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.

So I happen to own 2 Kill Team boards and I gave the Incisive Attack mission a try together with my son. We played Incursion size with PL, marines vs. SW, around 30 infantry and a dread each.

- scoring at the start of your turn is really interesting. So you can't just grab a midfield objective with some chaff and expect to get points for it, you really have to commit. But I have a suspicion that reinforcements will be placed in the command phase so they might be useful for objective grabbing.

- battlefield is too small for 1k. We didn't have many models so it was ok to deploy them, but other armies easily have double or triple the number, making the field really crowded. Also my plasma canons could reach 97% of the battlefield (excluding areas behind LOS of course)

Has anyone else played it?

Did you notice that points will go up across all factions ? Intercessors go up 3 pts. and chaos cultists go up 2 pts. A 1k list now will probably be something around 900 in 9th.

Ragnar69 wrote:

- scoring at the start of your turn is really interesting. So you can't just grab a midfield objective with some chaff and expect to get points for it, you really have to commit. But I have a suspicion that reinforcements will be placed in the command phase so they might be useful for objective grabbing.

The Pillars missions specifically requires reinforcements to be placed away from the objective to make that impossible.

Ragnar69 wrote:
So I happen to own 2 Kill Team boards and I gave the Incisive Attack mission a try together with my son. We played Incursion size with PL, marines vs. SW, around 30 infantry and a dread each.

- scoring at the start of your turn is really interesting. So you can't just grab a midfield objective with some chaff and expect to get points for it, you really have to commit. But I have a suspicion that reinforcements will be placed in the command phase so they might be useful for objective grabbing.

- battlefield is too small for 1k. We didn't have many models so it was ok to deploy them, but other armies easily have double or triple the number, making the field really crowded. Also my plasma canons could reach 97% of the battlefield (excluding areas behind LOS of course)

Has anyone else played it?

My partner and I tested out a similar setup for a 1k game and found much the same thing.

We played with orks vs gretchins though, so we KNOW that at current point values you don't have enough space on a 1k board.

it does seem like super cheap units are getting more expensive than elite units, but I really really really hope GW does a good enough job making those currently cheap units worth more than just what they currently are, the easiest way to generate CP for your super powerful elites.

If Ork Boyz and Guardsmen and GSC and whatever else actually stand a chance in 9th, I'm fine with a 40-50% points increase, Welcome it, honestly, it was getting pretty ludicrous just how many more miniatures a horde player has to build and paint than someone who wants to play elites. I would love if I could put those kind of units down on the table without just scooping them off 1 second later.

Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Locals are not tournaments, and if you are going to a tournament you'll know what to expect.

Depends highly on your local community still.
And some of the most active players are the tournament goers aren't they?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Biased assumption I’m afraid,

Why not try, I dunno ‘most tournament organisers have been doing it for year, so their assembled resources from boards to halls and attendance factor in a 6x4 board’.

Thought as much. I for one will be sticking to 4x4 / 6x4.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

If you design a board game, say the board should be at least this big for a good game, and players test that size and find that a very normal list for a major faction seems to be incredibly cramped on a board that size, maybe that size is too small to be the minimum recommended.

I definitely would not mind if unit costs went up and we went to a smaller board size, but they'll have to go up quite a lot to make a board as small as they recommend for a 2k game actually work for a satisfying 2k game. On the 1k game size board, the gretchin army was basically base-to-base contact all across the deployment zone.

Ragnar69 wrote:
So I happen to own 2 Kill Team boards and I gave the Incisive Attack mission a try together with my son. We played Incursion size with PL, marines vs. SW, around 30 infantry and a dread each.

- scoring at the start of your turn is really interesting. So you can't just grab a midfield objective with some chaff and expect to get points for it, you really have to commit. But I have a suspicion that reinforcements will be placed in the command phase so they might be useful for objective grabbing.

- battlefield is too small for 1k. We didn't have many models so it was ok to deploy them, but other armies easily have double or triple the number, making the field really crowded. Also my plasma canons could reach 97% of the battlefield (excluding areas behind LOS of course)

Has anyone else played it?

IIRC the preview image of the new phases has the movement phase divided into 2 parts:
-Move units
-Reinforcements

Aash wrote:

Ragnar69 wrote:
So I happen to own 2 Kill Team boards and I gave the Incisive Attack mission a try together with my son. We played Incursion size with PL, marines vs. SW, around 30 infantry and a dread each.

- scoring at the start of your turn is really interesting. So you can't just grab a midfield objective with some chaff and expect to get points for it, you really have to commit. But I have a suspicion that reinforcements will be placed in the command phase so they might be useful for objective grabbing.

- battlefield is too small for 1k. We didn't have many models so it was ok to deploy them, but other armies easily have double or triple the number, making the field really crowded. Also my plasma canons could reach 97% of the battlefield (excluding areas behind LOS of course)

Has anyone else played it?

IIRC the preview image of the new phases has the movement phase divided into 2 parts:
-Move units
-Reinforcements

Given that most reinforcements abilities already specify" at the end of the movement phase" I highly doubt GW will rule that they all now occur at the beginning of the movement phase, i.e the command phase.

 p5freak wrote:
Did you notice that points will go up across all factions ? Intercessors go up 3 pts. and chaos cultists go up 2 pts. A 1k list now will probably be something around 900 in 9th.

They said points will be around the same as at the start of 8th. We used PL, those still reflect the old points. And Stu said his 2k Marines just lost 1 unit so I don't think that armies will have much less models. A larger effect on army size comes probably from the new vehicle and blast rules. I can see many horde players to include more vehicles/MCs than before.

And I know it's minimum and not absolute size, but
a) I wanted to try it
b) putting 2 Kill Team boards on the dining table is way more convenient than getting the protective cloth, the plywood boards and the battlemat into the dining room

For the 2k size this argument is moot as my dining table is only 3" wide.

And yeah, reinforcements are indeed in the movement phase.

iTs miNIMUUUUUUUM!!! *screamed the local shooty army player*

There is gonna be pushback on the table size. I don't know how successful that pushback will be.

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Luckily only no us slde that plague. And itc has been joke as competive anyway with house rules specifically done to buff existing super factions. Itc continuing to be bad for competive tournaments for sake of more money to organisers isn't surprise.

Thanfully us isn't whole world


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

If you design a board game, say the board should be at least this big for a good game, and players test that size and find that a very normal list for a major faction seems to be incredibly cramped on a board that size, maybe that size is too small to be the minimum recommended.

I definitely would not mind if unit costs went up and we went to a smaller board size, but they'll have to go up quite a lot to make a board as small as they recommend for a 2k game actually work for a satisfying 2k game. On the 1k game size board, the gretchin army was basically base-to-base contact all across the deployment zone.

Funny that you put words to gw's mouth. It's not minimum recomended. It's just minimum. As in bare smallest that works

Martel732 wrote:
There is gonna be pushback on the table size. I don't know how successful that pushback will be.

Well Ikea and other stores around here do not sell a single table that fits the description of the sizes GW want people to play. Add to this the fact that stores already have as big tables as they can given how small space they have. And I am worried that a lot of house ruling is going to be required in 9th to run some missions. Or people are goint o have to make their own missions, but then there is going to be the eternal problem that GW will be testing armies and rules for specific table sizes and missions, while we could end up playing something else. Could end with some less popular armies getting the short end of the stick.

Funny that you put words to gw's mouth. It's not minimum recomended. It's just minimum. As in bare smallest that works

Go to any store that has to pay 23% VAT and tell them that they can pay more. Only in places where people have gigantic mansions or stores are the size of hangars, are tables going to be different size then minimum. And that is assuming those places produce tables in the GW sizes. Because in my country you would have to order a custom made one, because neither IKEA nor OBI sell the proper sizes.

I could see a lot of people adapting to a 5x4 foot table instead - It decreases the size appropriately but still makes 6x4 tables a perfect match. 5x4 feet for play with 1x4 feet for deadpiles/reinforcements/codices.

 Ghaz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

With ITC on board (pun always intended), the new table size will be the standard for tournaments, and thus competitive games of 40k in general. I mean no one is going to kick down your door, slap you and tell you you're doing it wrong if you use a 6'x4', but if you go to your FLGS for a pick up I'd plan on 2k points and the table size stated.

I'm not sure about that. It's hard to say.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

With ITC on board (pun always intended), the new table size will be the standard for tournaments, and thus competitive games of 40k in general. I mean no one is going to kick down your door, slap you and tell you you're doing it wrong if you use a 6'x4', but if you go to your FLGS for a pick up I'd plan on 2k points and the table size stated.

Okey, but that is not the problem. The problem is that if GW tested their rules to work at a specific army size and table size, but your table is of a different size then the game could be very unfun. If someone were to play 8th on a 8x8 table or a 3x3 table, because that is what they have, then game depending on the armies used would get even worse then 8th.
The fact that GW puts out wierd table sizes is just a bonus. The rela problem is what is that they do not say, besides saying what is minium size for points, when they think their game is most balanced.

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

With ITC on board (pun always intended), the new table size will be the standard for tournaments, and thus competitive games of 40k in general. I mean no one is going to kick down your door, slap you and tell you you're doing it wrong if you use a 6'x4', but if you go to your FLGS for a pick up I'd plan on 2k points and the table size stated.

For US maybe. But newsflash: US isn't the world and ITC is mainly US thing.

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Luckily only no us slde that plague. And itc has been joke as competive anyway with house rules specifically done to buff existing super factions. Itc continuing to be bad for competive tournaments for sake of more money to organisers isn't surprise.

Thanfully us isn't whole world


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

If you design a board game, say the board should be at least this big for a good game, and players test that size and find that a very normal list for a major faction seems to be incredibly cramped on a board that size, maybe that size is too small to be the minimum recommended.

I definitely would not mind if unit costs went up and we went to a smaller board size, but they'll have to go up quite a lot to make a board as small as they recommend for a 2k game actually work for a satisfying 2k game. On the 1k game size board, the gretchin army was basically base-to-base contact all across the deployment zone.

Funny that you put words to gw's mouth. It's not minimum recomended. It's just minimum. As in bare smallest that works

WHAT?! ETC IS a hamfisted format that bans FW and caters to gunlines even more...it's not 5th anymore. Itc is better. Europe is stupid for using etc.

I'll bet EU will go for bigger boards because, gunlines are great, and will ban FW even if they got a spot in the codex...

 Brutallica wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Luckily only no us slde that plague. And itc has been joke as competive anyway with house rules specifically done to buff existing super factions. Itc continuing to be bad for competive tournaments for sake of more money to organisers isn't surprise.

Thanfully us isn't whole world


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

If you design a board game, say the board should be at least this big for a good game, and players test that size and find that a very normal list for a major faction seems to be incredibly cramped on a board that size, maybe that size is too small to be the minimum recommended.

I definitely would not mind if unit costs went up and we went to a smaller board size, but they'll have to go up quite a lot to make a board as small as they recommend for a 2k game actually work for a satisfying 2k game. On the 1k game size board, the gretchin army was basically base-to-base contact all across the deployment zone.

Funny that you put words to gw's mouth. It's not minimum recomended. It's just minimum. As in bare smallest that works

WHAT?! ETC IS a hamfisted format that bans FW and caters to gunlines even more...it's not 5th anymore. Itc is better. Europe is stupid for using etc.

I'll bet EU will go for bigger boards because, gunlines are great, and will ban FW even if they got a spot in the codex...

Or maybe ITC and ETC can both go burn in a fire now since we'll all be using the same missions in theory?

Karol wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

With ITC on board (pun always intended), the new table size will be the standard for tournaments, and thus competitive games of 40k in general. I mean no one is going to kick down your door, slap you and tell you you're doing it wrong if you use a 6'x4', but if you go to your FLGS for a pick up I'd plan on 2k points and the table size stated.

Okey, but that is not the problem. The problem is that if GW tested their rules to work at a specific army size and table size, but your table is of a different size then the game could be very unfun. If someone were to play 8th on a 8x8 table or a 3x3 table, because that is what they have, then game depending on the armies used would get even worse then 8th.
The fact that GW puts out wierd table sizes is just a bonus. The rela problem is what is that they do not say, besides saying what is minium size for points, when they think their game is most balanced.

Karol, just play on the table sizes you've always played on, it's not that hard to figure out.

Dudeface wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

considering tournaments allready have all basically taken it over as the only measurement?

Luckily only no us slde that plague. And itc has been joke as competive anyway with house rules specifically done to buff existing super factions. Itc continuing to be bad for competive tournaments for sake of more money to organisers isn't surprise.

Thanfully us isn't whole world


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Remember folks.

The board sizes given are a minimum. Minimum is not the same as recommended.

Nice to hear about the other differences in that specific mission.

If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

If you design a board game, say the board should be at least this big for a good game, and players test that size and find that a very normal list for a major faction seems to be incredibly cramped on a board that size, maybe that size is too small to be the minimum recommended.

I definitely would not mind if unit costs went up and we went to a smaller board size, but they'll have to go up quite a lot to make a board as small as they recommend for a 2k game actually work for a satisfying 2k game. On the 1k game size board, the gretchin army was basically base-to-base contact all across the deployment zone.

Funny that you put words to gw's mouth. It's not minimum recomended. It's just minimum. As in bare smallest that works

WHAT?! ETC IS a hamfisted format that bans FW and caters to gunlines even more...it's not 5th anymore. Itc is better. Europe is stupid for using etc.

I'll bet EU will go for bigger boards because, gunlines are great, and will ban FW even if they got a spot in the codex...

Or maybe ITC and ETC can both go burn in a fire now since we'll all be using the same missions in theory?

Would be nice, but i think there are too many people loving the competitive cancer.

ITC will now = GW rules for the most part ad I dont expect FLG to release an ITC mission pack for 9th from what they have said.

WTC (nolonger ETC) I think has probably had enough of its own issue to be dealing with this year what will come for them in future who knows. (Also they already covered their reasons for no FW it's actually and I genuinely believe this is what they truely believe, To limit the costs and barriers to teams, so as not to unfairly advantage or disadvantage any nation.) It's actually nothing to do with balance or rules it's purely the cost of them, they feel allowing FW would make it feel even more expensive an event than it all ready is, it's also why they won't hold it in London(probably most tof the uk too), America, Canada etc as the high cost would exclude too many countries.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If it's called "minimum recommended" then it is, in fact, the same as recommended.

No, it's not. It means it is the smallest size board that they recommend using for a game of a particular points value. It's not the maximum recommended, meaning you can use a larger table if one is available.

With ITC on board (pun always intended), the new table size will be the standard for tournaments, and thus competitive games of 40k in general. I mean no one is going to kick down your door, slap you and tell you you're doing it wrong if you use a 6'x4', but if you go to your FLGS for a pick up I'd plan on 2k points and the table size stated.

For US maybe. But newsflash: US isn't the world and ITC is mainly US thing.

And ITC is not used everywhere you go in the USA.