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.

Title says all. New change in board size is beyond stupid imo. You have a game where we have 6 ft range railguns that are supposed to be used in game in a tactical way and now GW wants to reduce board size? Um sorry, but alot of Tau players and ranged armies in general rely on the board size, and me and my buddies who have been playing since 2001 all agree the change is short sighted. We have been known to play on 8 by 4 feet boards on anything that is over 2000 points. Who else is just going to continue to play on 6 by 4, the way the game has always been played for years and years for 2000 points 40k games? What use is there in having a gunline army and your opponent can easily surround you and trap you because the board is too small? What use is there in turbo boosting 3 feet distance transports from Eldar/ Dark Eldar when there is no reason to do so? Beyond ridiculous.

I would have been been fine with the change for 1000-1500 point armies. Sure. But 2000 points? 6 ft by 4 ft, thank you very much and have a nice day.

Well, it depends on if I'm playing on my dining room table or not. My table is almost exactly the new min board size, plus one inch of width.

At the game store where I play, I'll continue using the 6x4s, because, might as well. we have tables that big there.

Yeah, table size for me has always been "what's available"

At home we have either a 3x5 dinning table or two 2x4 folding tables (usually set those up together as a 4x4)

The points changes brought my sons' Marine lists to about 1600pts each, or 1750 if we add their Vanguard Vets.
So that's probably where we'll stay

Occasionally might combine their forces into a Brigade for 2000+ games but we'll still play on the tables we have

What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

 Crusaderobr wrote:
. . . all agree the change is short sided.

Lol.


That aSIDE, ranged engagement doesn't have to mean a literal gunline. Now you have Reserve rules that allow for more positioning dancing, so you can draw the enemy one direction, and then strike from another. I think ranged armies will be fine, they just may not deploy in the same way.

Probably just easier to play on my 6x4 mat. I might experement and mask off the extra bits, but I suspect in casual play, it’s not going to make that big a deal. We never really hugged the back edges much anyway.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

They have not. Its just a minimum. You are not breaking any rules by using a 6×4 board.

The idea is probably just so people can make a board out of multiples of the kill zone boards. Just as an option.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

They literally wrote an article about this.

On the topic of Combat Patrol, though many of you will be familiar with fighting battles that roughly equate to the size of Incursion (approx. 50 Power/1000 points), Strike Force (approx. 100 Power/2000 points) and even Onslaught (approx. 150 Power/3000 points), Combat Patrol is aimed specifically at small-scale skirmishes and vanguard operations. As such, it’s the perfect size for lunchtime games, as you should easily be able to finish in under an hour, and you don’t even need an especially large surface to play on!

Incursion is 1000 points per side while Combat Patrol is 500 per side.
Again, this is the MINIMUM SIZE. That means you can play larger if you want to, but they balanced the game sizes around these table sizes as the minimum.

Also remember that tournaments set their own rules. They're the epitome of house ruling things.

All the people in my gaming group have 6x4 mats. Most of our other Wargames use 6x4.
GW still sells their own 6x4. It is a minimum size. So, in no way this is enforced and outside of tournaments I don't think anyone will actually use the new size or care about it. People starting with Kill Team might use it or I suspect GW to produce more mats with their new minimum size for 40K in the Future so newer players might use it. The majority will continue to use what they have.

Not ever playing anti-melee 6x4 boards ever again.

 Crusaderobr wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What part of minimum board size is so complex for people to understand?

I was under the impression they changed the board side for matched play, tournament play. I havent seen the actual rulebook so was just going off what other people have posted online and are talking about. Are you saying its optional and not enforced for matched play? If so, then nothing to worry about I suppose.

It's listed for every game type, but in a "play on a surface at least this big for fair game for this points level".

Locally the feeling is a 4x4 makes a better 1k table size than the GW suggested one.

There're plenty of "recommendations" I'd rather the community ignores (e.g. continue to use Legends, it still "100% matched play legal by the rules").

I'd also hope (against hope) some tournaments continue to run Maelstrom. It's just an infinitely deeper and tactically more rewarding format than the "pick-your-own-adventure-secondary"-thing that come with the ITC-fication of 40K.



The smaller boards on the other hand are actually pretty awesome IMO.

I'll still be using my 6x4 board and then just marking down to the recommended size. My group likes to do a lot of 1v1v1v1 type battles so we will most likely still use the 6x4 for games like that. But yeah if your group wants 6x4 all the time its the recommended minimum and you don't have to play on the new smaller size

I'll absolutely be using the smaller size. It just feels more balanced.

You do you, though.

Honestly I don't think it'll make much difference at all. 6x4 biggest difference tactically would be it's easier to deep strike stuff behind enemy lines because the missions push you hard into the middle anyway.

So, better for objectives like Linebreaker, Deploy Homer, etc, because it's easier to sneak a stupid little unit way in the back corner and hide them.

I wonder how much different the 6x4 games are going to be from hte games GW tested the rules at. And how big the differences are.

I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

Seems most of my area is on the smaller boards now. If you pushed really hard you could find a couple that will allow for 6x4 but you'll have to put some energy into it.

Gonna stick with 6x4. My table supports it, all my mats are 6x4 or 4x4 and the people I play with want to keep playing on 6x4 as well.

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique people buy new mats in the new (weird) "standard".

It's actually one of the few 9th related things that don't like. Luckily, I can completely ignore it because I basically only ever play with friends at home, and never play pick-up games or tournaments with strangers who might want to enforce the new table size.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I have zero intention of changing table/mat size as long as its usable. Not that any are open for events, but every local store I'm aware of is also not planning on changing their tables.

On top of that, I don't see any reason at all to arbitrarily taking a existing 6x4 board and artificially reducing the play area down to the new minimum, just because it's the new minimum for its own sake, either.

For places where space is at a premium and they can actually make use of the additional space (most places with 4-12 tables won't really be able to), fine, and I can see the draw for large events with triple digits worth of players or for games in dorm rooms and whatnot. But outside of that? 6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

I don't think anyone would actually modify the tables themselves, it's more likely that there will be available boards and mats for placement on top of the table.

My FLGS isn't going to start cutting up it's boards, but it's going to get mats and tiles that match the new minimum size for 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:
6x4 isn't going anywhere, especially when every other tabletop game in existence is sticking to that size (makes issues for stores that run more than just 40k difficult).

Eh. Most stores near me will happily change. Warhammer was pretty much the only game played in the local and not-so-local stores that used that size. Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Star Wars Xwing, none of them give a fig about 6'x4.'
More space for M:tG tables, as far as they're concerned.

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Not ever playing anti-melee 6x4 boards ever again.

48"x72" is now antimelee but 44"x60" perfectly fine (as if -6"/2" inches in your Deployment zone could make a difference at all whist still 24" distance between armies)

Strategic Reserves are more impactful on a smaller board. It's also the tournament standard this edition.

I won't turn down a game on a 6x4 but I already have a mat for 44x60.

ERJAK wrote:
Strategic Reserves are more impactful on a smaller board. It's also the tournament standard this edition.

I won't turn down a game on a 6x4 but I already have a mat for 44x60.

I'd say it's the opposite. One of the differences playing on the 6x4 is you have more opportunities to place units out of reserves in advantageous positions behind the enemy instead of just joining the mosh pit in the middle.

6x4 is better for extreme range units, and it's better for deep strikers/reserves. 44x60 is better for short range units, and tougher, slower units.

The FLGS has 4X8 tables sometimes we use the entire table depending on which game we are playing, when it comes to terrain mats i have

.X2 city maps
.farm fields
.semi urban
.water
all in 4X6

an additional
.ruined midevil town
.tau city
.rocky desert
.high tech city
.X2 space
.X2 15mm scale city
in 4X4

Some are for standard 40K,, or DUST 1947, or epic 40K, or battletech, or heavy gear, or infinity, or warmachine or victory at sea, or b5 wars/star trek/star wars

additionally since the only 40K i play now is either 5th ed, 30K or epic i don't care what the table sizes are for 9th

I am certainly not changing map sizes after i spent all that money for them.(even though i have seen a few others i want i have no more room to transport them all).

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

.

I did some poking around, because I was curious about this to. For SW: Legion and Armada, their standard size is 6x3, which is even odder, to my mind. That's either too narrow a separation between armies, non-existent deployment zones, or they play lengthwise and have way too much space between armies.

I guess.. Flames of War? If people are still playing that?
A search shows Dust Tactics maybe used 6x4? But there is an awful lot of guessing coming up in my search results for that. And its, you know, dead.

Voss wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

The new minimum board-size in 9th seems arbitrary and implemented only for the sake of making 40k unique

I've seen people say this a couple times. What other game uses 6x4? Warmachine is way smaller IIRC, I'm pretty certain Xwing is too, so that's the two big ones. is GW making 40k smaller to make it unique from..AOS, the other game GW makes?

.

I did some poking around, because I was curious about this to. For SW: Legion and Armada, their standard size is 6x3 (which is even odder, to my mind). That's either too narrow a separation between armies, non-existent deployment zones, or they play lengthwise and have way too much space between armies.

I guess.. Flames of War? If people are still playing that?

Maybe for new players our FOW group usually puts 2 tables together for a massive 8X8 that they then fill with loads of fantastic terrain. they like their battles to be massive.

Like Ive said before my club will most likely use 6x4 or 4x3 due to the tables available to us but if folks splash out of the mats of approved mandatory fun thats good too