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.

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.

I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.

In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.

Pickled_egg wrote:
AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.

Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.

Pickled_egg wrote:
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.

1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.

ccs wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.

In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.

Pickled_egg wrote:
AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.

Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.

Pickled_egg wrote:
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.

1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.

Seems to me to be a bed of their own making

ccs wrote:
As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.

Exactly. Not even just the tourney players, but the tourneys themselves, are being forced to take on this new size. If a tournament so wanted, they could turn around and say "yeah, I see that's the minimum size, but we're going above that, with our own pre-existing 6x4 tables".

People were fine with ITC making up whole new scoring systems. Tourney circuits have control over people who care about that kind of 40k, and that's actually fine! If a tourney group decide to alter the size of their tables, that was their choice, not GWs.

Is this a good time to panic?

If the “minimum” was larger that 6x4 I could get behind the rage. The 6x4 mats and gaming tables out there will be just fine. I am assuming that the GW police will not bust my door down and confiscate the 8x5 ping pong table I also game on.

Pickled_egg wrote:
...AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind..

Has it, though?

I'd be rather curious to find out what the studio guys actually play on. I'd be willing to bet it's Realm of Battle boards. I'd be very surprised if the minimum size is anything at all to do with playtesting. The minimum size recommendation is only what it is because that happens to be the size of four of the Kill Team maps.

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.

"playtested"

 insaniak wrote:

Pickled_egg wrote:
...AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind..

Has it, though?

I'd be rather curious to find out what the studio guys actually play on. I'd be willing to bet it's Realm of Battle boards. I'd be very surprised if the minimum size is anything at all to do with playtesting. The minimum size recommendation is only what it is because that happens to be the size of four of the Kill Team maps.

the playtest argument is a very bad one anyway, as if this little amount of space has a big influence if the game works well or not, we can expect very bad written rules

so it is more likley that this is just marketing and to get 3rd party products out of the way

ccs wrote:

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.

I haven't taken that into account because it's not relevant to how/where I play AND I don't give a damn what you all do in your tourneys.

In the event I ever play somewhere that uses the these recommendations? I'll just do what I've always done - get on with playing. In 35 years or so of minis gaming I've played on everything from a 3' round coffee table in a college dorm room to a 50'x50' area of floor space at a con.

Pickled_egg wrote:
AND its been made very clear that the game has been playtested and designed with the new board size in mind.

Lol.... You don't seriously believe that do you? More over I hope you don't seriously expect me to believe that.

Pickled_egg wrote:
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.

1) Oh no. My tables 48" across, & some body online is telling me I won't be playing 40K correctly if we don't limit use to 44".... Whatever shall I do???
2) As for tourny players? (shrugs) They're not being forced. They choose to play the game in that environment.

Congrats you managed to totally miss my point.

The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size, as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around. This is in the public domain.
So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.
As a tournament player and a casual player I will probably continue to play narrative and casual games on a 6x4 but if i want to attend tournaments I will invariably test for them on the new size, which I'm not that keen on, as a smaller size feels less tactical to me.


As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,

Pickled_egg wrote:The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size

No, they won't. That is down for the tournaments to decide. Tournaments are not GW. Don't blame GW for the choices of individual tournaments.

as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around.

That's the tournaments' choice. They have every right to keep playing on 6x4 tables, the GW police won't stop the tournament going ahead if they find out they're not using 60x44 tables.

If you're going to blame anyone, blame the tournament organisers for changing based on completely optional rules.

So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.

Yes, you are. But you don't *have* to change. If I was running tournaments, I wouldn't be changing my table sizes at the venue. I'd still run 6x4, and that is well within my right, as a third part TO, to do.

No tournament organiser is being FORCED to change. That will be their choice. If you have a problem with THEIR choice, take it up with THEM.

As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,

People blaming the wrong group for their grievances is though.

I don't really care for tournaments, and I don't think the slight difference in table size will affect me, if I even end up playing on it, but if you're going to scream at shout at someone for changing the table sizes, take it up with the people who had all the power to say "yup, we hear your minimum requirement, and we're still using 6x4", and chose not to.

Blame the TOs, not GW.

This discussion is nothing but ridiculous. If you feel in any way forced that you have to prepare for tournament games being played on smaller tables (which so far is nowhere to be seen)... then put a line of dice where the table is "supposed" to end if your 6x4 table is "too large". Problem solved.
This thread leaves me even more puzzled than any "old Marines will die, GW wants to make me burn my models" debate.

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.

Ars Bellica uses exactly those sizes and is very popular around my area, so popular in fact that it's also being used at the local GW as far as I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
This discussion is nothing but ridiculous. If you feel in any way forced that you have to prepare for tournament games being played on smaller tables (which so far is nowhere to be seen)... then put a line of dice where the table is "supposed" to end if your 6x4 table is "too large". Problem solved.
This thread leaves me even more puzzled than any "old Marines will die, GW wants to make me burn my models" debate.

Or just build like an insert that reduces the play area.
To be fair Frontline Gaming already said they'd use the smaller tables in the future, mostly to save space

Pickled_egg wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that tournament players will by and large have to move over to the new table size, as that is what the big tournaments will be using and that is what the tournament missions have been balanced around. This is in the public domain.
So tournament players will have to play and test on the new size. You might not care about tournament players, but we are a part of this community too.
As a tournament player and a casual player I will probably continue to play narrative and casual games on a 6x4 but if i want to attend tournaments I will invariably test for them on the new size, which I'm not that keen on, as a smaller size feels less tactical to me.


As it doesn't affect you and you don't care about tournament players I'm not sure why you were compelled to post,

If you prefer bigger tables, then tell the tournament organisers that. You don't need to attend a tournament that uses setup that you don't like, and tournaments that have no attendees do not exist. If everyone was not a timid conformist afraid to speak their mind, then tournaments would do what the playerbase actually wants. The tournaments exist for the players, not otherwise around.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

They should have designers play test, not gamers of games.

I have a lot of thoughts on this, as I own about 30 6x4 mats in my personal collection:

1. Reece stated that he made the push for smaller table sizes (its been a trend in the industry for other games the last few years already) because as an event organizer it means he can fit more people in the same number of space. I don't know if this horrifically non-standard table size idea was his, but I have to say I *do* have a problem with him being part of this conversation. Not only is he basically the number 1 guy for competitive 40k event organization (at least in the US if not globally), but he's also part of GWs playtesting program as well as a producer and manufacturer of playmats. From the outside in, its not a good look to see/hear that someone who is going to definitely profit off of this was potentially involved (and possibly was a main influencer) in the decision-making process here. Keep in mind that Reece likely knew the final table sizes months in advance, which gives him a big head start on product development. I would be surprised if Reece *isn't* the first to market with the new mat sizes and doesn't make big bucks hand over fist selling them to TO's globally, simply because its going to take everyone else months to catch up and roll out their own designs in the same dimensions.

2. Now that GW is getting more directly involved with the tournament circuit themselves (see also: hiring Mike Brandt of NOVA to coordinate competitive gaming events globally and manage organized play programs), I expect that even if ITC didn't adopt the new table sizes that it would be irrelevant anyway as to whether or not TO's used them. Honestly, I don't think ITC really has a raison d'etre anymore now that GW seems to be developing its own tournament circuit in some fashion, unless Mikes mandate has a more limited scope than what has been implied. While I'm sure ITC events may be part of GWs circuit, Reece has already stated that ITC will adopt GWs guidelines and standards. The "I" in ITC is therefore largely pointless and branding an event as "ITC" seems to be essentially meaningless except to feed Reece's ego/play into the cult of personality that he has built up for himself. I.E. it seems there will be no real difference between an even thats labeled ITC and one that isn't, except that maybe ITC events will still give you ITC points - but if theres a GW circuit with its own points system I don't really see them coexisting for too long, as I think being a "GW invitational" event will be seen as more prestigious by the organizers, as well as the players, than "ITC invitational". Either some existing events will be flipped over to GW-branded events where ITC points are irrelevant, or new events will pop up to run in parallel. Time and money are limitations for a lot of people, I expect that at some point most players will eventually have to decide if they want to focus on an ITC track or a GW track - if they all pile in to GW then ITC will become irrelevant.

All of that is to say that either way you slice it the competitive community is going to have the new table sizes all but forced in on them one way or another.]

3. I've been in this hobby long enough (16+ years) to know that competitive play dictates how the game is played casually. There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby - congratulations, I envy you, hold on tight to what you got and don't let competitive players take hold of your community and pull that out from underneath you (it can and will happen, I've seen it occur myself several times, and it sucked the wind right out of my interest in playing every time). For the rest of us, competitive players are always practicing for their next competitive event, in the past that means using ITC rules packets and missions, and competitive min-max power gaming lists, for even the most inconsequential casual game. Competitive players want to "train the way they fight", that means doing everything they can to mimic the competitive environment they will be walking to, which means using tables setup the way they expect the tournament tables to look. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

3. Even though these table sizes are advertised as "minimums", the trend in this community and hobby for as long as I have been a part of it has always been to deviate from whats published in the rulebook as little as possible. Suggestions become gospel and I expect that these minimums will also double as maximums for most, even before you account for the influence of competitive play on local metas and casual play. Most people understand suggestions in the context of balance, if something is suggested its because they believe (regardless of whether or not its warranted) that this is what the designers found to be "optimal" for play and balance - in this case I call bs because it doesn't appear that there have been significant enough mechanical changes made in the edition jump to justify saying that the game has been properly balanced for play on a table with ~25% less surface area. In any case, I've been in this hobby long enough to have seen the suggested table size shift from 4x8 to 4x6 and see how the vast majority of the community adopted that standard within just a few months, back in the days where most terrain and tables were essentially handmade. In todays world where you can essentially buy a complete table off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, I expect the transition to be even quicker as there is less sentimental/emotional attachment in the fruit of ones own labor involved in the process of making the change than there was before. Chances are most of us will likely be playing on the smaller tables regularly within a year.

4. This is a slap in the face to a lot of shops and clubs that were already configured for 6x4 play areas. I don't seriously expect them to toss everything out and start over, but I expect this will lead to some friction with local communities who will want to run their competitive events "by the book" or play their casual games the way they would competitively. I don't know what the right solution here is, some groups will have it easy, simply taping off their existing play materials to adjust them to the smaller table space, other shops that have custom or sculpted tables will not be able to easily accommodate the smaller table sizes and probably won't be interested in investing into redoing them. I expect most groups will see limited benefit from the smaller table area, as the size reduction at 2000 point only gets you extra tables if you line your tables up in rows that are multiples of 6 (i.e. currently 6 48x72 tables lines up end-to-end will get you 7 44x60 tables under the new system). Most shops and community centers I've been in generally aren't configurable in a manner where they can squeeze that 7th table out of this, either because there doesn't exist enough space to line up a 36' long row of tables, or they use round card tables that obviously can't be stacked end to end, or they have those custom high-top playing tables with the lip around them to keep dice from falling to the floor that won't allow for a shift in playing size. On top of that, many groups either have a collection of 4x4 and 4x6 playing mats or use cut-to-size mdf panels for their playing surfaces, these will have to to be overlapped if you want to take advantage of the space gained (which comes with its own hazards), otherwise its just going to end up being more dead space around the table for people to put their books, minis, and bags on. This change, I think, is great for the bigger organizers that rent larger venues and convention centers to host their events where they can end up increasing their attendance by 20-30% within the same space. For everyone else it feels like a slap to the face. Its clear that the "you can use a bigger table" stipulation is intended as a consolation prize to these people, but in practical terms its not going to end up working that way and the various dynamics at work within the community are either going to end up forcing the change (or less likely forcing GW to reverse course in due time).

5. Building from the prior, there are lots of other games out there that people are playing that use varying table sizes. 6x4 is a convenient size for most clubs and shops because its fairly all-encompassing. Lots of the most popular games use them, if not they use 4x4 which is easily demarcated by a line of tape or some other objects to mark off the unused 2' section. 3x3 and 6x3 are also becoming popular for other games, which are also easily configured within a 6x4 area. The bizarre dimensions of GWs recommended sizes make things a lot more complicated, as its the *most* popular game out there and thus theres an inconvenience associated with not having mats/boards already sized to go for the game. Its easy to ask the 20-30% of your customer base who play those other "weird" games to put the labor into making sub-optimal materials work for them, its less easy to ask the bulk of your customers to do the same for the main game played in the store or club. Space is a limiting factor here, so some people are going to have to make some tough decisions on what and how they choose to go about accommodating players.

6. I am absolutely livid that the "minimum" size for a 3000 point game is just shy of 4x8. As mentioned earlier, I have plenty of 4x6 mats that if I wanted to I could press into service for larger sized games (even if I myself have long been of the opinion that a 4x6 is already too small a play area for a 2000 pt game), I most likely cannot play larger games now with the majority of my very by-the-book local community, and I cannot justify investing in a collection of even larger playmats (plus those things are heavy enough as it is) to accommodate that option (and as far as I am aware, there are no options for 4x8 mats, nor anything approaching that dimension, of any type on the market currently). Its frustrating but I'll probably get over it in due time.

Anyway, thats it for me. I'm going to stick by my 6x4 mats, they are IMO the most versatile option out there for all the different games I play, and I can easily reconfigure them for use with all sorts of different games with some tape or blank mats that I bought and cut to size for that explicit purpose, I'll simply need to get some new ones to account for GWs bizarre table dimensions so that my competitive-minded local community will allow me to continue using them. Maybe if I'm lucky some of the guys will ease up on this and keep playing 4x6 games instead.

Mountains and molehills. Directly under the recommended size chart, they specifically reference being able to use a Realm of Battle board, which is 6x4.

Venues that choose to keep their 6x4 tables will be fine. And I very, very much doubt that every tournament will change their existing tables.

chaos0xomega wrote:
There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby

That's not been my experience, either at gaming venues or online.

If you play in competitive circles, then of course you're predominantly going to encounter mostly competitive players.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I have a lot of thoughts on this, as I own about 30 6x4 mats in my personal collection:

1. Reece stated that he made the push for smaller table sizes (its been a trend in the industry for other games the last few years already) because as an event organizer it means he can fit more people in the same number of space. I don't know if this horrifically non-standard table size idea was his, but I have to say I *do* have a problem with him being part of this conversation. Not only is he basically the number 1 guy for competitive 40k event organization (at least in the US if not globally), but he's also part of GWs playtesting program as well as a producer and manufacturer of playmats. From the outside in, its not a good look to see/hear that someone who is going to definitely profit off of this was potentially involved (and possibly was a main influencer) in the decision-making process here. Keep in mind that Reece likely knew the final table sizes months in advance, which gives him a big head start on product development. I would be surprised if Reece *isn't* the first to market with the new mat sizes and doesn't make big bucks hand over fist selling them to TO's globally, simply because its going to take everyone else months to catch up and roll out their own designs in the same dimensions.

2. Now that GW is getting more directly involved with the tournament circuit themselves (see also: hiring Mike Brandt of NOVA to coordinate competitive gaming events globally and manage organized play programs), I expect that even if ITC didn't adopt the new table sizes that it would be irrelevant anyway as to whether or not TO's used them. Honestly, I don't think ITC really has a raison d'etre anymore now that GW seems to be developing its own tournament circuit in some fashion, unless Mikes mandate has a more limited scope than what has been implied. While I'm sure ITC events may be part of GWs circuit, Reece has already stated that ITC will adopt GWs guidelines and standards. The "I" in ITC is therefore largely pointless and branding an event as "ITC" seems to be essentially meaningless except to feed Reece's ego/play into the cult of personality that he has built up for himself. I.E. it seems there will be no real difference between an even thats labeled ITC and one that isn't, except that maybe ITC events will still give you ITC points - but if theres a GW circuit with its own points system I don't really see them coexisting for too long, as I think being a "GW invitational" event will be seen as more prestigious by the organizers, as well as the players, than "ITC invitational". Either some existing events will be flipped over to GW-branded events where ITC points are irrelevant, or new events will pop up to run in parallel. Time and money are limitations for a lot of people, I expect that at some point most players will eventually have to decide if they want to focus on an ITC track or a GW track - if they all pile in to GW then ITC will become irrelevant.

All of that is to say that either way you slice it the competitive community is going to have the new table sizes all but forced in on them one way or another.]

3. I've been in this hobby long enough (16+ years) to know that competitive play dictates how the game is played casually. There are some of you who have casual local communities who do whatever and don't suffer any impact from the competitive meta. From my travels and experience, you folks make up the minority in this hobby - congratulations, I envy you, hold on tight to what you got and don't let competitive players take hold of your community and pull that out from underneath you (it can and will happen, I've seen it occur myself several times, and it sucked the wind right out of my interest in playing every time). For the rest of us, competitive players are always practicing for their next competitive event, in the past that means using ITC rules packets and missions, and competitive min-max power gaming lists, for even the most inconsequential casual game. Competitive players want to "train the way they fight", that means doing everything they can to mimic the competitive environment they will be walking to, which means using tables setup the way they expect the tournament tables to look. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

3. Even though these table sizes are advertised as "minimums", the trend in this community and hobby for as long as I have been a part of it has always been to deviate from whats published in the rulebook as little as possible. Suggestions become gospel and I expect that these minimums will also double as maximums for most, even before you account for the influence of competitive play on local metas and casual play. Most people understand suggestions in the context of balance, if something is suggested its because they believe (regardless of whether or not its warranted) that this is what the designers found to be "optimal" for play and balance - in this case I call bs because it doesn't appear that there have been significant enough mechanical changes made in the edition jump to justify saying that the game has been properly balanced for play on a table with ~25% less surface area. In any case, I've been in this hobby long enough to have seen the suggested table size shift from 4x8 to 4x6 and see how the vast majority of the community adopted that standard within just a few months, back in the days where most terrain and tables were essentially handmade. In todays world where you can essentially buy a complete table off the shelf for a few hundred dollars, I expect the transition to be even quicker as there is less sentimental/emotional attachment in the fruit of ones own labor involved in the process of making the change than there was before. Chances are most of us will likely be playing on the smaller tables regularly within a year.

4. This is a slap in the face to a lot of shops and clubs that were already configured for 6x4 play areas. I don't seriously expect them to toss everything out and start over, but I expect this will lead to some friction with local communities who will want to run their competitive events "by the book" or play their casual games the way they would competitively. I don't know what the right solution here is, some groups will have it easy, simply taping off their existing play materials to adjust them to the smaller table space, other shops that have custom or sculpted tables will not be able to easily accommodate the smaller table sizes and probably won't be interested in investing into redoing them. I expect most groups will see limited benefit from the smaller table area, as the size reduction at 2000 point only gets you extra tables if you line your tables up in rows that are multiples of 6 (i.e. currently 6 48x72 tables lines up end-to-end will get you 7 44x60 tables under the new system). Most shops and community centers I've been in generally aren't configurable in a manner where they can squeeze that 7th table out of this, either because there doesn't exist enough space to line up a 36' long row of tables, or they use round card tables that obviously can't be stacked end to end, or they have those custom high-top playing tables with the lip around them to keep dice from falling to the floor that won't allow for a shift in playing size. On top of that, many groups either have a collection of 4x4 and 4x6 playing mats or use cut-to-size mdf panels for their playing surfaces, these will have to to be overlapped if you want to take advantage of the space gained (which comes with its own hazards), otherwise its just going to end up being more dead space around the table for people to put their books, minis, and bags on. This change, I think, is great for the bigger organizers that rent larger venues and convention centers to host their events where they can end up increasing their attendance by 20-30% within the same space. For everyone else it feels like a slap to the face. Its clear that the "you can use a bigger table" stipulation is intended as a consolation prize to these people, but in practical terms its not going to end up working that way and the various dynamics at work within the community are either going to end up forcing the change (or less likely forcing GW to reverse course in due time).

5. Building from the prior, there are lots of other games out there that people are playing that use varying table sizes. 6x4 is a convenient size for most clubs and shops because its fairly all-encompassing. Lots of the most popular games use them, if not they use 4x4 which is easily demarcated by a line of tape or some other objects to mark off the unused 2' section. 3x3 and 6x3 are also becoming popular for other games, which are also easily configured within a 6x4 area. The bizarre dimensions of GWs recommended sizes make things a lot more complicated, as its the *most* popular game out there and thus theres an inconvenience associated with not having mats/boards already sized to go for the game. Its easy to ask the 20-30% of your customer base who play those other "weird" games to put the labor into making sub-optimal materials work for them, its less easy to ask the bulk of your customers to do the same for the main game played in the store or club. Space is a limiting factor here, so some people are going to have to make some tough decisions on what and how they choose to go about accommodating players.

6. I am absolutely livid that the "minimum" size for a 3000 point game is just shy of 4x8. As mentioned earlier, I have plenty of 4x6 mats that if I wanted to I could press into service for larger sized games (even if I myself have long been of the opinion that a 4x6 is already too small a play area for a 2000 pt game), I most likely cannot play larger games now with the majority of my very by-the-book local community, and I cannot justify investing in a collection of even larger playmats (plus those things are heavy enough as it is) to accommodate that option (and as far as I am aware, there are no options for 4x8 mats, nor anything approaching that dimension, of any type on the market currently). Its frustrating but I'll probably get over it in due time.

Anyway, thats it for me. I'm going to stick by my 6x4 mats, they are IMO the most versatile option out there for all the different games I play, and I can easily reconfigure them for use with all sorts of different games with some tape or blank mats that I bought and cut to size for that explicit purpose, I'll simply need to get some new ones to account for GWs bizarre table dimensions so that my competitive-minded local community will allow me to continue using them. Maybe if I'm lucky some of the guys will ease up on this and keep playing 4x6 games instead.

First things first, much, much respect for your passion, knowledge and experience. This explained a lot of elements of the hobby with which I am utterly unfamiliar. It is pretty obvious that you know what you're talking about and you care enough to say it correctly.

I do expect that you are right; many clubs and stores will adopt these sizes- we've already seen announcements from TO's that they are going this way. And of course you are right that competitive players will want to practice as they must play.

But I also think it's fairly easy to not put models within 6" of a short table edge or within 2" of a long edge. I think it's so easy to do that, you won't even require tape. I haven't played as many games as you have- I've played since '89, but I missed a lot of 5th, all of 6th and almost all of 7th. I've also only played in 3 tournaments in my entire life. But I don't often go within 6" of the short sides or 2" of the long ones anyway.

So if a store owner has 3 tables that are 6 x 4, they can choose to resize their boards, in which case I think they're better off leaving a foot at one end rather than 6" one either side; the foot is just more useful as a surface. The owner could also resize the whole table, in which case the surface is the recommended minimum, but there's no extra table space; the store won't pick up enough extra space to add any additional tables, but it would make the store roomier.

Now you're also right to point out that either of those two options are expensive, labour intensive and time consuming.

Which is why, I am sure, that a fair number of stores will keep playing on the tables they have, as is, without any expense or effort. I think that they will educate their players, by saying "Hey, if you guys are training for Nova, remember that you'll have to keep your models 6" away from the short edges and 2" away from the long ones, because that's how big the tables at Nova are going to be. At which point, competitve players who are training will do that. Those who don't care will just play.

Now are you going to run into a situation where you want to play 6x4 but the only opponents you can find really want to practice for Nova. At that point, you will have to decide whether you want to play more than you want to get within 6" of a short side or 2" of a long one, because you're right, the tournament player isn't going to be the one who compromises. And that is going to result in frustration- especially if you already feel 6x4 is too small.

But I think GW is looking at the bigger picture, because all tournament and competitive players also play at home, but nowhere near all casual, home players also play in tournaments or at stores, and even if they do, those are a few games here and there with the majority being played at home. Those Kill Team boards that combine to make the various table sizes? There's going to be one of those in every box set going forward, which means that anyone who starts playing in 9th is basically going to get their surfaces for free in boxed sets.

And here is the even bigger picture: until we get a vaccine, there are no tournaments. We're going the rest of 2020 without any tournaments at least. Probably at least the first half of 2021.

How are smaller table sizes once you realize that for the next year or two, it's play at home or don't play?

Again, no disrespect. Thanks for your insightful and articulate post. It may not have changed my mind, but it taught me a lot.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Feels like they are really trying to hit home that the game is KT - 40k - Apocalypse with this.

They'd have to actually support apoc for this to be true. And... they haven't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

This is not how business relation work. GW influences what the ITC does, if the ITC doesn't comply, FLG's business will suffer.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't expect many local stores/clubs or events to change their table sizes to the new minimum (particularly if they're also used for other games beyond just 40k, I think that may be a kicker for many), the space savings isn't really all that meaningful over 6-10 tables, and would require investment in new boards, and I have zero interest in doing so for casual home/solo gaming for the same reasons.

I also don't see where it'd be worth the time and effort to lop off or otherwise designate 4" off just to meet the new *minimum* for its own sake on existing boards.

I expect we may see large events shift to the new minimum where space may be at a premium with many dozens or hundreds of tables (particularly if they're run by people selling stuff tailored to the new minimum), or new stores/clubs that don't have existing boards and tables, but I think the classic 4x6 is going to remain the norm for most people, at least for a while. I'm certainly in no hurry to switch table sizes.

You must be joking or have zero business sense if you think 12" x 4" removed from 10 tables isn't of value to a retail store. Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.


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 the states most stores use extensions or removable tops for 40k. Your speaking out your if you think saved retail space won't be a factor for a shop, as they have to put those play tops somewhere in between magic events, which make them their real profits. Hardly any shops with multiple tables have dedicated, framed war-gaming tables anymore, that went out of fashion at least 20 years ago when GW products become unreliable to maintain a FLGS.

A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.

 insaniak wrote:
A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.

It literally doesn't Also it requires less terrain to store by a large margin. They won't throw terrain out, but they will repair and replace less and less.

But aside from that quibble, you entirely dodged the real substance to my post. It's the floor space when they are out that really matters.

When is the last time you played 40k at a shop let alone in the states?

I think this move is so stupid of GW, they should stick to the 6x4 formula and make their game around that. Jesus effin christ, who even got 4 of those foldfreak killteam mats? And it would look stupid too, like some windows 95 wallpaper.

And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it", going bigger is gonna be worse for some armies, your forceing an imbalance right off the bat. And with GW's new 9th edition bonuses to close combat armies hype they are blappering about?... yeah, i think table size is like 95% of it, because GW rules logic suck...as usual.

It may be the minimum, but you could also use a football field (HURRAY basselisk and deathstrikes), there is no indicated max or recommended for that matter.


On the VERY small bright side, more space for cards, deathpile and stuff in front of you.

Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?

I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:

And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it",...

Less 'failing to realize' and more 'not believing'. GW aren't playing the game on Kill Team mats. They're playing on Realm of Battle, or the same old studio boards they've had for thirty years now, and just listing the mat size as the default to encourage people who have them to use them.

I would be frankly amazed if the size of the board factored into their playtesting in any significant fashion.

 insaniak wrote:
Serious question : How many stores have a large enough gaming space that cutting a foot off each board will actually make enough difference to be worthwhile?

I might be drastically underestimating US stores, but it seems unlikely that many of them would be that large.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:

And yeah alot of people are going "yeah whatever, we are NOT gonna go with the new size, take it or leave it". You just fail to realize that GW is makeing this the new standard and makeing the missions and "balance around it",...

Less 'failing to realize' and more 'not believing'. GW aren't playing the game on Kill Team mats. They're playing on Realm of Battle, or the same old studio boards they've had for thirty years now, and just listing the mat size as the default to encourage people who have them to use them.

I would be frankly amazed if the size of the board factored into their playtesting in any significant fashion.

I think your being very optimistic. But hey, would love to be wrong, and both be equally viable. For now i just dont see it. And looking at some facebook groups, their slowdrip information tactics is allready getting people fired up, in ALL the wrong ways.

I'd be more inclined to buy the 'balanced for the resize' argument if it was a more significant change. Say, if they had moved the game to a 3'x4' board or something. But this really feels more like marketing saying 'Hey, make sure you include the Kill Team mats in the rules!' and the devs wedging it in, rather than an actual, deliberate rules change.

 insaniak wrote:
A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.

Reality disagrees with you on that.

Change exactly to roughly and sure, ... main point is that this is an unnecessary change. Allow for small games on smaller tables and write appropriate scenarios. That is great. OK. But... Why change from the standard table size? Well, it ain’t in the interests of a better game.

 jeff white wrote:
They should have designers play test, not gamers of games.

Designers playtesting is what creates the problem, as the designers know how things are meant to work (or how they should work, even if that's not how they wrote them).

Playtesting has to be done by people detached from the design process, otherwise you get the "can't see the woods for the trees" problem.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't expect many local stores/clubs or events to change their table sizes to the new minimum (particularly if they're also used for other games beyond just 40k, I think that may be a kicker for many), the space savings isn't really all that meaningful over 6-10 tables, and would require investment in new boards, and I have zero interest in doing so for casual home/solo gaming for the same reasons.

I also don't see where it'd be worth the time and effort to lop off or otherwise designate 4" off just to meet the new *minimum* for its own sake on existing boards.

I expect we may see large events shift to the new minimum where space may be at a premium with many dozens or hundreds of tables (particularly if they're run by people selling stuff tailored to the new minimum), or new stores/clubs that don't have existing boards and tables, but I think the classic 4x6 is going to remain the norm for most people, at least for a while. I'm certainly in no hurry to switch table sizes.

You must be joking or have zero business sense if you think 12" x 4" removed from 10 tables isn't of value to a retail store. Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.

No, I'm going off my experience with every game store I can recall playing at the last few years. That might be enough for one extra table and room to move around it? Without playing radical table tetris with the floor space, they'll basically just end up with slightly wider walkways, and the gaming space at most of them was separate from the retail space already anyway.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
A bunch of 5' long boards leaning against a wall in the storage room takes up exactly the same amount of space as a bunch of 6' long boards standing there.

It literally doesn't

Only if vertical wall space in your storage area is at a premium...

At every store I've played at over the last few editions (yes, all in the US), it will make 0 difference storing the boards.

Only if vertical wall space in your storage area is at a premium...

At every store I've played at over the last few editions (yes, all in the US), it will make 0 difference storing the boards.

Don't take it as an attack, but I think people in the US would be very suprised seeing what is considered a normal sized store in some parts of the world. But nor do I claim that I know how big stores are in the US. Which brings me the the question what is considered normal in the US as far as gaming stores goes 3-4 4x4 tables or 2-3 4x6?

Dude, that's what ~50 square feet? Thats a massive deal for a shop.

the stores here hardly go over 30 square meters, and this includes the storage area, the counter, space under heaters etc.

From my personal experience with game stores here in the US, the only I've seen 4x4 tables is for the single general-use demo table, and most of that at GW one-man stores. For any place I've played at that I can recall in 6E, 7E, or 8E, in any of the 3 West Coast states, I don't remember any 4x4 tables for general play.