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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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....

So Orks then. I mean they have an impressive volume of shots, cheap bodies that can basically fill the board to deny deep strike, and they punch even better than they shoot....

Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
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?

My thoughts exactly pretty much. I for one am actually excited for slightly smaller boards (and even then it’s only a minimum size recommendation as so many have pointed out, I’ll still be happy with 6x4s if that’s what happens). Also consider that a 2000 pt game in 9th is probably going to loe a lot more like a 1750 pt game in 8th (which I also prefer) given the across the board point hikes.

On a slightly different note, as much as I love 40k and that GW is supporting it as much as they are, I am absolutely sure there are going to be plenty of instances of severely over and under costed units when they release the new points cost for everything in 9th. As always, stay updated and don’t chase the meta too hard. Just gotta roll with the punches.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.

It was a joke, besides, we all know people will just game around the horde limit to avoid dealing with the blast weapon thing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Except that blast weapons and such are now better against hordes and its possible that hordes got a bigger point hike than elites. (Looks at the example of cultists becoming 6 points). So, I am not sure if hordes are going to be the winners for sure in 9th edition. We will have to see.

It was a joke, besides, we all know people will just game around the horde limit to avoid dealing with the blast weapon thing.

Kinda?

I mean, the world isn't exactly going to tremble at six ten-man units of Ork Boys.T-shirt saves and a low morale? Yikes.

They're going to need some *serious* help!

(None more than the Blood Axes, whose three tricks … gaining cover saves might not work with new terrain rules, the ability for tanks to move out of combat and still shoot when all tanks can now shoot just fine if in combat, and being able to Deepstrike any unit for 1 CP … are all given away in the new edition. They essentially have no trait at all.

When you're worse off than Renegades, you're in a bad place.

2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.

I’m just going to point out that every single table at Warhammer World (other than a couple of the extreme feature tables) is based on a Realm of Battle board, so I can’t see official GW tournaments in the U.K. using anything but 6x4.

Balerion wrote:
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway...

They're very specifically not in this instance though.

The newer boards GW make are the size they are because that's what fits into their standard box sizes. That wasn't arbitrary, that was necessary.

The min table size recommendations are the way they are because of the sizes of the newer boards GW makes. That wasn't arbitrary, it was intentional.

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...

Hopefully by "smaller is better" referred to model count. As same model count on smaller board just makes game simplified dice rolling removing further pretence of tactics mattering


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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.

Eh boards were too crowed already...so by cutting board side unless point cost increases aren't bigger than shown so far not only does it get negated but gets worse. Points should be at least doubled

I think it just depends on how the new rules come together. You could have less dice rolling and yet a better game. 8th edition became an extremely shooty edition. Somehow, I think that reduced a lot of the tactics in the game when it became so shooty. As I mentioned before, when you just compete to create leaf blower type lists, and tactics are reduced to fire priority and removing models off the table, how much tactics are we really talking about ?

So, if a reduction in table size will benefit melee more and reduce the power of shooting, then I am all for that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Balerion wrote:
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway...

They're very specifically not in this instance though.

The newer boards GW make are the size they are because that's what fits into their standard box sizes. That wasn't arbitrary, that was necessary.

The min table size recommendations are the way they are because of the sizes of the newer boards GW makes. That wasn't arbitrary, it was intentional.

Of course the change was intentional. I don't think they made a mistake when writing the rules.
Boards fitting in standard box sizes is even more of a reason for a change. W\why would you make a product that doesn't fit in your standard packaging right? Making special packaging when not required is a waste of resources, isn't it?
For GW that might be the main reason. For customers (like me) it makes things easier going from one system to another. I see that as a win for both sides.

Check in here once in a while.
So people still go on about board size?
Looks like it will be a great edition if that qualifies as a "big issue"

 Fayric wrote:
Check in here once in a while.
So people still go on about board size?
Looks like it will be a great edition if that qualifies as a "big issue"

Realistically board size and CP are the only things we actually know about atm.

Balerion wrote:
2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.

From someone who got into dakkadakka ten years ago, crying about how the game is ruined is a ritual that takes places every time whenever any part of a new edition is leaked

 Jidmah wrote:

Balerion wrote:
2 cents from someone ho got into 40k exactly a year ago, thanks to Kill Team (not thanks to KT boards being the wrong size though). Unification of GW game lines is great and it should've been like that from the start. People who see this as a bad thing are simply wrong, and that's fine. They have a right to be wrong.
Board sizes are just arbitrary numbers anyway, what matters is if the rules support them. We know flyer rules are being changed, points going up, guess we'll have to see what other changes there are, if any. This doom and gloom I see over here from some people is ridiculous. Of course there'll be teething problems, like with every big change. As someone who plays DG and Custodes and has 6x4 folding table where part of the 6' was always used for stratagems, phones, dice, etc. I welcome this change. Especially if there'll be other rules changes to support that.

From someone who got into dakkadakka ten years ago, crying about how the game is ruined is a ritual that takes places every time whenever any part of a new edition is leaked

anytime a new anything is leaked. cool new model for faction X? gotta have 15 pages of people who don't even play the faction ranting about how aweful it is.

 Jadenim wrote:
I’m just going to point out that every single table at Warhammer World (other than a couple of the extreme feature tables) is based on a Realm of Battle board, so I can’t see official GW tournaments in the U.K. using anything but 6x4.

But according to this thread, GW are forcing every gamer everywhere to cut a foot off their boards, so certainly they’ll do it themselves

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I think it just depends on how the new rules come together. You could have less dice rolling and yet a better game. 8th edition became an extremely shooty edition. Somehow, I think that reduced a lot of the tactics in the game when it became so shooty. As I mentioned before, when you just compete to create leaf blower type lists, and tactics are reduced to fire priority and removing models off the table, how much tactics are we really talking about ?

So, if a reduction in table size will benefit melee more and reduce the power of shooting, then I am all for that.

I was initially annoyed at the idea of playing on smaller tables (an ork or an nud army barley fit into some of the deployment zones during 8th) but indeed perhaps playing melle won't be as bad now.
I think overwatch rules for 9th, and how monsters and walkers assault stuff in higher levels of ruins (will we have more than one inch to engage ?) will also be a big part of the equation of melee efficiency. Wait and see, but smaller boards alone won't help melee enough IMHO.

Perhaps point changes will also bosst melee, if pure melee units don't get as much a point increase as shooty units.

What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture

 addnid wrote:


What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture

GW are spreading a finite amount of content out over a set period to get people talking about their new product up until release.

Certain members of the community are trying to rile themselves up with speculation based on a partial picture.

And it works for GW. Quarter of a million views on this thread alone

DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved

BrianDavion wrote:
DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved

I agree, the negativity towards GW is well deserved.

BrianDavion wrote:
DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved

Somebody hasn't been on /tg/ I see. If all you're interested in is insulting and trolling people on here, though, then you're just as bad as those that you are accusing.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved

I agree, the negativity towards GW is well deserved.

I'd much rather read an argument going back and forth and hearing other people's opinions. Far better than some of the sycophantic drivel spewed forth on many sites and especially facebook pages.

Darsath wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
DakkaDakka has a reputation as a cesspit of negativity. and hoenstly it's pretty deserved

Somebody hasn't been on /tg/ I see. If all you're interested in is insulting and trolling people on here, though, then you're just as bad as those that you are accusing.

As someone who has been on /tg/ the /pol/ infection is a different mess of negativity than the nonsense I've seen on this site.

What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.

thing is, keep it flat and a general negative point of view and it is more likely that the game turns out better than you expected

following the hype train that this will be the best 40k we have ever had and the chance that disppointment will follow the release is high

40k was once played on 8*4 tables. It was suddenly in an earlier edition mentioned the min size would be 6*4 but you could still play on. 8*4 if you and opponent agreed. Anything that requires opponent agreement is frowned upon for organized play so 6*4 became the normal in practice and 8*4 was never mentioned again.

Sure realm of battle boards exist. You can make a 6*4 table out of them. The book leak lists the min sizes for each battle using kill team boards, the realm of battle board suggestion is not in that table and only works for one of the engagement sizes, in practice organized play events will use kill team board sizes - and 6*4 will be out.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.

I do have a horse in the race as someone who is actively building a Black Templar army, but even then the vague stuff GW has given us isn't enough to really say how the game plays. Dakka as a community has a history of throwing its toys out of the pram before they chill out after the release and accept the changes. Telling people to wait so we don't have to see the toy chucking isn't an act of setting up goalpost shifting, it's being tired of the nonesense that we go through every. single. release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
thing is, keep it flat and a general negative point of view and it is more likely that the game turns out better than you expected

following the hype train that this will be the best 40k we have ever had and the chance that disppointment will follow the release is high

I agree that hype trains are a bad idea. But Dakka riding the gripe train over every tiny piece of info is tiring to watch too.

 addnid wrote:

What really annoys me is how little GW leak, it seems they are trying their best to get the community riled up about the previews by giving a partial picture

Well the release date was july as earliest from get go. There's limited amount they can reveal without revealing all(and since when movie trailers give full movie either?).

So gw has 2 options. Reveal slowly aka what they do or they would still be denying 9th ed coming. What you prefer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
40k was once played on 8*4 tables. It was suddenly in an earlier edition mentioned the min size would be 6*4 but you could still play on. 8*4 if you and opponent agreed. Anything that requires opponent agreement is frowned upon for organized play so 6*4 became the normal in practice and 8*4 was never mentioned again.

Sure realm of battle boards exist. You can make a 6*4 table out of them. The book leak lists the min sizes for each battle using kill team boards, the realm of battle board suggestion is not in that table and only works for one of the engagement sizes, in practice organized play events will use kill team board sizes - and 6*4 will be out.

When was 8x4 standard? At least here 6x4 has been standard for good 25 years

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 MalusCalibur wrote:
What I find both amusing and irritating in equal measure is the 'wait and see' attitude; that no judgements can be made about anything as if there will be some unknown detail somewhere in the rules that ties everything together perfectly. I've seen the same excuse rolled out over countless game and edition releases to shut down criticism when any given reveal or mechanic appears questionable, and as time goes on the thing that has to be waited for just gets moved further and further back. 'Wait until we have all the rules' becomes 'wait until you've actually played the rules', then becomes 'wait until the rules have been out a year or so and everyone's got used to them', then turns to 'wait until the codices start coming out as they'll be designed to work with the new rules', then 'wait until every army has their codex'.
When WHFB was killed and Age of Copyright was being leaked, people cried 'just wait til the full rules are out, all of these reveals that seem like atrocious trash will suddenly make perfect sense!' til they were blue in the face - and what do you know, the game was atrocious trash when it released and damn near had to be remade to get it to sell at all.
The fact is, with 40k still tied to existing core mechanics and stats and still required to support all existing codices/supplements/PA DLC/etc, it simply *cannot* be changing things as drastically as it might need to, which means evaluating the trickle of changes with the view of the current game is still a valid thing to do and the concerns people are having are legitimate ones. Shrinking the table size (because like it or not, a lot of people *will* take the numbers GW gives as gospel and not just a minimum) while not addressing weapon ranges or movement rates is an odd decision at best, and one people are right to express concern about.
I don't have a horse in the race, as I don't actively play 40k's rules, but I do find an interest in following their development and I think the trend so far based on what is known about 9th is troubling for those who do.

I do have a horse in the race as someone who is actively building a Black Templar army, but even then the vague stuff GW has given us isn't enough to really say how the game plays. Dakka as a community has a history of throwing its toys out of the pram before they chill out after the release and accept the changes. Telling people to wait so we don't have to see the toy chucking isn't an act of setting up goalpost shifting, it's being tired of the nonesense that we go through every. single. release.

I concur. There is a big difference between "I'm concerned about this change" and "this change is going to ruin the game". The truth is you need to wait and see all the rules to know the impact of any one change, so anyone declaring the game is ruined is prejudging over limited information.

It's like movie trailers. A good trailer makes you want to see the movie. A bad trailer makes you forget about the movie. Neither decides if the movie is good or bad. You only know when you go see the movie.