges are almost all fly units, which means they're immune to terrain (except when charging, if they're not also infantry). Unless the new terrain rules start having an impact on fly units, it's unlikely to have much impact on threat ranges.

The basic problem here is that 8th was such a deadly edition when it comes to shooting that melee units were granted huge threat ranges to compensate - threat ranges which almost-but-not-quite cover entire tables. When you reduce the table size, the threat range that was almost-but-not-quite the whole table suddenly becomes the whole table. And that fundamentally changes how you can deal with it.

sieGermans wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
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.

12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.

It's actually 1/3 square foot. 1 ft x 1/3 ft = 1/3 sq ft.

 Therion wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Therion wrote:

Acehilator wrote:
Neutral zones between deployment zones have remained the same for the two missions they have shown. It's 24" even for the 1k setup. Not sure where all the doom and gloom is coming from.

Neutral zone is irrelevant. It’s not enough. To avoid anything you need to deploy much further than the line. Or are you regularly deploying into bolter and assault ranges when going second?

Doom and gloom is coming from actual tournament players who know how this would play out. Regardless, I’ll just hope Reece is on drugs and someone will straighten him out. Even the GW guy on stream said these are only minimum recommendations. Why Reece would go and make a declaration he intends to push for the minimum to be used, a month before 9th ed is even out, is beyond me.

Because Reece and all those tournament players and organisers your refer to playtested this and approved it. Melee needs help and a shallower board does that slightly.

I played about 200 games (not hard to keep track since we report every match in sheets) this past year pre-covid, and the majority of those tournament games against some of the best and most active players in the world. I wonder how many actually competitive games Reece played. But nice try bro.

There’s a million different things we can do to make assault more competitive, playing on minitables isn’t one I would have chosen, and based on initial whatsapp discussions I’m not alone.

Oh I'm sure you are a big shot with all the important opinions but the point is while we don't know who all the playtesters are, the people establishing rhe ITC like these changes and it seems the community has had more faith in the ITC to alter their game than GW. This is now happening inadvertently or otherwise and suddenly people aren't supporting them any more it seems.

 EnTyme wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
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.

12 x 4 area is 2 square feet, mate.

It's actually 1/3 square foot. 1 ft x 1/3 ft = 1/3 sq ft.

That's not how it works. I mean you're right as to the mathematical statement made, but it doesn't reflect the change in table size.

The new board is almost exactly 75% the size of the old board. It went from 3456 square inches to 2640 square inches. That's a loss of a little less than 6 square feet. Quite a large difference.

The only reason the 24” neutral zone (less on central circle) is a problem is due to double move / advance and charge / re-deploy (and similar) shenanigans.

For nearly every movement profile, 24” is enough to make first turn charges only 80% of charge roll results—which is not competitive viable.

That's kinda like saying "the only reason some guns have greater than a 24" shooting range is that they have greater than a 24" shooting range."

I think everybody agrees that it would be possible to rebalance the game for the new board size if you redid all the abilities. The point is that they are explicitly not doing this in the transition to 9th. So we are going to have a game balanced for a 24 square foot board being played on a 18.3 square foot board. And that's going to be a huge impact on how you play the game.

Wasn't one of the Tabletop Tactics guys someone who won a major last year?

I mean the "Necrons!" guy.

If you mean Lawrence, he came 2nd with grey knights at a 50-man tournament IIRC. I wasn't aware he was involved in playtesting 9th, though.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you mean Lawrence, he came 2nd with grey knights at a 50-man tournament IIRC. I wasn't aware he was involved in playtesting 9th, though.

I'm on my phone but I am almost positive that he's part of the Tabletop Tactics group in this video: https://youtu.be/0WYKKUDwxbE

Anyone notice the crazy Xenos portrait previewed? Some of that stuff is bizarre!

John D Law wrote:
Anyone notice the crazy Xenos portrait previewed? Some of that stuff is bizarre!

And you know why you must purge the Xenos like the heretical scum they are.

Yeah, that's him. I guess he was involved. I hadn't seen that video before.

edit: Oops, I misssed a couple people in that video initially. They do have some top tournament players. Not the top, top names, but some very good ones.