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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, that's him. I guess he was involved. I hadn't seen that video before.

Kinda confirms what I was saying, though. They have some tournament players involved, but none of those players in the video are top tournament names. There's no Siegler, Lennon, Cheema, Nanavati, Vijay, etc type guy who is at the very top of the competitive scene. I don't mean that in an insulting way at all, btw. Lawrence is a good, solid player. But he himself would be the first to tell you that their main focus is narrative and fun games, not super competitive stuff.

True, but he does competetive fairly well and has a long history of being very open on what needs fixing in the game.

And just because they don't have the very top players working it doesn't mean the game is automatically DoA. We just need more info to see if they really fixed the game or not.

I edited my post. A few of the other guys in that video are top tournament players. Not top, top, but very good ones.

It definitely isn't DoA either way. We'll obviously have to wait and see. But there are definitely reasons to be worried about the table size change.

I don't think anyone has claimed doa , but healthy scepticism is imo advised what with the remaining rules Block that carries over.
Which honestly could've done with a bit of consolidation?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I edited my post. A few of the other guys in that video are top tournament players. Not top, top, but very good ones.

It definitely isn't DoA either way. We'll obviously have to wait and see. But there are definitely reasons to be worried about the table size change.

There are an infinite number reasons to be worried, but until we know more I choose to not be.

Most of us will keep playing on 6x4s anyways, so it looks more like it's biggest impact will be on ITC since Reece seems to feel the smaller board is a good shift for their tournament scene.

 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.

Perfect is a bit of an overstatement, but honestly? Dealing with fights in the center of the table will be easier. Less knocking things over, and more accurate measurements.

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.

Did you notice the previewed Kill Team scenario is the long deployment. So at the minimum suggested size, the battlefield is 30" wide with each player having a 10" deep deployment zone. Is it more crowded? yes. But a player wanted to deploy deep isn't losing that much space.

That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.

Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.

And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.

There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.

It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.

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

Yeah, 'cause that's what I said.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.

Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.

And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.

There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.

It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.

Then maybe you shouldn't play highly competitive games of Combat Patrol? And maybe parts of the rules you haven't seen yet have some impact on the game? And maybe your opponent isn't going to make his Combat Patrol consist of few enough units for you to punk him with one unit making a double move and charge.

The possibilities are endless. Why don't we wait for the full game before deciding their decisions are dumb? They may be dumb, or there may be genius you can't yet see.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.

Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.

And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.

There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.

It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.

Do they ignore overwatch, whatever terrain rules that are upcoming, and also perform objective/secondary actions while in melee?

Also, it's 18 attacks that hit on 3's and wound on 4's, living on a 4++, right? Is that even going to wipe 10 intercessors.

I don't see the issue.

If Harlequins and Genestealers and all that get a solid boost from this and actually can start playing the game a bit, that'd be great. They are among the worst armies atm to begin with.

Though I don't see the dumb Tau/AdMech/Marine/Gun-Castle game really going away, especially if you cannot tag (those few non-Fly) tanks in combat anymore.

 Platuan4th wrote:

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.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?
Back when me and my friends started playing 40k we just threw some green felt we bought from the fabric store on our dining room table and that was our game table... it was never really official play surface since the table was never 48in wide or 6 ft long. As we got more into 40k we bought plywood and put that over the Table so we could have an official table... I guess new players don’t need to do that anymore. Which is a good thing..

If I had to guess the new table sizes Including killteam boards are for new players to easily get into and easier to play games... It’s easier for tournament organizers to just use folding tables instead of placing plywood boards on top. It’s just an easier and more convienant size. We will see how it’s adopted but logistically it helps a lot of players.
You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..

IIRC the Kill Team tile size has to do with the box size which has to do with shipping cost.

gungo wrote:
Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?

Neither. Kill Team tiles got made to fit into the standard boxes sizes that GW make. It's entirely mundane and entirely practical.

gungo wrote:
You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..

They're not really making new RoB tiles, but boy are the making new KT-sized boards.

 alextroy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's not the issue really. For units with huge movement ranges, the total size of the board is what matters, not the minimum distances between armies.

Skyweavers have a 44 inch + 2d6 threat range with pathways, which has something like a 85% chance of going off with a reroll. This reaches literally anywhere on the smaller board. It is impossible to deploy in such a way on the smaller board that you are not at the mercy of a T1 charge from them. That's a 276 point unit - probably more like 320ish in 9th, so more than 60% of the total points value of the game - that is nearly guaranteed to charge you T1 and then fight twice.

And it isn't even close to the worst list you can run at 500 points re: T1 alpha strikes.

There's just no possible way to balance a game for 500 point games on tiny tables and also balance it for 2000 point games on bigger tables, unless you use different rules for each.

It's fine for non-competitive games, but the 500 points bracket is just going to be "first turn wins" for any sort of vaguely competitive play. Lists will be so skewed that you'll be able to predict with 90%+ certainty who's going to win once you see your opponent's list and roll for who goes first.

Then maybe you shouldn't play highly competitive games of Combat Patrol? And maybe parts of the rules you haven't seen yet have some impact on the game? And maybe your opponent isn't going to make his Combat Patrol consist of few enough units for you to punk him with one unit making a double move and charge.

The possibilities are endless. Why don't we wait for the full game before deciding their decisions are dumb? They may be dumb, or there may be genius you can't yet see.

I don't disagree in principle. But there is no way, even in theory, to balance a game for 500 points on a 44x30 table, and also balance it for 2000 points on a 44x60 table, with identical points values and rules. It just can't be done.

And that's fine. Hopefully the idea that you can play 500 points competitively is just PR spin, and they're smart enough to focus on keeping 2000 competitive, rather than trying to split the baby in a way that harms both sizes. I don't really care if 500 points games are a joke in competitive play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
IIRC the Kill Team tile size has to do with the box size which has to do with shipping cost.

iirc GW never said this and it’s rumor taken as fact

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:


Also, it's 18 attacks that hit on 3's and wound on 4's, living on a 4++, right? Is that even going to wipe 10 intercessors.

24 attacks hitting 3s, S4, -2AP, 2 damage each, fighting twice, in the most common masque. After firing 6d6 haywire shots.

But it's not nearly the nastiest 500 point list you can make. That's kinda my point. It was just one thing that immediately came to mind. Something like swarmlord + genestealers is going to be even more oppressive at that bracket.

The point was just to illustrate that things that are balanced for 2k on a 4x6 board aren't going to be balanced at 500 points on a 44x30 board. They can't be.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

gungo wrote:
Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?

Neither. Kill Team tiles got made to fit into the standard boxes sizes that GW make. It's entirely mundane and entirely practical.

gungo wrote:
You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..

They're not really making new RoB tiles, but boy are the making new KT-sized boards.

Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.

gungo wrote:
Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.

No, it was a practical decision. Same applies to the slightly less than 1x1 Necromunda tiles that came out with the Newcromunda starter box. You literally cannot put 1' wide tiles in that box*.

*Flat, obviously you can angle tiles to fit, but that's not how the boxes are packed.

gungo wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

gungo wrote:
Did GW create kill team tiles to fit on a kitchen/coffee table or did killteam tiles get created and just happen to fit on those tables?

Neither. Kill Team tiles got made to fit into the standard boxes sizes that GW make. It's entirely mundane and entirely practical.

gungo wrote:
You all seem to forget realm of battle boards are still 2x2..... this isn’t about selling kill team boards..

They're not really making new RoB tiles, but boy are the making new KT-sized boards.

Hence The killteam boards were likely made to fit the new easier to fit table size. This change helps a lot of people simply play on standard table sizes.

Kill Team is older than 9th edition.

I hope the table sizes are minimums and that the standard will remain 6x4 for bigger games and maybe 4x4 for 500 pt games.

Smaller tables with current move charge strategies shenanigans is ... well, maybe movement and weapon ranges will be reduced across the board too.

Regardless, I hope that people resist and set their own standard for larger tables.

It seems that GW is trying to make everyone with a credit card happy in a disposable way.. 40K is now a luxury convenience product for apartment dwellers with enough cash to pay 10$ for a single infantry model and almost 100 for a tank, but that don’t have space or money for a proper table and rather must play on the dining room table...

At least now I understand why some people seem so happy that the game should be more streamlined abstract and play faster. Because they have to finish in time for dinner, because people will need to eat on the game table.

I still like to think it was the powerful folding table lobby.

"Hey, if you make your game fit on our tables, we would definitely need to find someone to be the key note speaker at the next Folding Table Manufacturers Association convention. There's an honorarium..."

I don't think its really much of a mystery on why tournaments would favor small tables. One, they'd need less terrain to make good tables, logistics would imply less things needed is good. Also, space if you squeeze games a bit and make it more compact you can fit more people in an area or for distancing it makes it easier to space out and keep up numbers.

Smaller boards are good for space concerns and that is a consideration for a tournament.

 jeff white wrote:
I hope the table sizes are minimums and that the standard will remain 6x4 for bigger games and maybe 4x4 for 500 pt games.

Minimum is pretty clearly there.

 Chamberlain wrote:
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.

Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables

I mean I get the concerns of table size from a competitive stand point. That said I’m not a competitive player and having a game that fits on a standard dining table and not having to have a special table or a gigantic banquet style dining table is a boon to most of the players that play the game.

gungo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
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.

Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables

That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.

For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new sales of terrain/mats at this specific size.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I still like to think it was the powerful folding table lobby.

"Hey, if you make your game fit on our tables, we would definitely need to find someone to be the key note speaker at the next Folding Table Manufacturers Association convention. There's an honorarium..."

My folding tables are 4'x2', so three make a perfect 6'x4'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't think anyone has claimed doa ,

There is literally a thread in the 40K section decrying the game for being DoA.

 bullyboy wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
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.

Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables

That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.

For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.

Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 bullyboy wrote:

gungo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
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.

Exactly people keep missing this fact...
This is really the size table most people in the world play 40k on...
Most players don’t have neoprene mats....
most players don’t have a giant 6x4 plywood board...
Most players are already playing on a folding table at thier house or in thier garage... or at the local Game store (Using the same tables for card games) or they are playing on a kitchen table that is A similar size...
This change makes 40k more accessible!
Longest time me and my friends played on a kitchen table
Then we upgraded to green felt on the table
Eventually we bought plywood and kept in a garage
and eventually we got a neoprene mat but that was years later. As poor teenagers what cash we had went into models not expensive tables

That doesn't really make much sense when you get to 2000pt games though, which is what most people play (at least what I've seen through 8th, maybe a few 1750). You still need a similar size table as current to play a 44x60 game.

For me, it's not even about the rules....it's more about the fact I have 6x4 mats, my local has tables for 6x4 games with similar mats, etc. I don't want to spend extra time taping off areas of the map...looks dumb.
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's just a minimum, I get that. However, people are sheep and if this becomes the new standard, it will spread through the gaming community until it becomes pretty much standard.
With knights, fliers, etc on the table...it already feels way too small (epic would be much better), so why the heck are they shrinking it further? I just don't see a rational reason outside of maybe hoping to dominate new ales af terrain/mats at this specific size.

Minimum size means you don't need to make the play space smaller if you don't want to. You're literally inventing a reason to be upset out of nothing. Minimum table size just means "your play space must be this large for a balanced game".

Seriously, read what I actually wrote, don't skim.
I fully understand what minimum means, I'm simply pointing out that it will become standard....check back with me in 3 months and see where i stand,
Oh, when was the last time you played a 40K game without the rule of 3? You know you don't have to, right?