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.

Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

For me it'll depend on how the point changes shake out.

I played a test game of 1700pts with a friend using the new 9th ed rules (Estimating what army size will be after point hikes for a 2k game) and it basically just felt like - 20% less minis, 20% less board. made sense.

But if the point hikes are not significant, or as I suspect, if they're massively disproportionately aimed at cheaper/horde units and GW just has to walk them right back to make those units anywhere near usable again, then I think I'd just go back to 6x4.

From the marine points leak it looks like you will probably have a few less units, my marine list is probably only dropping 200 to 300 points from my current 2k list to my 9th Ed 2k list, since I already have a 6x4 mat no sense in resizing.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

You get me to drop them by over my dead body. I ain't reducing tactics just for sake of greedy cash ploy

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

It also allows more space for deep strikes and speed becomes a bigger factor.
It also depends on how the objectives are placed and how much/where you place your terrain and what traits it have.
It doesn't automatically becomes "more about shooting".

And I'll keep playing on 6x4, unless my mates want to reduce the size of the board (we will probably try it a few times though but it feels like a really small board).

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Not Online!!! wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

yes, infact i might even go 8x4 because why shouldn't i. Positioning and movement didn't matter in 8th and 9th whilest improved still doesn't matter enough, more space means more options.

Oh I think it matters a lot more, at least from the games of 9th ed I saw, people are getting stuck in turn 1 a lot more often, then they did in 8th. But maybe it is because people play missions with objectives in the middle and everyone races to get to them.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Yes. Why wouldn't I?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Of course. My gaming mat is that size and my table as well.

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The minimum recommended tablesize is just that. It's a recommendation for the least amount of size of a table and honestly its purely imposed because it happens to link up to with GW's own manufactured board sizes. That's all. It's not a magical size that was perfectly calculated with the games balance.

You can go bigger and smaller.

Sure, as long as you understand that going with a larger board size will make the game even more about shooting than it is currently.

Not entirely, it also affects how much room there is for line of sight blocking terrain; for deep strikes; for objective placement etc...

Assuming that the terrain density is the same, and assuming that (as in all the missions we have) objective placement is based on the center of the board, increasing board size essentially increases the size of the backfield and allows you to place more units farther back.

That does make the game more based around shooting. If you add more terrain (as in, make the board more terrain-dense, not just add terrain to the new outside edge of the board you've created and maintain the same density) then you will most likely be able to offset the advantage.

Pretending the advantage isn't there is silly, however. A smaller board size is objectively a buff to melee armies.

Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Not only that, but if the table has proper line of sight blocking terrain, then being further back doesn't mean you can shoot for longer. If your line of sight is blocked you might well still have to move forward, the actual distance that you have between yourself and exposed close combat units could be very similar to on a smaller table. Again the terrain density, style, size and breakup makes a dramatic difference to games.

If you're just lining up with very little terrain and very little blocking the line of sight then sure, a bigger table will make it easier for gun-line armies to sit back and fire and approach objectives with less contesting.

Of course it also means that any deepstrikes or other means of deploying from off the table, also have more room to deploy. Reducing the risk of using them.

Dudeface wrote:
Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Dead units can't score. Best defense is good offense applies here.

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

I agree. In the early stages of AoS, base sizes were pretty loose. Probably due to boxes still having square bases and stuff like that. Not uncommon to see people using squares or different round size bases, it was practical tbh.
Slowly but surely, the do whatever you want, it's only a recommendation! became do this if you want to play the *official* way. Since a lot of people (especially the so called "competitive" crowd) play the way some corporation tells them to play, the shift became inevitable. This even became common for random pickup game at store with people refusing anything outside the corporate-directives. The sad state of modern gaming

I wouldn't be surprised if companies started printing "new sized" mats, as well as the corporation repeatedly advertising the new size (WD battlerep, mission maps, etc...) and then some tournaments will jump on the change too.
People might first use whatever they want but the shift will probably be inevitable on the long run as per previous cases. Those who never cared about following every single corporation-directive will continue as usual.
So it goes.

Dudeface wrote:
Deploying further back > further away from objectives > harder to win the game. Yes you can shoot with less chance of being charged, but you won't be winning necessarily.

Deploying further back is not mutually exclusive with being able to take center-board objectives. Long-ranged units, like artillery sets up on the back line, while infantry set up on the front to press the attack.



As for table size,
At my home, I will probably continue to use a 6'x4' table, since I have one made and marked out and I don't feel like changing it.
I imagine the LGS, where I play most of my games, is going to downsize to 60"x44", since that's good for them and they can fit more players in more comfortably.
When I play with my personal friends at club or at their houses, I imagine we're also going to play in the reduced size board, because they don't have pre-existing 6'x4' tables.

Fundamentally, 6'x4' is not a common household table size, and you have to go out of your way to make one, so I imagine most people will be scaling down.

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

I'll probably continue to play on my 6x4, but agree to go down in size if my opponent prefers that.

It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

We'll probably give it a whirl on the smaller table. We typically like a table having less places to castle/turtle... and we really enjoy playing board control and capture-and-control styled games. This will help melee armies as there is less depth to deployment zones to hide from them, though screening got stronger. With luck, the impetus put on keeping in the middle of the table for scoring will allow flanking/deep striking units to have adequate space to plop down.

Best case scenario: we empower melee a little more and give those units a bit more relevance on the table, and gain a little extra space on the edge of the tables to store out of play stuff!

Worst case scenario: we revert back to the full 4x6 table. Though, we commonly have smaller tables as the points limits go down - I do like that at least. Losing 4"x12" at the 2000 point level? We'll see how it plays out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

The table size change cut into deployment zones. The space between armies still looks like it is largely 24". So there is minimal distance lost, but anywhere from 2" to 6" has been lost in deployment zone depth (though other maps may change this, as they did in 8th).

 bullyboy wrote:
It's so stupid though. The game already looked pretty bad with Knights and big flyers on a 6x4, now it's even smaller. It's almost like the knights start the game in punching distance of each other.

But muh moneyh! For gw it was about using kill team mats, for playtesters about fitting moie players to venue and selling new mats. Never been about balance or what's good for game

mlem

All the major tournaments and local tournaments are going to be using the new minimum, which will trickle down in a lot of places. My area is already planning on using the new minimum.

Not a huge deal, I'll just buy a new mat for at home and the store will just adjust their boards.

I love the new sizes!
It means I can play Combat Patrol games at home on my kitchen table rather than on the floor.

I'm going to play on a 6x4 with a 2" spot for dice on my side of the table and a foot to the side for destroyed models and stuff. It's really not that hard.

My guess is my FLG and nearby tournaments will stick to 5x4 because its matches up with the 6x4 tables but also leaves 4 square feet for storage on the same table - Which is great.

 auticus wrote:
The minimum recommended rules are truly minimum recommended, until you throw the bugbear in that all large "official' tournaments are going by that size, and tournament standard is what a lot of people (at least here in the USA) use for almost all of their games.

That means deviating from tournament standard for many people is not possible because their community will not allow it.

And now we have people on social media, forums, twitter, saying that the playtesters have said they only playtested on this small size and that its the only real "balanced" version of 40k (lol - 40k and balance in the same sentence) which gives ammo to those that are going to cling to tournament standard like a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.

I look forward to an even bigger divide between casual and tournament than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

keithandor wrote:
Are you going to just use your 6x4 table?

Whatever people might say on the internet, table size will gradually be enforced as the new standard in tournaments - even local ones-, and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it.

Of course what happens in your garage is your problem, just don't expect people with a melee army to play vs tau on a 6x4 board and come back ever again (unless they don't understand they are being played, which is on them).

People played melee armies against tau on a 6x4 for years. Why is it just becoming an issue now?