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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Ah never mind, didn't register the white tape. man is that bad...

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
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?

There was/is a leaked image of the necron codex cover doing the rounds which i think we can assume is genuine based on the fact everything else leaked so far has been bang on the money. I think we can safely assume they will be very soon after the starter box lands but if i recall correctly neither the death guard codex or marine codex dropped day one when dark imperium was released?

Not the full version, but there were mini-codexes for the two factions in the box to cover the new units IIRC. Could be the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Smaller table means less terrain. I am inherently against this.

Or potentially denser terrain if we are lucky.

Smaller tables of course means fewer terrain pieces will fit. Doesn't mean less terrain though, as all you care about is enough terrain for the area you will be playing on. Which on theory could perfectly fine stay constant.

 Red Corsair wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Ah never mind, didn't register the white tape. man is that bad...

Was the area outside the tape ever really used in top tables?

I assume you still deploy typically 24" apart, with the different
zone variations as before.

Think I'll live happily ever after with this change.

 EnTyme wrote:

Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space.

yeah this the horror, as why anyone ever do that at all?

and the other point is how the models in this pictures are placed, and what terrain is used (as those are bulldings without windows, the new terrain rules would still need you to replace your old windowed buildings I guess)

 kodos wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space.

yeah this the horror, as why anyone ever do that at all?

and the other point is how the models in this pictures are placed, and what terrain is used (as those are bulldings without windows, the new terrain rules would still need you to replace your old windowed buildings I guess)

Replace?!

Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.

And those units are deployed in one of the standard 8th edition deployment types dating back years. 4 corners circle in the middle. Just look at the dice! Jeesh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That terrain kit has been available from gamemats since I don't know when. They have nothing to do with shift in terrain rules. Why are everybody feverishly mental about every little sentence GW releases about 9th.

torblind wrote:

Replace?!
Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.

of course, house rules for terrain are common in 8th, but GW promissed that the new terrain rules are better and LOS blocking is a thing now
but looking at that table, if actual los blocker are needed the big change is not there and you still need a house rule that windows don't count.

this is just not what i expected from better terrain rules

Dudeface wrote:

Was the area outside the tape ever really used in top tables?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. Use of the margins of the table is a huge part of competitive 40k.

Now that doesn't mean this change is necessarily going to be a disaster...but it is simply objectively true that if you just took the current 8th edition ruleset and reduced the table size, there would be very significant implications for competitive 40k. It is simply not accurate to act like that space didn't matter anyway. It absolutely does matter, and it matters hugely.

 kodos wrote:

torblind wrote:

Replace?!
Keep playing them as before, just don't register LoS through them.

of course, house rules for terrain are common in 8th, but GW promissed that the new terrain rules are better and LOS blocking is a thing now
but looking at that table, if actual los blocker are needed the big change is not there and you still need a house rule that windows don't count.

this is just not what i expected from better terrain rules

That's not house ruling. That's ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"oh so you see the tail spike of my Hive tyrant through a window in that terrain piece? Cool you don't have LoS. What on earth is the issue with this.

The extra space mattered for deepstriking stuff, or placing objectives further from one another, among other things. I firmly believe less space less tactics.
Perhaps it fits in the complete ruleset oh 9th but I am worried... i just don’t see this as a good sign at all.

 EnTyme wrote:

Oh no. The horror. Look at those missing inches of space.

Conversely...

What! They're playing to the edge of the table? But that gives them a few extra inches! Won't anyone please think of the children!

Personally I'll be laughing if GW left the 'Rule of Three' out of the 9th edition rules...

If the competitive venues find that its too little space they'll just modify their rules packs as they already do. The suggested board size is only that from GW - a suggestion. We all know its tied to product not to rules/balance.

But, but, but, 4" makes a huge difference to my experience...

(That's what she said).

Seriously though, most if not all long range heavy weapons were already within range at end of turn 1 even on a 48" wide table so I don't see the panic. 24" no mans land will still exist for some missions meaning that models will have to move the same distance to get those guns into range to shoot, just like currently.

Not to mention the majority, probably the VAST majority, of 40k players are casuals who play at home or play in a store that doesn't copy the major tournament scene and actually thinks for themselves (shock and awe I know) so they will continue to play on 48x72" tables. The manager of my LGS already plans to keep using 48X72 tables. If your store TO or manager wants to change table size than that is a "him" issue, not a GW issue.

 Overread wrote:
If the competitive venues find that its too little space they'll just modify their rules packs as they already do. The suggested board size is only that from GW - a suggestion. We all know its tied to product not to rules/balance.

It is tied to a product, but hopefully GW has put in the legwork, along with the testers, to balance the mechanics around the minimum sized boards.

We still don't have the full picture how terrain works after all.

Hell, it's not even a suggestion.

It is literally the smallest size they say you could possibly have a game of 40k on.

If tournaments decide to keep the 2000 point limit, maybe it will work. But this table isn't the most optimal for the game, it's literally the smallest you could actually play a game on in their opinion.

1st it was CP and detachments, now it's table size.

Always rely on the internet to complain about everything new.

IMaybe I'll get with some friends this week and try 2k games on new board size using the new sample missions shown. I know it won't be accurate because of other changes being made we don't know about (terrain rules, morale, etc) but I doubt it's going to be as big of an issue as people are making it out to be.

And if I do enter a tournament that uses a 44" table then that's an extra 2" for my gut to hang over and not knock over my lovely painted models.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Hell, it's not even a suggestion.

It is literally the smallest size they say you could possibly have a game of 40k on.

If tournaments decide to keep the 2000 point limit, maybe it will work. But this table isn't the most optimal for the game, it's literally the smallest you could actually play a game on in their opinion.

I’m waiting for Monday’s announcement from GW: maximum sizes of tables for 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 pts.

If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

Maybe the official GW stores will stick with 6x4 tables. Seems hard to picture every store just abandoning all of their 2x2 Realm of Battle table setups.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?

Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.

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.

Well guess 40k has no movement importance anyway so in that sense no effect. If you pretend 40k movement and tactics matter this reduces those


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 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.

Well luckily that's mostly us thing. Itc has been joke for competive 40k anyway

 Red Corsair wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
If (top) tournament players really find a slightly smaller table a big problem all they have to do is not show up to a couple of events and the organisers will add the extra inches back again

after all they're running the events as a business and if the players aren't paying they're not going to be able to carry on

I think that some of the concern is precisely that. IMO competitive play testers are good, but TO's are not, which may sound odd but when you realize the potential conflict of interest is makes more sense. Was this change brought up by the TO's or GW? Either way, smaller tables helps sell more seats and eases the demand for terrain and helps with yearly storage costs. So it makes sense for them to want this change despite potential issues. There is a cost and benefit that goes into all decisions, but the benefit is not always universal. These play testers should be making decisions vetting rules based on the overall game, not how it will facilitate their own personal events. Now that doesn't mean it can't be mutually beneficial in the end, but it does highlight a potential conflict of interest. Is it best for the game or is it best for large scale events?

Personally I don't know how I feel about the table shrinking. I'll have to play a few games to be sure, but I can tell you immediately that it doesn't require any play testing at all to understand that table size impacts strategy quite a bit. If it didn't we wouldn't need any parameters in the first place to begin with. So as usual GW provides information that we need to assume is justified in the end rather then being good on it's own merit.

If you trust Reece, they were initially opposed to the change, but had no voice. Again, if you trust Reece, they were told that it was almost completely based on the dimensions of Kill Team boards, and the only other consideration was that it is close to the average size of a dining table in the UK. Nothing at all was mentioned about TO convenience; nor, conversely, was the actual gameplay mentioned as having any importance at all in the decision.

This is 100% about GW combining its product lines, and 0% about actual gameplay.

I "trust" that Reece saw an opportunity to sell a whole bunch of neoprene mats. As many people as I've seen claiming GW made the change for financial reason, I'm surprised I've only seen one or two people bring up that FLG also sells gaming mats.

Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

 EnTyme wrote:
I "trust" that Reece saw an opportunity to sell a whole bunch of neoprene mats.

At a size compatible with ones he already sells at that. If Reece was as opposed to it as he says, he wouldn't have immediately and pre-emptively declared they were lockstepping with GW the day that information went public.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yes, because you can pretty much ignore the word for competitive play. Everyone will go to the new standard - it would be a complete mess to have competitive 40k played on different size tables in different tournaments.

If you don't play competitively, why would you care anyway? Everything is always optional in non-competitive play, whether the rules technically say it or not.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.

It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.

It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".

And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

No one is ignoring it, it's just irrelevant for a huge section of US players since pretty much every single meta, TO, and store in the US adjusts to ITC rules. It's literally the reason I moved to home gaming.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Are people really just ignoring the word minimum here?

Yep. Just like they ignored these words from from page 214 of the 8th edition rulebook

If you are using matched play for an organised event such as a tournament, we suggest using the table below as a helpful guideline.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I've never understood the Reece hate. He isn't always right, but I don't understand the contempt. He's pretty clearly a good guy who is trying to create a better game, even if he doesn't always succeed and his hot takes aren't always accurate. And him and the other folks at ITC have also clearly helped to improve 40k compared to what it would have been like without the ITC.

It's no hate, he's just objectively a shill.

It comes across as hate because Eternal Optimists can't handle the fact that he is objectively a shill with ulterior motives, so they try to defend his statements even though it's obvious that he literally can not be allowed to say something like "actually based off meta trends and what my 20 years of wargaming experience has shown this me this new unit GW is trying to promote is hot garbage".

And for what it's worth I don't think anyone thinks Reece is a bad person for being a shill- we've all got to make our money somehow- but by virtue of his shillness it's absolutely reasonable to say that nothing he says can be considered inherently trustworthy.

This pretty much. Games Workshop, and those directly affiliated with it, have an incentive to promote the new edition. On top of not being allowed to say anything negative about the state of the game (only ever in passing as a fixed solution), you can see where it could arise. The only thing you can do is trust your own opinion to be as objective as possible when information comes out, and find a few reviewers whom you genuinely trust, who are not affiliated with Games Workshop, to give an honest opinion.