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.

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

Because now there is a rule point you can fall back on if you want to be a di

If you're afraid deeper DZ might be bad for your game, just don't allow deploying in these last 2 (game changing !) inches when you use a 6x4 table (not fair I guess, they can still move back 2 during their movement phase).

9th edition, the huge mole hills edition.

i own a dozen game mats most are 4X6, with a few that are 4X4 that i can double for a 4X8 full table....but since i only play 5th ed, epic with 8th ed rules or HH when it comes to 40K/30K it doesn't really matter what they are pushing in 9th.

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

Because GW changes things. new editions, new rules, not always for the better. the last game we played was a 5th ed game with a chaos player running a khorne list. he had no problem getting his berserkers or chosen terminators into CC and we were playing on a 4X8 table in a 3 way match where he started in a 12" X 24" corner deployment.

GW is releasing new official objective markers that are 50mm across on the same day they are releasing the rulebook that says objective markers are 40mm across.

Just wanted to point that out for the true believers who think GW does even 1 minute of thinking gak through and any of this stuff is gonna be playtested and balanced.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW is releasing new official objective markers that are 50mm across on the same day they are releasing the rulebook that says objective markers are 40mm across.

Just wanted to point that out for the true believers who think GW does even 1 minute of thinking gak through and any of this stuff is gonna be playtested and balanced.

Have the bases sizes been confirmed anywhere? They're not shown next to anything else to compare scale with.

Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

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.[u]

on planet Bowlingball, yes. On an appropriately terrained board, no. I mean, if your fine with doing the bare minimum, I guess that's ok. those of us that enjoy something other than the bare minimum, will not have any issues.

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.

40k is all about shooting the piss out of something with a fantastic array of ranged weapons. I'm good with that. Always have been.
So if you come running across no-mans land at me with your pointy stick/claw/etc? Don't be surprised when I vaporize you. Or do my best to vaporize you.

As to 48" making it more focused on shooting? Incorrect. At the minimum things just stay the same as they have been. And you melee players already figured out how to deal with covering 48".

I’d say I’m disappointed with the amount of people who seem to genuinely think a longer board size doesn’t benefit shooting, but then I remember that I’m on Dakka, and yeah, this is about par for the course. I guess it would be more surprising if the consensus WASNT the lowest level take possible.

I am going to use the minimum size. Just feels more engaging to be on the smaller table. Even thinking of trying out the same Min Table size in AoS.

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

I have a 5X4 table (made by a friend years ago) we use for all kind of gaming, and a 8X4 table (originally made for model trains) on my back porch. I'll be using those, most of the time with the various battle mats I own (several 3X3, a couple 4X6).

When I do play, it's usually 1K point games on the indoor table (South MS heat can put the back porch at over 100 degrees easily), so most likely it'll be on a 3X3 mat.

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

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

Yes.

I see zero reason to shrink the table ever-so-slightly just because GW sells a product that isn't quote 6x4 (and that's why they're doing it folks - because of the products they make, not any other reason).

For 2k games the difference is small, but for 1k games the difference is actually quite large.

5x4 actually makes more sense if you are just blocking off a piece of your mat/table. The extra 4" isn't going to make a difference.
yeah, yeah...in before the "that's what she said"

MINIMUM

The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

They are the minimum size tables for the size games.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

GW wants everyone to stay within the GW HHHobby ecosystem. This means that all their products service that eco-system. Their various mats just happen to match these new sizes*, which means that they shifted the rules to match their products. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" (it already is with various big tournaments) and as GW are the biggest fish in the pond others will jump to meet them (some 3rd party mat makers are already falling in line).

So you can repeat the "minimum" thing as much as you like; it won't be long before that is the "standard". If there's a gaming equivalent to the Overton Window, GW is shifting it for table-sizes.



*Let me be clear on one point. GW mats are the size they are because of the constraints of their boxes. If GW had boxes that could take full feet mats (like the exception they made for new Necromunda Zone Mortalis stuff) then they would have, and they're not about to change it now given they've manufactured so many in the current size already. They didn't make their board sizes the way they were to screw over people who like 6x4 or 3rd party mat makers (unlike 32mm bases, which were a transparent attempt at screwing with the 3rd party base market) but they absolutely made up this "minimum" nonsense to fit with their products.

Kommissar Kel wrote:MINIMUM

The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

They are the minimum size tables for the size games.

at this point I think they're fine with doing the bare minimum, so I guess giving 50% effort is apparently acceptable.

sounds lame

at this point I think they're fine with doing the bare minimum, so I guess giving 50% effort is apparently acceptable.

The community shovels forklifts worth of cash their way regularly, why should they work harder when they don't have to?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The sizes are not "This is the size table you must play on"

GW wants everyone to stay within the GW HHHobby ecosystem. This means that all their products service that eco-system. Their various mats just happen to match these new sizes*, which means that they shifted the rules to match their products. "Minimum" will very quickly become "standard" (it already is with various big tournaments) and as GW are the biggest fish in the pond others will jump to meet them (some 3rd party mat makers are already falling in line).

So you can repeat the "minimum" thing as much as you like; it won't be long before that is the "standard". If there's a gaming equivalent to the Overton Window, GW is shifting it for table-sizes.



*Let me be clear on one point. GW mats are the size they are because of the constraints of their boxes. If GW had boxes that could take full feet mats (like the exception they made for new Necromunda Zone Mortalis stuff) then they would have, and they're not about to change it now given they've manufactured so many in the current size already. They didn't make their board sizes the way they were to screw over people who like 6x4 or 3rd party mat makers (unlike 32mm bases, which were a transparent attempt at screwing with the 3rd party base market) but they absolutely made up this "minimum" nonsense to fit with their products.

The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

That's what I meant. Their boxes are what dictate the size of their boards - it's the reason the Newcromunda cardboard tiles weren't 1x1 sadly - but the "minimum size" thing is something they invented because their boards are smaller than 6x4.

They could have just as easily said 4x4, or 6x10, or whatever, but they chose their own board size (created out of necessity) just because they make that size board. It had nothing to do with making a smaller game, or changing the game dynamics, or whatever other nonsense they (or the playtesters) are spouting.

I'm currently building a 6*4 table and I'm certainly not about to change that. But then again, I'm also not a very competitive player, so I honestly couldn't care less about the tournament scene. And, of course, lots of games use 6*4 tables, or at least, full feet ones. And I see no reason to cut myself off from those options.

I not all to worry about table size specifically, but what GW is using that space for.


watching some of the battle reports it looked like they barly moved around on the space they had. tournament players I think but it just seemed like they did not do much maneuvering at all considering how long the games where.

I'll probably be building some sort of barricade set to reduce table size.

Melee is weak enough as it is, no need to give shooting armies enough space to dodge getting charged for three or more turns.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The boxes also have a "shelf size restriction"; they need to fit on most standard shelves. Most of GWs "boxed game" boxes are pretty close o standard board game width and length, just the height tends to vary. It is good for marketing to FLGSs.

That's what I meant. Their boxes are what dictate the size of their boards - it's the reason the Newcromunda cardboard tiles weren't 1x1 sadly - but the "minimum size" thing is something they invented because their boards are smaller than 6x4.

They could have just as easily said 4x4, or 6x10, or whatever, but they chose their own board size (created out of necessity) just because they make that size board. It had nothing to do with making a smaller game, or changing the game dynamics, or whatever other nonsense they (or the playtesters) are spouting.

Well, yeah.

I was agreeing with you and clarifying for our dear viewers.

Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

Yeah I was gonna mention that. The Moonbase tiles, which I quite like, and the AoS equivalent (which I got scammed over on a Facebook buy/sell group... that was fun), are of a different size as they appear to have been experiments at the very start of this. Same goes for the two actual mats GW released, that were 4x4 yet somehow more expensive than every other company's 6x4's (good 'ol GW prices!).

Given that they abandoned both when they moved to the new size, it seems that they were testing the water with those and found more positive results with boards than mats. Also, it's possible the mats weren't made in house and were too expensive to keep producing even for the absurd asking price, whereas all the 3rd party groups are making their mats themselves, which certainly would amortise some of the costs involved.

I don't own any mats, so I will just use what the store has. This is 99% going to be 60x44, since for stores it is so much easier to just put together kill team boards, not to mention that they can fit more games in the same space.

By the way, those who think that the dimensions have no impact on the game are fooling themselves. The impact is huge.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Funny bit(without better measuring one of the card-mats I have), per the description of "moon base klasius" You cannot get the minimum dimensions(65"x42", the 42" is not enough).

Yeah I was gonna mention that. The Moonbase tiles, which I quite like, and the AoS equivalent (which I got scammed over on a Facebook buy/sell group... that was fun), are of a different size as they appear to have been experiments at the very start of this. Same goes for the two actual mats GW released, that were 4x4 yet somehow more expensive than every other company's 6x4's (good 'ol GW prices!).

Given that they abandoned both when they moved to the new size, it seems that they were testing the water with those and found more positive results with boards than mats. Also, it's possible the mats weren't made in house and were too expensive to keep producing even for the absurd asking price, whereas all the 3rd party groups are making their mats themselves, which certainly would amortise some of the costs involved.

I've also got some good news for the fans of high speed ork racing: The speed freeks box allows you to build a 44"x66" board, just measured its tiles

 Sasori wrote:
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'm curious to see if it's any easier to manage models without having to orbit the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Height of bases is constant so we can easily tell the size from the ratio of lip vs width.

I can tell you that isn't true as I have GW bases of different heights from current model kits.

I second this. There seems to be a slight difference of +/- .5mm. Negligible, but base heights aren't fully uniform.

For example, pill bases (long oval bike bases) are ~.8mm shorter in height than 75mm oval bike bases.

So is either of you claiming that the objectives are on 40mm bases, or are you just typing to hear yourselves type?

So what are you going to do if they turn out to be 40mm?