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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 xeen wrote:
I don't understand what the issue is here. Everyone understands that the new board sizes fit well within a 6 x4 table. Just mark off the "edges" with the right board space recommended and play. It is not like you go into a game store and go, " oh man, they only have 6 x 4 tables so I guess we can't play because the models can't be placed right up to the physical board edge". I mean it is not that hard to mark it off. And quite frankly I think it is better (it is how the game was balanced for) as I have had models get knocked off the board edge and break on the floor. Now there is a buffer, and some room in the back of the table to put down your dice etc. without it actually being in the field of play. I just don't understand why people are making a big deal about this.

I think herein lies the problem. The new size is a *minimum*, not something the rulebook clearly recommendeds as a standard to wholesale transition towards, and I think the perception that the minimum is supposed to be such a standard now is what people are really irked about more than anything else. If you already have a 6x4, why bother marking it down just to adhere to the new minimum for its own sake instead of just...playing it as it is, unless physical space is a particularly huge requirement?

I see your point. If you want to play on a 6 x 4 then cool. If not, it is really easy to mark it off. I just don't understand why people are freaking out. Personally based on play and watching battle reports I think the smaller board is better. I believe GW (or maybe play testers) said the game is balanced for those sizes (as much as GW can balance anything). I think it makes the game faster. I think it limits sit in the back and shoot armes which I don't like very much. I think it helps melee. These are my opinions.

But if we went to a pick up game and you wanted to use the whole 6 x 4 that would be fine. To me the issue is the way some people talk about this is like you can't use a 6 x 4 board. You can. You don't have to cut your 6 x 4 mats. Marking off a board it not hard, is not confusing, and I have had no issues playing on a 6 x 4 board making off the end of the battlefield. This seems like a preference thing, and just don't get why it is a big deal in the slightest. Again if someone wants to play on the whole 6 x4 then fine. But acting (not anyone in particular just the general feel of this thread) like this board size change is some big complex thing that is ruining the game seems like an overreaction. Even if the smaller board size was mandatory, I don't think this would be a big deal.

the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

1500 on 6x4' & 2k on 8x4 sounds like it has the best of both worlds; enuff room to maneuver & plenty of space for obstacles and large line of sight blocking terrain.

Yeah, I find some players take suggestions from GW as if they were rules. It started with the "rule of 3" which was a mere suggestion for a very narrow way of playing the game (organized events), it continued with the same people treating legends as if it meant those models were out of the game when the whole point of it was to keep them in the game and it goes on with minimum size being treated as the only possible way. These things are also highly selective.
When I play Cities of Death with legends and power Level you'd read tournament focused guys saying yeah, that's Garage hammer and not real 40K. Funnily enough with that approach I'm following strict GW rules unlike every ITC player with his House rules.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Yeah, I find some players take suggestions from GW as if they were rules. It started with the "rule of 3" which was a mere suggestion for a very narrow way of playing the game (organized events), it continued with the same people treating legends as if it meant those models were out of the game when the whole point of it was to keep them in the game and it goes on with minimum size being treated as the only possible way. These things are also highly selective.
When I play Cities of Death with legends and power Level you'd read tournament focused guys saying yeah, that's Garage hammer and not real 40K. Funnily enough with that approach I'm following strict GW rules unlike every ITC player with his House rules.

People can do as they please. They just can't expect to come here and complain about how the game is unbalanced and force us to unpack their statements until we find out they didn't use Ro3 or some other balancing mechanic.

This doesn't make tournaments perfectly balanced, but it makes them more balanced than they otherwise would be.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a reviewer, youtuber, etc say one of the reasons faction "x" is better in 9th is the reduced table size, I'd be a rich man. Well, not rich, but could probably buy a beer or ten on the weekend. As much as people keep harping about it being a "minimum" there is a pretty strong push to make people realize that the game is optimized on the smaller tables.
Won't know til i try it.

 bullyboy wrote:
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a reviewer, youtuber, etc say one of the reasons faction "x" is better in 9th is the reduced table size, I'd be a rich man. Well, not rich, but could probably buy a beer or ten on the weekend. As much as people keep harping about it being a "minimum" there is a pretty strong push to make people realize that the game is optimized on the smaller tables.
Won't know til i try it.

Generally because those armies are probably CQC focused. Your Harlies will most certainly find the terrain and table sizes beneficial in some form or another.

I didn't have problems getting into CC with my Death Guard (!) last edition and I probably won't have them this edition.

Strg Alt wrote:I built my gaming table twenty years ago and no corporate sleazebag from Nottingham will mess with it in any way.

It's a good thing those "corporate sleazbags" don't care at all, and have outright told you that you don't have to change anything with your table.

Racerguy180 wrote:
the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

Exactly. I mean, by the same rationale, the 'minimum' is 1 X HQ and 1 unit of troops - so everyone should only play with that...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

People can do as they please. They just can't expect to come here and complain about how the game is unbalanced and force us to unpack their statements until we find out they didn't use Ro3 or some other balancing mechanic.

This doesn't make tournaments perfectly balanced, but it makes them more balanced than they otherwise would be.

okey, but there is a difference between taking or not taking 3 non troop units and stores having boards of a size which is not optimal for 9th ed. Players have the agency to use, or not, the rule of 3, and unless you play at home no one is going to rebuild the tables to fit GW weird table size. And it works even worse for all those place where people played 4x4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
the problem is players WANTING to only do the minimum. Along with "professional" tourney gamers going full on how this magically makes the game better and balanced. An unfortunate side effect of how the tourney scene feths with the rest of the player base is now pick up games will become a smorgasbord of smaller tables.

I guess it's just me in that minimum is like an D in school, okay and enuff but.....

Exactly. I mean, by the same rationale, the 'minimum' is 1 X HQ and 1 unit of troops - so everyone should only play with that...

Only that is not the event minimum. That is why you didn't see many 500pts games, and more or less everyone when talking about armies in 8th was talking about 2000pts.