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.

The chances of GW stopping selling anything before they run out of stock is roughly equivalent to your chances of winning the lottery without buying a lottery ticket.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
They clearly want their "minimum" table size adopted as the standard for competitive play

[Citation needed]

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/flg-the-itc-and-the-new-40k-play-surface-size/

Do you seriously think it's a coincidence that all the major TOs in the USA immediately came out and said they were adopting the new size as soon as it was revealed, and that GW had nothing to do with those decisions?

If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.

Fair enough. And I will be absolutely shocked if it isn't the "minimum" size announced there - unless of course it is such a disaster in the meantime that they do a U-turn on it.

MaxT wrote:
Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.

I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.

I bet, it'll be the current size being taken up. Just my hunch but lets wait and see I suppose.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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.

ITC don’t have a magical license from GW that means only they are allowed to run events. If ITC go to the new minimum, other tourneys and TO’s may stick to 6by4. Let the free market decide based on what the public want and is popular. Variety is the spice of life after all


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.

I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.

I expect 6 months minimum, but tickets my go up much sooner than that, which is my feeling. And you get the rulespack when tickets go on sale.

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.

I think your last sentence is a matter of opinion, and that fuels some of the hate (or whatever you want to call it; maybe frustration would be a better word). Besides what other people have said, I think a part of it might be that there are a lot of players out there that play local and semi-local tournaments. Then, they hear that there is a group of guys at Frontline Gaming making decisions about the game that they're playing without getting their input. Obviously, it is impossible for Reece and co. to survey every single tournament player across the country, but I think since 40K has always been a niche game, there are people that have personal investments of time and money in the game and they have their own opinions about the rules and how it should play. Suddenly, they are being told to play a certain way by something that is not necessarily representative of them or their local scene. Not only that, but the group at Frontline Gaming changed parts of the game that affected the meta nationwide, which affects sales and affects future updates. And before you say "Just don't use ITC," it's not practical to play local tournaments at a different format than you would play tournaments you may travel to. You want the game, at the competitive level, to be as uniform as possible so you can practice and get used to what your army can do.

So, the decisions made by Frontline Gaming cause ripples throughout the competitive 40k world, but they do not have a good way to survey the opinions of thousands and thousands of players (or, at least I haven't seen any). And, in the few times I have seen Reece actually poll people for their opinions about ITC, he has gotten extremely defensive toward their responses. He (and therefore his company, and therefore the representation of ITC) doesn't seem to take criticism well and has a "I know better than you" attitude about it when criticism does come his way.

Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?

ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.

ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.

MaxT wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Not worth the big debate on what GW “really” mean based on what a random TO says. Quite soon we’ll have a Warhammer world event announced, that rulespack will tell us what they actually plan for tournie table sizes.

I have a feeling that Warhammer World events may be a bit farther off than that.

I expect 6 months minimum, but tickets my go up much sooner than that, which is my feeling. And you get the rulespack when tickets go on sale.

Six months isn't exactly what I call 'quite soon'. It also places it in the holiday season.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The only thing people seem to be missing is the fact that nobody other than tournament organisers are mandating the use of the minimum table sizes. Even GW have gone on record as saying that you can still play on a 6x4 or whatever table size you want. Again, it's not GWs fault that tournament organisers are doing this.

Again, yes, it is. This is how business relations work. TOs that rely heavily on GW's good will have to maintain that good will.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?

I'm not sure. Would GW have stepped up in the absence of ITC? Who knows.

yukishiro1 wrote:
ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.

Sure. I'm not blaming anyone. I was just trying to give a different perspective as to some of the vitriol toward Reece/ITC, fair or not.

yukishiro1 wrote:
ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.

I thought that GW basically built Nova missions (with MVBrandt joining the team), which are modified ITC. Again, would have GW had made these changes in the absence of ITC? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm simply saying that there are gaming purists that want rules and direction to come directly from the producer, not modified by a far-flung group of players that have limited input on how their decisions affect the game for everyone playing that format.

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well sure...but you said it yourself, there. You want the game to be as uniform as possible when it comes to competitive play. GW was dropping the ball on this for years and years because what GW came up with was just not competitive in the least. They got better over the course of 8th - presumably in no small part because of competition from ITC, NOVA, ETC, etc - but they just weren't giving people a viable competitive option that could be made uniform. I mean surely you don't htink that the game would have been better off competitively playing GW missions and rules instead of ITC missions and rules?

I'm not sure. Would GW have stepped up in the absence of ITC? Who knows.

yukishiro1 wrote:
ITC provided that uniformity in a serious format that GW did not. You might not have liked all the decisions, but they stepped up at a time when GW was unwilling to step up itself. Could somebody else have stepped up instead if ITC hadn't, and filled that void? Eh, maybe. But it seems pretty unfair to blame ITC for filling a void that needed to be filled by saying someone else could have done it better.

Sure. I'm not blaming anyone. I was just trying to give a different perspective as to some of the vitriol toward Reece/ITC, fair or not.

yukishiro1 wrote:
ITC isn't/wasn't perfect by all means, but they succeeded in providing a platform GW either could not or would not. That GW has essentially adopted ITC missions in 9th is the ultimate proof of this, in effect an admission that ITC did competitive 40k much better than GW itself was doing it.

I thought that GW basically built Nova missions (with MVBrandt joining the team), which are modified ITC. Again, would have GW had made these changes in the absence of ITC? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm simply saying that there are gaming purists that want rules and direction to come directly from the producer, not modified by a far-flung group of players that have limited input on how their decisions affect the game for everyone playing that format.

People hate on Reece primarily for 2 reasons.:
1. He plays the game in a way other people thing is wrong and bad. Which is, ultimately, the core of what you said. It's just the extension of "Hardcore v casual" that is never ending
2. He's involved heavily with GW and people think he is a shill for daring to speak positively and have business ties with the company. This is silly because, like, dude's got to eat.

This really isn't about hating or liking one man. It's about the fact that he's, for good or bad a voice people listen to. So his acceptance and pressure to run the game a certain way does press people to accept and demand the game be played that certain way for many people.

I'm neutral to him, he's just a person doing his best in life. He's making the choices he needs for himself. Saying GW has no sway with him I think is false, as really anyone in his shoes would work well with the company that by little or large supports and invites him into the process.

This isn't a matter of hardcore vs casual. It's just a matter that people should be concerned of the new size as often recommendations of GW, and doubly so those supported by higher end tournaments as well, tend to become the way of game will be from that point forward.

I don't know if this will be good or bad, I will say I favor larger boards, but the normal I think will change with us. In the end only time will tell. On the bright side, uniformity is good for the game in a number of ways so this may be a blessing in disguise.

I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.

Combined with the point values going up, I don't think crowded boards are going to be the issue - overall open space vs space covered by minis will be roughly equal to what it is now. It's the threat ranges that are the issue.

OK, so ignoring the inconvenience of it all, plus the increase of visual disbelief with knights on the table etc, what actual effects will it have on the game,

1. Points increases. Depending on how drastic these are, hopefully we will see a significant reduction in the number of models on the table in general. Or we basically screw up #2
2. Maneuver. If you want this game to be more dynamic, objective based, ideally you introduce some room for models to move, outflank, etc. Current reduction in table size reduces that considerably.
3. Weapon ranges. Pretty much everything will be in range straight away. 24" weapons will now feel like 36" weapons. This will again effect #2 above and likley increase people's reliance on auras more than they do now. Instead of forcing them out into other areas to grab objectives, they can now just roll around the board like a 5yr old soccer team. The range reduction has a pretty large effect on 2 armies I play.
a. Dark Angels. Extra range in dev doctrine feels even more uninspiring, especially after the change to doctrines.
b. Harlequins. +6" range pivotal role on Shadowseer is now reduced in usefulness.

Honestly, if number one isn't a massive change, this could become ugly.

I think our heads would spin right off if we knew how many decisions were made by commercial wants over game play needs.

I really hope I read that wrong earlier that the game is being made for elites over hordes with 9th though. Was that said aloud somewhere ?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.

Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."

Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.

 solkan wrote:
Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."

Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.

Take that further and then reference the result of Table 47: Range and Table Size with Table 48: Range by Weapon Type and Skill and further cross-reference that through optional tables 58A: Weapon Effects by Game Turn and Table 58B: Weapon Effects by Scenario. Heaven forbid you play without the full suite of tournament tables and their micro-adjustments to range bands of over performing weapons (for Marines only according to half the players and for Xenos only for the other half, chaos gets shafted either way somehow).

Aren’t all the missions measured from the center of the table anyway? So a two inch smaller deployment zone and narrower by 6 inches on each side? Is that what this is about?

How does it impact objectives if everything is from the middle?

 solkan wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I actually like the idea of the smaller boards in principle, I just don't like that the precise dimensions were determined by commercial rather than gameplay considerations, or that they're implementing the board size change without redoing threat ranges.

Short of having threat ranges a function of the table size (table diagonal?), I can't see what they'd be able to change. And I can't imagine a version of "dynamic" threat ranges that wouldn't put people into ChartMaster-induced rages. "Let's see, my weapon is listed as weapon range category X, and looking at the weapon range chart, I see that for category X and this table size, my range is Y."

Yeah, different table sizes are going to end up with different results, but different table layouts and different terrain choices are going to end up with different results.

Well it goes without saying that you can't balance for both the 500 points table size and the 2000 points table size. I think we're all pretty much just assuming that they should balance based on 2000 points and the other sizes will just be kinda for laughs but not for serious play.

The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.

But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.

I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.

But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.

I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.

Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.

The game is not better due to ITC and competitive player influence on rules and game design.
The table sizes were not changed to this so called minimum to make a better game.
My excitement for 9th Ed and goodwill for GW have both notably dropped for the fact that, rather than hold what was working and focus on changing what was done poorly this last edition which was many things, GW again insists on making unnecessary changes thereby adding to the sense of instability and unprofessional ad hoc baloney and unreliability that has been mounting with these jokers,...

It is as if everything since mid 7th has been this nuclear powered gaslighting policy... what a load of chits

Gaslighting here especially is with this table size discussion... clearly this is marketing driven drivel... to concede otherwise is to be gaslit.

Y'all seem to forget

Apperantly there are changes to the SHOOTING PHASE too.

If that's not a possible change to threat ranges, I dint know what is.



Plus, while I'm currently not a fan of the table change, maybe there actually WAS a gameplay reasoning?
Yes, you can say it's an economic one to match the kill team range, but why in the kill team range that size to begin with?


And with reducing rather than increasing, it's not like it's hard to adjust our existing tables, just mark a line that beyond it it's not part of the game board and mere scenery.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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.

Ah yes, good ol' Dakkaites thinking that a few dozen people on the internet, a few dozen gaming stores and a couple of tournaments represents the ENTIRE 40k player base. I bet only a single digit percentage of 40K players go to the LVO or other major tournaments. What is LVO attendance on average? 200 players? 100? I honestly don't know but assuming 200 people attend LVO that's most likely a FRACTION OF A PERCENT of 40K players in the US.

Some of the guys at my LGS never heard of this forum until I brought it up a year ago.

But let's go on pretending the vocal majority of a dozen or so members that contribute daily or weekly to this particular sub-forum here on Dakkadakka speak for ALL 40k players in the US.

If you want to play in LVO and other major tournaments you play on the new table size, if you don't like a 44" table either don't attend any tournament that uses it or get enough of the community together before the next LVO and say "hey, we refuse to enter the LVO if you change table size. With no players the LVO won't be held.

why can't protest from several dozen or more players change how a TO runs a competitive event. If I was going to host a tournament and the majority of the people signed up said "we don't like this rule you want to use" I'm changing that rule.

EDITED: Please leave current politics out of these things


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I think our heads would spin right off if we knew how many decisions were made by commercial wants over game play needs.

I really hope I read that wrong earlier that the game is being made for elites over hordes with 9th though. Was that said aloud somewhere ?

I think it's speculation because people will have to pay a tax to multi-detach and so the belief is that smaller, elite armies with the price hikes means that min-maxing to fill the mandatory Troop slot will still exist but people will be forced to stick to one detachment.

With how certain objectives work in missions where you must forfeit your shooting phase or charge phase and instead perform "x" action armies that take lots of elite, pricey units are going to be at a disadvantage. SM armies very rarely, if ever, contain bog standard Scouts. You usually only ever see Intercessors. Well, I'd rather take a 5 man squad of basic bolter scouts to perform objective capturing actions and give up their shooting than to have my Intercessors have to skip a turn of shooting to snatch up 5 VP. I honestly think there will be more people taking more cheap Troop choices this edition.

Daemon armies aren't really too hurt by saccing an action to fulfill an objective. Plaguebearers are usually the objective holders and since they can't shoot you aren't losing anything as a Chaos Daemons player by taking Plaguebearers (unless of course you don't want Nurgle units in your soup or are playing a mono non-Nurgle daemon army.

 jeff white wrote:
The game is not better due to ITC and competitive player influence on rules and game design.
The table sizes were not changed to this so called minimum to make a better game.
My excitement for 9th Ed and goodwill for GW have both notably dropped for the fact that, rather than hold what was working and focus on changing what was done poorly this last edition which was many things, GW again insists on making unnecessary changes thereby adding to the sense of instability and unprofessional ad hoc baloney and unreliability that has been mounting with these jokers,...

It is as if everything since mid 7th has been this nuclear powered gaslighting policy... what a load of chits

Gaslighting here especially is with this table size discussion... clearly this is marketing driven drivel... to concede otherwise is to be gaslit.

Easy there sparky, you're clearly inhaling too many fumes.

The table size was designed to lower the bar to entry for newer players and establish a "no smaller than' table size standard for balanced games. Time will tell if they nailed it, but putting that in for those reason is the right idea. I mean some people can only get games of Kitchenhammer in and knowing what size they should play to fit the game on their kitchen table (or coffee table) while keeping it fun is a good idea.

As for your excitement and goodwill, I feel like you're cashing things in early, and with some bad faith at heart to boot. No one said you have to like every change, but waiting to see the whole picture rather than jumping to conclusions seems a bit silly. I mean it won't be too lately to go "yeah, I'm out" when you get to see the free core ruleset and decide if you really like the rules or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Y'all seem to forget

Apperantly there are changes to the SHOOTING PHASE too.

If that's not a possible change to threat ranges, I dint know what is.



Plus, while I'm currently not a fan of the table change, maybe there actually WAS a gameplay reasoning?
Yes, you can say it's an economic one to match the kill team range, but why in the kill team range that size to begin with?


And with reducing rather than increasing, it's not like it's hard to adjust our existing tables, just mark a line that beyond it it's not part of the game board and mere scenery.

I'm hoping we see Long Ranges come back. -1 to BS for shooting over half range. Not to the roll because of modifiers, but to the characteristic. Which would justify why "6s always hit' if someone gets bumped to a 6+ to hit, then suffers a -1 to their rolls....

 alextroy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.

But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.

I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.

Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.

That would imply that they thought ranges and movement stats were too low in 8th and they wanted to effectively increase them by reducing the board size?

I mean, anything is possible; this is GW we're talking about. But I really don't know anybody who thinks the problem with 8th is that ranges and movement values are too low.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:

Yes, you can say it's an economic one to match the kill team range, but why in the kill team range that size to begin with?

Because they would have had to ship it in a bigger box if it was any bigger.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The point wasn't that you'd need dynamic threat ranges, just that the current numbers are built for 24 square foot boards, and now we're on 18 square foot boards. If as part of 9th they were reevaluating ranges of weapons, movement ranges, abilities that allowed multiple movements, etc...you could make the numbers work similar on the smaller board size to how the current numbers work on the current board size.

But they explicitly aren't doing that. All the stat profiles, model rules etc are remaining the same, except for a couple things (blast weapons, for example). So if your skyweavers can move 44 inches then charge in 8th, presumably they'll be able to in 9th too at release...on a much smaller board.

I suspect it's going to be a shaky start until they get the codexes out that are going to fix a lot of the problems that using 8th edition stats for a 9th edition game are going to produce.

Here's a wild idea: GW did reevaluate the range on weapons and movement. They changed them by changing the board size rather than changing the numbers on the data sheets. Now we wait to see the changes to points values to see how much they value the ranges based on the smaller board.

That would imply that they thought ranges and movement stats were too low in 8th and they wanted to effectively increase them by reducing the board size?

I mean, anything is possible; this is GW we're talking about. But I really don't know anybody who thinks the problem with 8th is that ranges and movement values are too low.

I feel like it's more that they felt that they needed a "don't play this size game on a table smaller than X" so games wouldn't go super wacky since all distances are measured from the center and not board edges meaning theoretically you could try to play Onslaught on a 2x2' table if you're masochistic enough.

Hear me out. I actually think this reduction in board size is a good thing? Cautious optimism.

We all know that 8th edition was a very shooty edition. Now look what a reduction in board size does? It buffs Melee, simply because now, melee can cross the board much easier (because the board is literally smaller to begin with).

Now, if first turn charges are quite common, everyone has to plan their deployment and lists based on getting charged first turn. Even if you have bubble wrap and fodder to absorb the charge, there isn't much space for you behind your bubble wrap. Plus if your fodder gets charged by melee and destroyed in turn 1, are you have less space now to deploy with behind your fodder, then what do you do about the deep strike that is coming in on turn 2?

This means that army lists that are only pure castle gunlines will be less effective. The whole board is smaller. You can't have a pure gunline, you need to have stuff that can fight too because you WILL get charged since the board is smaller.

This is a GOOD thing. Even gunline type lists need to have counter charge melee units because one way or another, they have to plan that stuff are going to get into melee. So, after I have laid out my reasoning, can you see why I actually think this smaller board size is a good thing?

Shooting will still be good, but it will be less good now. This may actually be a good development given how much of a shooty edition 8th has been.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Hear me out. I actually think this reduction in board size is a good thing? Cautious optimism.

We all know that 8th edition was a very shooty edition. Now look what a reduction in board size does? It buffs Melee, simply because now, melee can cross the board much easier (because the board is literally smaller to begin with).

Now, if first turn charges are quite common, everyone has to plan their deployment and lists based on getting charged first turn. Even if you have bubble wrap and fodder to absorb the charge, there isn't much space for you behind your bubble wrap. Plus if your fodder gets charged by melee and destroyed in turn 1, are you have less space now to deploy with behind your fodder, then what do you do about the deep strike that is coming in on turn 2?

This means that army lists that are only pure castle gunlines will be less effective. The whole board is smaller. You can't have a pure gunline, you need to have stuff that can fight too because you WILL get charged since the board is smaller.

This is a GOOD thing. Even gunline type lists need to have counter charge melee units because one way or another, they have to plan that stuff are going to get into melee. So, after I have laid out my reasoning, can you see why I actually think this smaller board size is a good thing?

Shooting will still be good, but it will be less good now. This may actually be a good development given how much of a shooty edition 8th has been.

So the strongest faction would be the one with units that are both good at shooting and melee (even better if those units were troops). Wonder who that would be....

We haven't seen all of the rules yet. But I am sure we all agree that shooting has been by far too powerful in 8th edition. so, if this tilts the scale back towards melee or at least back to the middle where both melee and shooting are equally important, it can't be that bad a thing ...

So far, this is the first thing I have seen about 9th ed that benefits melee. Because all the other rules so far are kinda neutal to both melee and shooting. In fact, vehicles and monsters being able to shoot despite being locked in melee benefits ... shooting. So, I would say we don't know yet how it will all turn out. But I actually think the smaller boards are a help for melee and I for one am actually happy about that.

I mean, lets be honest. Is it really that fun to see who can build the shootiest leafblower list and then shoot your opponent off the table within 2 turns? We talk about tactics, and all, but there is hardly much tactics in firing priority and shooting your opponent off the table, is there?