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.

help a metric guy to understand the new board size

common size is 6 x 4 = 72" x 48" = ~180 x 120 cm
some games use 6x3/72x36/180x90

new size for 40k is:

500/1000p => 30 x 44 = 76 x 110 cm (75x110)
2000p => 60 x 44 = 150 x 112 cm (150x110)
3000p => 90 x 44 = 228 x 112 cm (225x110)

is this calculation right?

so the new size give you od numbers as long as youi don't use inch and all your existing mats/tables are of the wrong size now

and as GW defines the standard, it won't take long until people adapt to it as those only playing 40k without a mat or similiar now and/or starting fresh will use those sizes
(same as the Star Wars Legion players use 6x3 because it is the standard size, altthough the game allows 6x4)

strange thing about size is now that 2k points are on played on a smaller table as old 1500-2000points and on a similar size as SW Legion uses for 800 points

I have to say, I like the scaling from other games more
SW Legion which uses 72x36 for standard size and 36x36 for skimrish
or Warpaht that starts with 24x24 and 48x24 for Deadzone, expands to 48x48 for FF and 72x48 for the big game

because they fit standard metric sized better
no problem to get a 60x60cm (24x24" or 90x90cm (36" plate from hardware stores to use as base to make your own table
while 75x110 or 75x55 would need you to buy larger plates and cut them down
also 60x60 plates are easier to store than 75x55

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.

Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....

Oh wait

Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.

It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.

You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Or how Deep they deploy, but it will fix melee i heared, completely ignoring the fact that it will just be the extreme range outliers that will Profit even more from that.

Much Fun to be had getting a t1 dp with wings in your Face , much interaction aswell....

Oh wait

Watched Reese talk about everything that had released by Wens (it's in my post above) and he flat out said to forget what we know about 8th, just get it out of our mind. Basically the game has some big shifts I guess.

It's not balance related, so he might know what he's talking about in regards to the game changing.

You're really willing to believe "Stompas are good and Grey Knights don't care if Smite is nerfed for them" Reese?

It's the same guy people believe writes a better competitive mission pack and environment than GW (missions would include table sizes and deployments worth nothing).

Reece makes a living out of warhammer. You can't trust anybody that does that to be objetive.

Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.

I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.

sieGermans wrote:
Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.

I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.

Welcome to Dakkadakka!

But yeah, overall the changes look positive and I'm optimistic about the new edition.

I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.

Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.

Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.

sieGermans wrote:
Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.

I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.

You're free to do so. You could start your own if you wish to. People are free to their own opinions on here. I hope your optimistic view of what the new edition could be turns out to be reality aswell. Then we can get back to complaining about the pricing instead.

 Galas wrote:
I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.

Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.

Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.

It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.

(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)

 kodos wrote:
help a metric guy to understand the new board size

common size is 6 x 4 = 72" x 48" = ~180 x 120 cm
some games use 6x3/72x36/180x90

new size for 40k is:

500/1000p => 30 x 44 = 76 x 110 cm (75x110)
2000p => 60 x 44 = 150 x 112 cm (150x110)
3000p => 90 x 44 = 228 x 112 cm (225x110)

is this calculation right?

so the new size give you od numbers as long as youi don't use inch and all your existing mats/tables are of the wrong size now

and as GW defines the standard, it won't take long until people adapt to it as those only playing 40k without a mat or similiar now and/or starting fresh will use those sizes
(same as the Star Wars Legion players use 6x3 because it is the standard size, altthough the game allows 6x4)

strange thing about size is now that 2k points are on played on a smaller table as old 1500-2000points and on a similar size as SW Legion uses for 800 points

I have to say, I like the scaling from other games more
SW Legion which uses 72x36 for standard size and 36x36 for skimrish
or Warpaht that starts with 24x24 and 48x24 for Deadzone, expands to 48x48 for FF and 72x48 for the big game

because they fit standard metric sized better
no problem to get a 60x60cm (24x24" or 90x90cm (36" plate from hardware stores to use as base to make your own table
while 75x110 or 75x55 would need you to buy larger plates and cut them down
also 60x60 plates are easier to store than 75x55

From the Community post:

Of course, these are only the minimum size requirements for your battlefields, so whether you’re using a 6′x4′ table with a Realm of Battle board, linking two, four or six 22″x30″ Killzone boards together according to the battle size you’re playing, or just using a dining room table, you’re good to go. In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!

If you have 180cm by 120cm set up and you prefer playing at that size of table, keep on playing on that size of table.

I would say most of the issue is caused by GW dragging this out for if roumers are true a release date of 25 July and a pre order date of 11th of July which is when apparently the App drops, how that all work's etc and people trying to get acess to the books they already own during that two weeks will probably keep the hype up for the preorder.

But they have to drag out telling us very little for another 25 working days that's a very long time to tease people who as most people are still in some form of social distancing/lockdown can't play.

People with little else to be able to do on their hobby are going to devour the information and trying to guess as they have little else to do now.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I'm very optimistic about literally ALL changes they have announced... with the exception of this one.

Warhammer was a game were positioning and manouvering was ... not very important. with movement, weapon ranges, etc... being the same but tables becoming smaller, it becomes even less relevant.

Worse, when in 1-2 years we have again the same point costs that we have now (Have I to remember than in the index era a 2500 point necron army costs right now something like 1800 points?), will we play again on bigger tables? Or will we keep the smaller ones? Because right now the 6x4 tables allready feel small.

It is really not even a change. Was a minimum table size defined previously at all? JFC, no one is stopping you from playing on a larger table, and GW still sells tiles for those sizes and I doubt they want people to stop buying them! The hysteria about this is blatantly absurd.

(Also, there is a dedicated table size panic thread in the 40K general, so I'd suggest further whining about this would be taken there.)

I know maybe for you it is not a problem. As you have said multiple times, you don't even use the rule of three. But at least for me, playing in FLGS and clubs, what the big tournaments do IS how I play. This deflection about "If you don't like it DONT use it!" when people is saying that for most people thats NOT an option is tbh infuriating and patronizing. We KNOW nobody is forcing us to play like that. We also know for most of us theres no other option.

But you are right. I'll stop whining. I apologize for discussing about the small information GW is droping us each day. We can go back to talk about... hmmm... those primaris with swords and shields sure are cool eh?

Gaming stores aren’t suddenly gonna chop a foot off their tables. There really is a lot of fretting over this for little real reason. Minimum =/= only possible option.

alphaecho wrote:

Of course, these are only the minimum size requirements for your battlefields, so whether you’re using a 6′x4′ table with a Realm of Battle board, linking two, four or six 22″x30″ Killzone boards together according to the battle size you’re playing, or just using a dining room table, you’re good to go. In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!

If you have 180cm by 120cm set up and you prefer playing at that size of table, keep on playing on that size of table.

same as 6x4 is a suggestion in 8th and it is nearly impossible to get people playing on a differnt sized table as "this is the official size"

At home I can do what I want, as soon as you play in a Club/Store/Event or other people trying to use housrules is a pain

 Galas wrote:

I know maybe for you it is not a problem. As you have said multiple times, you don't even use the rule of three. But at least for me, playing in FLGS and clubs, what the big tournaments do IS how I play. This deflection about "If you don't like it DONT use it!" when people is saying that for most people thats NOT an option is tbh infuriating and patronizing. We KNOW nobody is forcing us to play like that. We also know for most of us theres no other option.

Is this club or whatever composed of people? Talk to them, If enough of them like the bigger tables, then you can agree to use those. The deafeatis attitude, "but the community won't let me use FW/Legends/bigger tables," is just sad. Especially as there is a good chance that other members of the community think the exact same thing, but just silently assume that no one would agree.

But you are right. I'll stop whining. I apologize for discussing about the small information GW is droping us each day. We can go back to talk about... hmmm... those primaris with swords and shields sure are cool eh?

They indeed are! I am wondering if the Enforcer shields would look good on them if one wanted to tone down the gothicness a notch?

sieGermans wrote:
Is there a thread where I can find folks more optimistic about 9th Edition? This whole thread is such a Debbie Downer. The bad changes are bad. The good changes are bad. Stuff that’s staying the same is bad. Stuff that’s different is bad.

I’d be the first one in line to say Warhammer isn’t a perfect game, but the level of vitriol here is horrific.

Define optimistic?

I mean I'm fairly confident it won't give me cancer.

Mildly confident it will be better rules-wise than Rogue Trader or 2nd Edition.

See we can say nice things.

From a practical/physical standpoint, reducing the minimum table width for a 2000 point game from 48" to 44" has no impact. The standard dining table width is 30" - 40", with most 6-8 seater tables being around 36", so you would still need a custom board/mat.

willb2064 wrote:
From a practical/physical standpoint, reducing the minimum table width for a 2000 point game from 48" to 44" has no impact. The standard dining table width is 30" - 40", with most 6-8 seater tables being around 36", so you would still need a custom board/mat.

I guess GW has different ones:

In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

And they certainly consider it the cherry on the cake that it will screw over all those evil third party game mat producers.

3rd Party mat producers already produce mats that size.

I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?

Yeah, absolutely!

I personally like that it is 5 feet instead of 6, solely because now a 6 foot table leaves a foot for minis.

I highly doubt most people will stop playing on 48 width, just because that is the dimensions of the tables they already have. Since everything is measured from the middle anyway it’s just an extra 2 inches in each deployment zone.

Personally I like that it is a bit smaller, I know in some games it was super annoying that it was literally impossible for me to catch some models and it makes fliers easier to deal with.

Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed

For anyone who has Realm of Battle boards and is blind to the word "minimum" I am buying full sets for $50. Better to make a few bucks than to set them on fire on Youtube!

 judgedoug wrote:
Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed

your first GW game?
there is no optional/minimum/suggest rule, as soon as there is a number in the rulebook it is set and everything else is a houserule that will call for arguments that one is not playing the game as it is supposed to be

there are always some rules the community ignore that are not optional, while other stuff that is just a suggetion is followed as strict as possible

but hey people are now happy that the board size is smaller as they now have more space for minis/books/dice, although there was no rule that said we must play on 72x48, so using smaller tables was always possible

 judgedoug wrote:
Came to Dakka to see how many people deliberately misinterpreted "minimum" and chose to ignore the explanatory text, was not disappointed

For anyone who has Realm of Battle boards and is blind to the word "minimum" I am buying full sets for $50. Better to make a few bucks than to set them on fire on Youtube!

It's really not this simple.

One of the main tourny organizers, FLG, has already stated they are moving to the minimum suggested table size for their events. This will have pretty large ripple effects across the community.

It's not as simple as people misinterpreting it, putting something like that in the rule book will cause effects across the community like I pointed out.

Here is a visual representation of the new board size with the first mission they previewed set up.

But the rule is not you MUST use this size it is, if indeed you could even phrase it this way, your gaming table MUST be AT LEAST this size. Again, it is not GW's fault if tournament organisers take the more flexible approach set out in the rulebook and turn it into a hard and fast thing in their tournaments. GW have to cater to the casual gamer who might not have a 6x4 table by letting them know 'hey its OK you don't need one but if you already have one that is cool too!'

Sasori wrote:
It's really not this simple.

One of the main tourny organizers, FLG, has already stated they are moving to the minimum suggested table size for their events. This will have pretty large ripple effects across the community.

It's not as simple as people misinterpreting it, putting something like that in the rule book will cause effects across the community like I pointed out.

See below:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:I think all this on table size is another example of a player problem being made in to a GW problem. If GW basically say 'This is the minimum table size you need for a game of X size' and then tournament organisers decide 'well that is the size we are going to use then' instead of saying 'well, there is nothnig saying we can't play on our existing 6x4 table and everyone is used to that and has been doing it for years so lets just stick wit that' how is that GW's fault?

 puma713 wrote:
Here is a visual representation of the new board size with the first mission they previewed set up.

Spoiler:

Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space. What ever will we do? (Thank you for posting the visual, puma.)

That's a significant chunk what are you talking about?

Apologize if this has already been brought up, but this is a fast-moving thread…

With the new Space Marine and Necron miniatures shown, has there been any word of new army books for both as day one releases alongside 40K 9th?