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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.

When the odd size of the playmats was first revealed, there were a whole bunch of people complaining that this made them too small to push a few together to form a 40K table. The reduced minimum recommendation spells it out for those who need such a confirmation that it's ok to use the playmats for larger games, while still allowing people to use larger tables if they prefer.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.

To fit on tabletops and correspond with the products they make.

4'x6' is considerably bigger than commonly available household tables, which is almost certainly why their skirmish game packaged boards were made the size they were to be comfortably played on a dining table. The new board sizes are multiples of their skirmish game board sizes, so it's both convenient for people starting off with those sets and convenient for people who aren't playing in a dedicated gaming space.

 Insectum7 wrote:
My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.

To fit dining and coffee tables people might have so they don’t need to buy a gaming specific table. That’s their stated goal.

If you’ve a 6x4 nothing is stopping you using it, other than some weird belief that “minimum” = “only possible option”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

To fit dining and coffee tables people might have so they don’t need to buy a gaming specific table. That’s their stated goal.

Is that actually stated somewhere, or just an assumption? I can't see 44" wide dining tables being significantly more common than 48" wide dining tables. It's would still be an unusually wide table, either way.

Apparently, dining tables are normally between 36 and 40 inches wide, so you'd still need some sort of rigid board on top for anything other than the combat patrol/incursion.

I think that this makes it easier to play on kitchen tables, more than anything else. You can still have a larger table if you want.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).

GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).

"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.

 insaniak wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it's as calculated as that. I mean, certainly GW re capable of that sort of directed malice, but IIRC the general opinion back when the Kill Team playmats were first released was that the odd size of them was simply due to box or production limitations, and using those odd sizes as a minimum recommendation is then nothing more than tying things more directly together.

If they were stipulating those specific boards sizes, I'd be more inclined to agree with your assessment... but in practice, all that this is going to do is allow people who have the Kill Team mats to use them for full size games, while also still allowing everyone to use their mats or existing boards.

You're looking at it in the wrong order.

The design of those boards was certainly because of space limitations within boxes. GW have certain box sizes that they stick to, and everything has to fit within that box size. That's fine. But these new minimum sizes are now set to those odd dimensions that they produce. They're shifting the standard game to something they already produce. That's what I'm getting at.

 chromedog wrote:
GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).

"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.

Thank you for pointing out that error.

My actual point, however, still stands.

 slave.entity wrote:
For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.

But if you're a tournament player I can see how table size matters more.

The question is, will tournaments adopt the new minimum table size or will they stick with 6x4?

EDIT: Oh ok, nevermind. Looks like Reece has confirmed that tournaments will be using the new minimum table size here. Hm.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-all/

Hmm, it's almost like FLG is interested in selling mats. Of course they are going to make the new size the standard. They want money. Why people still give any credence to ITC is beyond me.

AOS mentions in the core rules that you must play on a surface that's at least 2x2, I don't think it calls out anywhere that you need to be on a 6x4, but that's what everyone plays on for larger than 1k points.

 slave.entity wrote:
For games at your LGS I'm happy to have missions supporting smaller table sizes. In casual settings table size really doesn't matter much to me, I'd rather have a better chance of getting a game in when the store is tight on space.

My local had 8 custom 4x6 tables built, you can literally put a car on them and they wont break and the mats are a special material that doesn't stain and hard to cut for hobbying on them. There is no way they are changing the size, b.c everyone is going to need their own mats (Store isn't buying mats after spending the money on those tables) and no one wants to message out that nonsense every game.

 chromedog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).

GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).

"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.

NEVER? Oh boy, they do now. Check the SoB Repentia models, that just came out on a fresh 28.5mm round base format.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

To fit dining and coffee tables people might have so they don’t need to buy a gaming specific table. That’s their stated goal.

Is that actually stated somewhere, or just an assumption? I can't see 44" wide dining tables being significantly more common than 48" wide dining tables. It's would still be an unusually wide table, either way.

Agreed, but it’s stated in the WHC article, alongside also verifying HBMC’s suggestion its to sell their KT boards:

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!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

And, geez, it mentions 6x4 too but everyone is losing their miiiiinds because options have been opened up. Bit baffling to me.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
My question is why reduce the table size anyways? Seems strange.

When the odd size of the playmats was first revealed, there were a whole bunch of people complaining that this made them too small to push a few together to form a 40K table. The reduced minimum recommendation spells it out for those who need such a confirmation that it's ok to use the playmats for larger games, while still allowing people to use larger tables if they prefer.

Ahhh. Ok, I don't think I've ever even seen one of their playmats in person.

I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

The design of those boards was certainly because of space limitations within boxes. GW have certain box sizes that they stick to, and everything has to fit within that box size. That's fine. But these new minimum sizes are now set to those odd dimensions that they produce. They're shifting the standard game to something they already produce. That's what I'm getting at.

Absolutely, they are. The difference is that you're seeing it as a cynical cash grab to force people to buy that product, where I'm just seeing it as the rules being tweaked to accommodate the fact that product exists.

As above, I'd agree with your take on it if they were specifying that size as the actual standard, but they're not. They're just including it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.

Were there rumours that points values were going up? That will certainly help somewhat, if it's true, since part of the problem with the rules from around 4th ed onwards was that tables were starting to get rather crowded.

So one would hope that having fewer models on the table and improved terrain rules would go some way towards making up for the slightly smaller usable area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Agreed, but it’s stated in the WHC article, alongside also verifying HBMC’s suggestion its to sell their KT boards:

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!

Interesting. Sounds like whoever wrote the article was aiming for a throwaway positive comment, but didn't take the time to actually measure a dining room table...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
The dimensions given are minimums.

The dimensions are product placement.

GW's own products hit these exact measurements.

Don't try to think this is anything but another attempt to sell something.

This wasn't done for the good of the game. This is GW's reaction to the recent explosion in people buying expensive 6x4 neoprene mats. No one bought their own neoprene mats (because they were 4x4 and more expensive than everyone else's 6x4 mats), so now they're just make the standard game size fit their slightly smaller mat products (like the boards that come with all the Killzone and Warcry sets) and make that the new standard.

Honestly it's genius.

Genius no. Standard MBA sociopathy, yes. Moves like this only seem clever to non sociopaths because well, screwing people for one’s own benefit is not usually the first thing that comes to mind for a non sociopath. But, nothing clever about it. Just snakes in suits doing what snakes in suits do.

I can easily picture my local meta switching over to 5x4 if ITC adopts it as the standard. It will just be more convenient for them to play whatever format is used at local events.

6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.

 Elbows wrote:
6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.

8x4 used to be the table size... can we please go back to that?

 jeff white wrote:


Genius no. Standard MBA sociopathy, yes. Moves like this only seem clever to non sociopaths because well, screwing people for one’s own benefit is not usually the first thing that comes to mind for a non sociopath. But, nothing clever about it. Just snakes in suits doing what snakes in suits do.

Moves like this seem clever because they stop people from asking if it's ok to use mats that are smaller than 4x6. Nobody is getting 'screwed' here. I'd recommend dialing down the hyperbole just a couple of notches before you dislocate something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

8x4 used to be the table size... can we please go back to that?

I never left it. My 8x4 board is out in the carport.

There's nothing stopping you.

Well.. if the ITC is moving to GWs new proprietary standard then. How long before a 6x4 is as uncommon as that 8x4?

And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly... next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes


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

Honestly, I don't think I'll understand the outrage people have for other options that don't impede their own.

Table size? You can still play on 6x4.
Points changing to where a 2000 point list might now be 3000? You can play 3000 points.
Open play? You can still play Matched.
Power Level? You can still play points.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I hope 6x4 remains the standard, regardless. I don't think shrinking the table will do the game any favors.

Were there rumours that points values were going up? That will certainly help somewhat, if it's true, since part of the problem with the rules from around 4th ed onwards was that tables were starting to get rather crowded.

So one would hope that having fewer models on the table and improved terrain rules would go some way towards making up for the slightly smaller usable area.

Aye, new terrain rules are my biggest question now in regards to 9th.

Oh 4th Ed, how I miss thee. With smaller armies, escalating missions and LOS blocking forests, etc. 9th sounds like it's taking steps in that direction, at least.

Frankly, it would make more sense if GW could do one stable game well first before changing things just to make other things made most exclusively by third parties obsolete...

I mean, even as a point of pride, would GW leadership like to say that they have a solid game in place?

If not, more evidence of sociopathy.

 Aenar wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
from 28mm bases (which had a massive third party scenic base market) to 32mm bases (which no one, at the time, made, because why would they?).

GW NEVER made "28mm" bases. Their round slotta bases were 25mm (although more often 24.5 at the most).

"28mm" was the nominal height of their miniatures (to the eye), and even then they failed to hit that ballpark 9 times out of 10.

NEVER? Oh boy, they do now. Check the SoB Repentia models, that just came out on a fresh 28.5mm round base format.

They're 28.5mm bases, but yeah that's a 28mm base...

 jeff white wrote:
And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly...

Why not? There's nothing stopping you playing on a 6x4. Why complain that GW have lowered the *minimum* guidelines?

next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes

Quite literally, yes?
Don't like it, complain to GW. Nothing changes, step aside, if only for your own mental health.

If there was a franchise I liked that became something I didn't, would I still say I was a fan? No, because I didn't like it.

jeff white wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
6x4 will remain the table size simply because every mat-manufacturer out there produces 6x4 mats for 40K and other games. It's become the standard size outside of 40K for a variety of tabletop wargames, etc.

8x4 used to be the table size... can we please go back to that?

8x4 is the best of both worlds, lots of room to maneuver, while still having plenty of room for terrain.

 harlokin wrote:
Apparently, dining tables are normally between 36 and 40 inches wide, so you'd still need some sort of rigid board on top for anything other than the combat patrol/incursion.

Or you just play on your existing 40" wide table....

 jeff white wrote:

And the “nothing stopping you from playing your own way alone the way you like it alone” doesn’t fly... next is what? Play a different game if you don’t like the changes

Sorry, you've lost me there. They've offered suggestions as to the minimum size you should use, and have explicitly stated that you can use a larger board if you wish.

So, seriously, please explain what is stopping you from continuing to play on a 6x4 table?

Simple,
Where ITC goes, people follow.
The time of bespoke tournaments is gone, nearly all are ITC.
And that is great