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.

 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.

yeah, that ain't happening. I know of the local store near me with a lot of tables built at 6x4 (nicely built tables I might add). They are not going to chop up those tables, lol.

My store will love it. We have a lot of killteam mats, and this change allows one more table in the shop.

 jeff white wrote:
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.

The 'why' is 'because we have these mats that aren't 2' square' and so don't make a table that is fully 4'x6', and people kept complaining that they weren't big enough'.

They couldn't make the mats bigger, so they made the game smaller. And also pointed out that you can keep using your 4x6 boards instead.



It's absolutely not a 'necessary' change. But it's really not the sky falling issue that some people seem determined to make it into, either.

After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.


1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.


Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.

Karol wrote:

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?

I've rarely encountered dedicated 4x4 tables or tables built with permanent terrain . The few I have have been used specifically for display/demos with about 20 models +/-.
Most of the shops I've ever gamed at have supported between 3 - 6 tables, either 4x6, 4x8, or a mix. 6' or 8' being determined by what fit best in the space. Most of these were also dedicated tables - I.E. not smaller tables pushed together or with a board placed on top. Most were also built so that you could comfortably sit at them in order to play board/card/RPG games.

Most of us in my circles who've built tables at home have either 6x4 or 8x4. That's a combination of A) 8x4 being a standard size as far as construction material (plywood) goes, B) & a compromise of what'll fit best in the space we've claimed as the game room/what our wives will tolerate.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.


1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.


Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.

Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.

Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.

 Blackie wrote:

Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table

really?
we have seen 2 point changes, which tells us nothing about army size, and as other said to make melee a thing, dedicated melee units need to stay cheaper
also we don't know about vehicles/monsters yet and if they get cheaper or also go up.

we know nothing about army size or how much models we see at 2000 points

 Blackie wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.


1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.


Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.

Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.

Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.

On stream he said his "My 2k Marine army is 1 squad less, we think the internet has grossily over reacted on point changes"

Which then Makes me wonder why cultists needed such a hike.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Which then Makes me wonder why cultists needed such a hike.

Some rumors (add salt) "hordes" is getting a keyword and 10man units are not hordes, but you get a discount for taking more like in AOS, that discount adds the Horde keyword.

I think that is just guessing more so than rumor, but that could be an option, we will know soon enough.

Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue

 Blackie wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
After thinking about it for a bit with the little information we have. I have some concerns for a closer table board.


1) Harder DS's and Outflanks, with -12" around thats a huge difference and board control could literally remove the options for DSing units.
2) Flyers placements will be harder and more forced to move off the table wasting turns of fire power, limiting peoples wants to flyer sin general.
3) Rapid fire is strong now that players are force to have to close the gap faster.
4) Less space to hide, put terrain, and stack larger base units, meaning more in open units
5) Promotes faster games in a bad way, more deadly b.c shooting and melee alpha strike will be easier with less space to hide
6) Less movement tactics over all, with less space there is less room to move around and place units in key flanking, blocking, spaces to force divide and conquer.


Forcing faster game play with getting into the action faster isn't really fun for large scale games, it just leaves less tactics and space over all and increased damage.

Don't forget that also army sizes would be reduced, non only the table. Points 1 is actually what I'd love to see: to limit deep strike and outflank, if not nerf them badly. At the moment teleporting stuff is a broken mechanic that is overly abused. Along re-rolls it's probably the first thing I'd like to be gone in the new edition.

Other points should reflect the fact that there will be less models on the table since the beginning of the game.

Some armies are pretty reliant on deep strike. Csm get a lot of mileage out of it. A lot of melee focused armies need it to get in range in one piece. Sounds like more help for gun lines.

Also GW said more tactic DSing stratagems. DS has already been heavily nerfed from older editions to 8th, you don't even see iconic DSing units anymore Assault Marines, Drop Pods, etc.. (for many reasons that is). Why would we be happy more nerfs to DS?

GSC, Daemons, DE, and many more has lots of DSing units.

 Blackie wrote:
Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue

we just need to get people to play 1250-1500 point games instead of the maximum 2000 points on the minimum sized tables

 Blackie wrote:
Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue

unlikely the case for jhonnys little SM army which just loses a squad accordingly.


i am also bit concerned in what the point is in non flying transports.
Like the board get's smaller the less you need them, the more terrain the more important flying becomes.

both of those things happen, so in other news, chimeras , rhinos etc will become even less important or relevant.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue

unlikely the case for jhonnys little SM army which just loses a squad accordingly.


i am also bit concerned in what the point is in non flying transports.
Like the board get's smaller the less you need them, the more terrain the more important flying becomes.

both of those things happen, so in other news, chimeras , rhinos etc will become even less important or relevant.

Transports, and vehicles in general, with the fly keyword will be very useful on a smaller board with lots of terrain. Can anyone think of a faction with lots of new flying vehicles gw would want to sell? Gimme a minute, it's right on the tip of my tongue......

In my neck of the woods (northern NJ, NYC, PA) and in most of the other areas of the country I have visited the average shop is configured for 4-6 6x4 tables by putting together long tables with a mdf topper, with what I call a "surge capacity" (i.e. a temporary ability to increase the number of tables by rearranging the shop floor) of 8-10 tables. 4x4 boards are usually supported by dividing a row of 4x6 boards with tape. Larger shops vary in size, Ive seen some regularly set up with 8 that can surge to 20-24, and others that maintain 16-20 on the average day with no ability to surge.

Contrary to Red Corsairs claim, id say its about half the shops in the area have framed dedicated wargaming tables (a couple have a mix between framed tables and regular tables). That style of table still seems popular in more rural and suburban areas where space is cheaper as I still see them a lot in the south and midwest

Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’

I love how language evolves over time!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’

I love how language evolves over time!

hyperbole but if the new sizes are adopted by tournaments you can bet that MOST games in game stores will change to do the same. Not everyone of course but it's been all but proven that the tournaments have a trickle down effect on games at every level from major tournaments to local tournaments down to "game night" at the local shop.

Like it or not there's a very strong "monkey see monkey do" culture in gaming where most people imitate the tournament scene even unintentionally. Especially in the US.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’

I love how language evolves over time!

sons a bitches and their crappy reading comprehension.
The power of suggestion is apparently very powerful(for the weak minded).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’
I love how language evolves over time!

I just don't know what is wrong with those people who are saying that they are glad to be finally allowed to play on a smaller table (at home, were one really cares what they are doing) and how this helps players with not enough space
nothing changed, you were allwowed to play on what ever size was available before and still people are glad that they finally get the permission from GW to use a different sized table for playing at home with their friends


and for the very same reason 1500 points won't be a thing any more, as GW suggests to use 1000 or 2000 points, even people playing at home will stay away from other sized games

These new table sizes are a hard NO for me. I'm overly tired of GW continuing to take wargames and turn them into tiny skirmish games.

If you want to play skirmish games thats awesome. Play kill team on a kitchen table.

And to the people going on about minimum is just minimum: the community largely follows whatever is tournament standard. If the tournament standard is this 5' table stuff, that will be whats expected in everything. You're fine if you don't play in public or do public gaming. Otherwise you are stuck with whatever tournament standard is.

In AOS you also don't technically need round bases either.

But good luck finding a game with your squares even if GW says you don't need to have rounds.

 kodos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Minimum is now ‘set in stone and the only size you may use, on pain of an old fashioned kneecapping’
I love how language evolves over time!

I just don't know what is wrong with those people who are saying that they are glad to be finally allowed to play on a smaller table (at home, were one really cares what they are doing) and how this helps players with not enough space
nothing changed, you were allwowed to play on what ever size was available before and still people are glad that they finally get the permission from GW to use a different sized table for playing at home with their friends


and for the very same reason 1500 points won't be a thing any more, as GW suggests to use 1000 or 2000 points, even people playing at home will stay away from other sized games

the proposed sizes aren't bad per se, specialy for people who can just play on bigger tables. My problems is that, if the games and missions were tested, then I assume they were tested with the GW ordeined table sizes. Maybe the missions, game mechanics,new rules designed for new codex, work great when the terrain is proper size.

Do I really have to point out what happens if someone tries to play w40k with non official GW terrain ? playing on a wood table is like playing with no terrain. Who says that if the ranges aren't proper, the rules stop working too. Lets take something we know little about. The reserv rule. Lets you come from sides or even the back of the table. It for sure has the deploy 9" away from enemy rule . Cool idea, suppose to help armies that are melee, but even for non melee armies it supplies a new vector of attack . Great. now what happens if the table is a bit smaller then what GW tested, and suddenly it is easy for most armies to block off the back and the sides, or one side. Suddenly a crucial mechanic, same way TLoS is in 8th, becomes warped and doesn't work. That is my problem with it. And it comes from the fact that our tables are smaller , and I have my doubts about the willingness of people that bought 2000pts armies in 8th, to play 1000pts in 9th, where it is probaly something like 800-900pts from 8th ed.

lets keep it simple, if the game stops being balanced outside the GW table and point size, we are not looking at the best but the worst version of the game ever

PS: and current official GW terrain was made with the LOS rules of 5th-7th edition in mind, so unless they go back to the old rules, the official terrain is worse than anything home made specific for 9th

I love how so many people are judging how to game will change before GW has given more than the most basic information about how terrain rules are changing. Just from the little morsel they have provided, we know:
1) There will be new more detailed terrain rules
2) It will include suggested terrain density
3) It will be more impactful
4) It will include rules like a new Obscuring rule on some terrain that prevent you from drawing LOS pass that piece of terrain regardless of what TLOS gives.

So maybe before you decide that 9th Edition on a smaller table will be like shooting fish in a barrel, we should wait for at least more details on terrain. Imagine what 4th edition terrain rules would do to the game.

Which fething arseholes won't play against square bases in AoS?

 kodos wrote:
lets keep it simple, if the game stops being balanced outside the GW table and point size, we are not looking at the best but the worst version of the game ever

PS: and current official GW terrain was made with the LOS rules of 5th-7th edition in mind, so unless they go back to the old rules, the official terrain is worse than anything home made specific for 9th

They literally said that terrain is completely overhauled and all terrain items have keywords assigned by the players including an example of "obscuring" which blocks line of sight. Makes all those windows irrelevant on the gw kits.

 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.

A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you.

GW product is already massive to stock, eats more space to display and takes a ton of room for play area. Not only are the tables huge for only 2 people to play, you have to store all the terrain etc. If they can shave the tables down and provide more regular gaming pace for the other more profitable side of business, like magic, they will. 100% they will.

 kodos wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Damn, I really had the hope that the new standard would be something like a current 1500 points army. Maybe GW will throw a "suggested rule" like Ro3 that encourages (AKA imposes) to play with a smaller format to fix that issue

we just need to get people to play 1250-1500 point games instead of the maximum 2000 points on the minimum sized tables

I liked 500 and 750 last Ed.

 Red Corsair wrote:
A lot lol. The smaller store I frequent has space for 8 tables at 6x4. The one I play at more often in tournaments has gone up to 12. Another I haven't been at in quite some time as it's a bout 2 hours away held a 30 player event, so obviously they had 15 tables though that day was not usual and the tables all had much less terrain that day as they said they normally have ~10 tables. I could go on and on at the ones that have opened and closed over the years I have played too. Or the ones I have traveled out of state for. US shops are massive compared to elsewhere, and again it isn't primarily storage but the fact that those tables all eat floor space when they are out and often the board game/TCG crowd is generally competing for space and those are generally much more profitable to begin with. So yea, it's a lot of fething space which is exactly the reason why FLG and their events are switching over. If you don't think every square foot of space is important in retail I have a bridge to sell you. .

So the actual answer is 'not many' based on that anecdotal evidence.

If you're reducing the table width by a foot, you gain an extra table for every five that you reduce... but to do that, you would need to have had the tables in a row of 5. So your 8 table store would at most have gained one additional table... at the expense of replacing or chopping up all of their additional boards. And assuming they don't still need those boards for other games, in which case they're going to the trouble and expense of making all new table tops for no real benefit given that the game can still be played on the tables they already have.

And yes, I'm well aware that floor space is a valuable commodity in retail. My point was that the space you gain has to be actually useful... and reducing the size of the tables only really achieves that for stores with multiple rows of tables in lots of 5.