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.

I'm not actually sure that as many events will change over as people think, if they are 40k only then yeah sure they probably will. However if it's space and tables also used for AoS you know what GW says they suggest for 2k battles? Yes 6x4, so you now have a 40k standard and a different AoS standard.

True, but at the same time we are 100% sure that the AoS standard will change to the new minimum sizes before late.

Spoletta wrote:
True, but at the same time we are 100% sure that the AoS standard will change to the new minimum sizes before late.

Of course they will. GW says AoS boards in those sizes as well.

Well we can all hope then that GW done their testing right, and the game size works better then what we had in the 8th?

Otherwise changes for changes sake aren't that good. Specialy for those places where kill team or AoS never became a thing, and people just don't have the boards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Karol wrote:
Miniums become the maximum more often then not. I know that if a teacher or trainer tells us to do minimum of something, most people are going to do just that, and those that try to do more are going to find it real hard to find acceptance.

I mean nothing was, technicly, stoping people from playing 8th with 1250 or 1750pts. Yet the armies seemed to be 2000pts in their majority.

The point was that those stores who already have 4x6 tables will continue to use them, because they already have then. At worst, they'll mark out the smaller zone for those who want to use it, in which case you can just ignore it and use the whole table.

This whole thing is a storm in a teacup. Use whatever size table you choose, just like people have been doing for the last 30 years.

In my store the tables were not 4x6. And there was no space to make them bigger to fit the new standard. Infinity and historicals were played on a 4x4 table for example. the biggest table we had was a 5x5 one. So if my store ever reopens it is going to be a problem. And even more so, is that I doubt a new store is going to want to invest in to new tables, with how bad the economy is right now.

A 5x5 is fine under this new standard.

I hope so. I had enough people saying you can't play armies bigger then 2000pts, but also smalller then 2000, by more then 10pts.

I hope people stick top the 72*48 or 72*36 for 1500 points and don't get to strickt onto "must use GW numbers no matter if they are just suggestions or not"

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

Standard dining room table size stops at 100cm width, 44" minimum size is 110cm

If GW wants to change their game size from 48" to a size that fits the standard dining room table, it might be worth to check what the standard size is in countries using the metric system (there is a reason why other games use 36")

 kodos wrote:
I hope people stick top the 72*48 or 72*36 for 1500 points and don't get to strickt onto "must use GW numbers no matter if they are just suggestions or not"

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

Standard dining room table size stops at 110cm width, 44" minimum size is 110cm

If GW wants to change their game size from 48" to a size that fits the standard dining room table, it might be worth to check what the standard size is in countries using the metric system (there is a reason why other games use 36")

I'm not sure where GW are getting their ideas for the standard size of a dining room table, but the standard sizes at a popular UK furniture company are:

Dining Table Size Guide

Size of Dining Table Length Width
4 seater dining table 75cm - 90cm 75cm - 90cm
6 seater dining table 118cm - 140cm 75cm - 90cm
8 seater dining table 150cm - 220cm 75cm - 90cm
10 seater dining table 180cm - 280cm 90cm - 100cm


I have a large dining table and it is 1m wide (39") and most dining tables I've seen available are 3'/90cm wide.

how barbaric. this is the sizes of tables used here.

2 osoby - 60cm x 90cm

4 osoby - 120x90cm

6 osób - 200x90cm

8 osób - . 260x90cm

10 osób - . 320x90cm

12 osób - 320x125cm

I think the new table size is great, gives me a foot of space to put books dice and dead models,

why did you not use that board size before if you needed place to put your stuff on?

 kodos wrote:
why did you not use that board size before if you needed place to put your stuff on?

Because the official gaming area was 6‘!!

Should I have told every opponent at my gaming club that I want to play with only 5’? In tournaments?

What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.

To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.

However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes. AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.

So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ERJAK wrote:I'm just gonna say it. Literally the only thing that matter is the tournament standard.

Only if all you care about is tournaments. Which not all players (and in fact a majority of all players) do.

Tournament standard has a strong habit of shaping PUG expectations.

Not in my experience, which I'll accept isn't applicable to all.
The fact is, there's no way to force someone to use a 60x44 if they have a 6x4.

bullyboy wrote:You're really ignoring the collective,

Am I? Without data, and that's including data from all the casual players, ones who play at home with their own stuff, etc, can we say what the collective is?

I dunno, I'd be surprised if the *majority* of 40k players gave that much of a hoot about the tourney scene.

and maybe this is just a small English club type of mentality? (not knocking it, I'm from the UK). It seems that in the US, they love standardization. If the big tournies are playing one way, it usually trickles down to any player that even has a small affiliation with someone who plays in events. It just becomes a standard. Sure, the guys I game with are often open to some narrative games, etc, but if we're just meeting up on a Saturday to play a game, you can bet it will be 2000pts, on a 6x4, using rule of 3, etc, etc.
So what I'm saying is that in 3 months, we'll probably be meeting on Saturdays, playing 2000pts on 44x60 table...just a hunch, I'd personally prefer to keep 6x4, but not sure if I will be in the minority.

That's still down to personal choice to accept those tourney rules. GW didn't impose that, reliance and dependence on the tournament circuit did.

[quote=Karolfirst considering we get more examples here of people from all around the world playing where the rule of 3 is not optional

Don't forget that also armies would be probably (25%?) reduced in size, so a smaller table actually makes a lot of sense.

There is no official game size in 7th or 8th. All the maps in the brb give you measurements from the center of the table to your deployment zone but give you no actual measurements of the table itself.

6 x 4 was the traditional game size but the brb doesn't have anything to say about it.

Despite that players played on whatever size surface they could get. Eventually building up to a 6x4 but often dealing with smaller. People with smaller tables will keep using their smaller tables. People with bigger will keep using bigger. GW chiming in on this will impact nothing because their single word isn't enough to shift the entire industry of making 6x4 mats and tables.

- "In my personal experience and most of the people I know, what the big tournaments do, is what shapes how we play"

-"Yeah but, you know, your personal experience is invalidated because MY personal experience is different and I can do whatever I want"

- "But the biggest ITC tournament has allready said they are gonna use the new table sizes"

-"Whatever man! Your life your choice!"

Hmmm... Ok?

Pickled_egg wrote:
What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.

You might want to take off that tinfoil hat before stepping outside today. The sun might bake your brain like a potato.

Galas wrote:- "In my personal experience and most of the people I know, what the big tournaments do, is what shapes how we play"

-"Yeah but, you know, your personal experience is invalidated because MY personal experience is different and I can do whatever I want"

- "But the biggest ITC tournament has allready said they are gonna use the new table sizes"

-"Whatever man! Your life your choice!"

Hmmm... Ok?

"In my personal experience and most of the people I know, no-one cares what the big tournaments do."
"Yeah but, you know, your personal experience is invalidated because MY personal experience is different and I do what the tournaments say"
"But you're under no official obligation to follow what anyone else tells you to, if they change their sizes, that's their independent choice"
"Whatever man! I'm only following tournament standard!"

It swings both ways. All I'm saying is that it's not GW's fault if tournaments/third party groups change their sizes when they're not being forced to.

So GW does a edition around ITC with ITC playtesters with the explicit idea of unifying how Warhammer is played worldwide in a competitive sense... and you say it is not GW's fault?

GW is just harvesting that free labor. ITC is more interested in GW's rules than GW is. GW should just farm out all the rules writing.

 Galas wrote:
So GW does a edition around ITC with ITC playtesters with the explicit idea of unifying how Warhammer is played worldwide in a competitive sense... and you say it is not GW's fault?

They make it clear that those are minimum requirements, and explicitly call out that your old tables are still fine.

Not to mention that not everyone plays 40k in a competitive sense.

Tournaments have the power to run their own rules. They have the power to declare they're using 6x4 tables. Venues can keep using 6x4 tables. No-one's going to come around with a hacksaw and cut away at existing tables.

I'm glad I finally have a use for all those Killteam battle zones I bought.... the game itself died out in my FLGS.

If you don't want to recognise the warping power the MAIN BODY behind warhammer has about how things are played in a competitive scene they are involved with I don't know what to tell you.

 Galas wrote:
If you don't want to recognise the warping power the MAIN BODY behind warhammer has about how things are played in a competitive scene they are involved with I don't know what to tell you.

I'm saying that not everyone plays comp, and that that warping power has no obligation to switch their table size. If they didn't want to change from 6x4, they didn't have to.
If ITC changed their table sizes, then blame ITC.

Oh no, my tables will all have 4 sqft of space fir staging, books, and dice trays.

But how will I ever mark this space, the hardware shops selling rectangular dowel are closed for covid!

Guess Ill just have to break out the ol' circular saw?

Pickled_egg wrote:
What GW has done here is a classic deflection tactic to get people to squabble amongst themselves about the right & wrong way to play the game.
When I thought the whole purpose was to unify the player base. You are now going to get some tournaments playing at 6x4 and the larger ones playing the new sizes.

To the people saying its a minimum recommended size. You are correct and yes, you are perfectly entitled to keep playing on whatever size table suits you.

However, what you aren't taking into account is that the big tournament organizers such as FLG, have already confirmed they will moving to the new sizes. AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.

So as I say you are welcome to continue to play the game on the moon or a table made entirely of cheese if that's your bag, but you won't be playing it in the way it was intended to run this edition. And people who attend the bigger tournaments are kind of forced into playing the new sizes.

Nice fake news bro to drive your agenda with the veil of objectiveness. The only source to say 40K 2K pts has been designed or is intended to be played on minimum table sizes, is Reece, in the comments section of his own web page. Games Workshop sources on the other hand have said 40K has been designed to be played equally well on any table size (also not true, as the game play experience will be less tactical on smaller tables).

So if you or your tournament wants to move to minimum table sizes, to accommodate a couple tables extra and therefore get a couple more paying customers, that's up to you. But don't mask it under balance, intent, or some bullgak 'the majority will play on tables that Reecius demands because that's for the benefit of mankind anyway' because so far it doesn't look like that at all. In fact, Reecius' event might be the only major to choose to go this way.

ITC won't be anything but a ranking system in 9th edition. And just like in 8th, the only obligation to qualify under ITC ranking is to count points the same way and to follow some ethical guide lines. As it stands it looks like tournaments will be played across the world with various mission packs, various table sizes and various points limits. Neither side should assume there will be any unification whatsoever in 9th. Reece decided to stop fixing GW's 40K after he became a shill for them, and because of that ITC as we know it is dead now. Good for him if this brings him more bacon, but I'm sure others will continue to develop more balanced mission packs than what GW is capable of pushing out in the rule book. And they certainly won't accept a minimum table size just because, and this is from Reece's mouth himself, it's convenient that 4 KT boards can form one 40K board. Most competitive or casual 40K players probably have never played a single game of KT, nor do they own a single KT board.

ITC changing their size will have a trickle down effect. not surprising though that Reece said FLG will be making mats at the new size, because of course he will.

I am curious if GW is now going to make boards at ht new size (or sell KT boards separately) because their realm of battle boards are still 6x4. And that's not even to get into the fact that AOS still uses 6x4 so there's a difference now.

Wayniac wrote:
ITC changing their size will have a trickle down effect. not surprising though that Reece said FLG will be making mats at the new size, because of course he will.

I am curious if GW is now going to make boards at ht new size (or sell KT boards separately) because their realm of battle boards are still 6x4. And that's not even to get into the fact that AOS still uses 6x4 so there's a difference now.

Sigmar is probably going to change to the 5'x3'8" as soon as GW gets around to releasing boards. I expect the standard size for tables in game stores that had 6'x4' tables not to change since you might still need it for Kings of War/Star Wars Legion/etc., but GW's probably already got 5'x3'8" tables set up to ship out to their stores.

I don't think there's going to be a single, explicit moment when everyone forms mobs to throw 6x4 tables into a pile and light a bonfire (singing and dancing optional).

I think there is going to be a gradual change as the Minimum becomes the Standard for one Big Tournament (ITC), other tournaments including local ones, then influencing LGSs, which influences home games.

I think, eventually, it will be difficult to find folks willing to play an "unofficial" size mat of 6' x 4'. I think it will be more difficult, faster, for folks in competitive metas. It may not hit some isolated metas at all, or only a little at most.

I think this is going to happen over a fairly long period of time - a year or so, at least.

I think this is going to coincide with across-the-board point decreases and consequently larger armies at the same point values over a similar time frame, because I don't trust GW not to do what they've always done every time since I started playing.

I think GW thinks they'll have time to modify enough codexes by then that they can balance more models on a smaller board. I think GW is gonna throw a few codexes under the bus in the process.

I think a lot of this is speculative, but GW's priority seems to be "We want to make our products as relevant as possible, including these killteam battlemats, so we need our official game sizes to accommodate them" which is going to have selfish and altruistic influences. GW being a company, I think one influence is presumptively stronger than the other.

I'd prefer games had more space to maneuver, but then, I'm a T'au player - of course I do!

I don't consider this doom & gloom, because we don't know enough about the rest of the game changes, but I think it'd be odd to suggest that specific game sizes (even if they're called "minimum") aren't going to have a strong influence on how players (as a whole) tend to game.