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.

This thread is spun out from another thread where a side discussion developed about whether or Not GW should be recommending the board sizes. The board size thing is something I've been really interested in since it was revealed. I'm not really interested in an argument about "why" they did it - specifically an argument about was the intent to generate sales directly vs balance the game, or streamline the game to make it better (and ultimately generate sales indirectly). I really want to hear your honest opinions of how the new table size is playing out in real life.

I've heard people say it's big change and it's great and it will help reduce static gunlines!
Then I hear people say there is no point trying out the new missions on the old 6x4 table size because it only adds such a tiny amount of space that people never used anyway.
Every battle report on YouTube I've seen is using the new minimum table sizes and they all seem *really* excited about it! When I asked one of them if they had tried the new missions on the old sized tables they said 'No, but it wouldn't change anything because everyone has to rush to the middle to grab objectives'.

I was really hoping to play a lot of games and try out the new missions with the new table sizes and then play the same mission& same armies on the old table size and see if I could get a feel for how it changes the flow of the game - if at all. I'm stuck in a pandemic hot zone - all the local clubs are shut down and no one in my social circle plays 40k.

So what are your thoughts on the new minimum table sizes? Do they change the game in a truly meaningful way? Have you tried playing new missions on the old standard sizes - or old missions on the new smaller minimum?
Do you think GW is changing gun ranges, and unit movement values based on the new recommended table size even though it's just the "minimum"?

Here's the discussion from the other thread about GW's history of recommending table sizes:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?

Honest answer(s): Yes, yes, maybe? but ok fine skip it, yes
Now here they are in reverse order to your questions so we can go through a rules journey together in chronological order.

5th edition mini rulebook page 88, Prepare the Battlefield
"Standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface, with each player sitting behind one of the long table edges"
...
"If you are playing a game with a very large or small points limit you may want to consider larger or smaller gaming surfaces. ... establish different table edges as described"
[Shows image of a rectangle table with player edges marked on long edges]

6th edition mini rulebook page iv, The Battlefield
"Whether you're playing on a bare tabletop, a green sheet looted from the airing cupboard, or a bespoke set of modeled terrain, every game of Warhammer 40k needs a battlefield.
As with collecting armies, in time most hobbyists chose to collect a fantastic scenery set too - encompassing a Realm of Battle Gameboard such as the one shown here, along with a multitude of evocative Warhammer 40k scenery pieces."
Pages 118 The Battlefield
"In Eternal War missions, the board is divided into two equal halves [describes different methods] The method used ... will determine the shape of the players' deployment zones.
Page 119 Deployment Maps
No sizes given for the full board -the length of the full table and width of deployment zones is not defined- but tables are shown to be rectangles with symmetrical deployment zones with 24" between each deployment zone.
Page 120 Battlefield Size
"This section assumes that you are playing on a battlefield that can be divided equally into 2' x 2' sections If [you can't] instead divide it into a number of equal sections as close to 2' x 2' as possible.

7th Edition BRB Page 130, The Battlefield, The Field of War
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface ... The battlefield can be of any size from 2' x 2' upwards. We recommend that it not be more than 6' wide at any point [because hard to reach]. Battlefields are most often rectangular in shape, but can be square, round, L-shaped, or whatever other configuration is agreed upon. A realm of Battle board makes an excellent battlefield, but a typical dining table will suffice."
Page 131, Deployment Zone maps
Same or similar maps from 6th edition showing rectangular tables of undefined maximum size with a minimum of 24" between deployment zones.
Page 132, Not Enough Room
"It's not uncommon to find that you can't fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone [they go into reserves]. This being said, a far better solution is to increase the size of the battlefield and/or the size of the deployment zones being used." [Or less scenery, or shuffle things around till they fit].

8th Edition BRB Page 186, The Battlefield
"A battlefield can be any surface upon which the models can stand - a dining table for example, or the floor. We typically assume a battlefield is 6' x 4' (although some missions will state other dimensions), but it should always be large enough to accommodate all your models - if it's not, simply increase the size of the battlefield."

So, not played with the new edition (hell, haven't played since lockdown), but I'm not changing in how I play.

I'll play on whatever table I have available. We've got a 6x4? Great, we'll use that.
We've got a pair of game boards? We'll use that.
We've got a kitchen table that's 5x3? We'll use that.

There is no "forcing" to use new sizes beyond your own choices.

The new board size has forced me to rework what has been primarily a gunline army for me, losing 12 inches makes a huge difference to the threats I face in game and how I interact with my opponent. I don't just point and shoot now and make my opponent remove models, I actually have to think around the board now.

Honestly, reducing the board size was a good thing. It accommodates for combat armies, decisions matter more in terms of model placement and set-up, and people with smaller gaming spaces.

In terms of GW changing weapon ranges to accommodate, I think based on the current spoilers for SM and Necrons, they haven't considered it one bit.

Well, since you left out the replies in the other thread:

6th edition mini rulebook page iv, The Battlefield
"Whether you're playing on a bare tabletop, a green sheet looted from the airing cupboard, or a bespoke set of modeled terrain, every game of Warhammer 40k needs a battlefield.

Many of the missions in 6th call out 6x4 as 'intended'. See pages 346, 350, 354.

Rogue Trader also deems 6x4 a 'fair size,' and then immediately admits to using a dining table at times.

---
The board size this edition is only unusual in that they didn't clearly specify a best/intended size, just a minimum and otherwise left it up to players.

I use Drukhari, and the friend I've been playing against play Harlequins. Neither army has any trouble getting around, so we just use the old 6'x4'. If I were playing against a slower army, I'd probably switch to the new minimum so that they aren't being disadvantaged.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
This thread is spun out from another thread where a side discussion developed about whether or Not GW should be recommending the board sizes. The board size thing is something I've been really interested in since it was revealed. I'm not really interested in an argument about "why" they did it - specifically an argument about was the intent to generate sales directly vs balance the game, or streamline the game to make it better (and ultimately generate sales indirectly). I really want to hear your honest opinions of how the new table size is playing out in real life.

I've heard people say it's big change and it's great and it will help reduce static gunlines!
Then I hear people say there is no point trying out the new missions on the old 6x4 table size because it only adds such a tiny amount of space that people never used anyway.
Every battle report on YouTube I've seen is using the new minimum table sizes and they all seem *really* excited about it! When I asked one of them if they had tried the new missions on the old sized tables they said 'No, but it wouldn't change anything because everyone has to rush to the middle to grab objectives'.

I was really hoping to play a lot of games and try out the new missions with the new table sizes and then play the same mission& same armies on the old table size and see if I could get a feel for how it changes the flow of the game - if at all. I'm stuck in a pandemic hot zone - all the local clubs are shut down and no one in my social circle plays 40k.

So what are your thoughts on the new minimum table sizes? Do they change the game in a truly meaningful way? Have you tried playing new missions on the old standard sizes - or old missions on the new smaller minimum?
Do you think GW is changing gun ranges, and unit movement values based on the new recommended table size even though it's just the "minimum"?

Here's the discussion from the other thread about GW's history of recommending table sizes:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Honest question: Has GW ever put recommended board sizes in the 40K rulebooks in the past? Did 8th have it? 7th? 6th was replaced before the ink was dry so forget that. 5th?

Honest answer(s): Yes, yes, maybe? but ok fine skip it, yes
Now here they are in reverse order to your questions so we can go through a rules journey together in chronological order.

5th edition mini rulebook page 88, Prepare the Battlefield
"Standard missions are designed to be played on a 6'x4' gaming surface, with each player sitting behind one of the long table edges"
...
"If you are playing a game with a very large or small points limit you may want to consider larger or smaller gaming surfaces. ... establish different table edges as described"
[Shows image of a rectangle table with player edges marked on long edges]

6th edition mini rulebook page iv, The Battlefield
"Whether you're playing on a bare tabletop, a green sheet looted from the airing cupboard, or a bespoke set of modeled terrain, every game of Warhammer 40k needs a battlefield.
As with collecting armies, in time most hobbyists chose to collect a fantastic scenery set too - encompassing a Realm of Battle Gameboard such as the one shown here, along with a multitude of evocative Warhammer 40k scenery pieces."
Pages 118 The Battlefield
"In Eternal War missions, the board is divided into two equal halves [describes different methods] The method used ... will determine the shape of the players' deployment zones.
Page 119 Deployment Maps
No sizes given for the full board -the length of the full table and width of deployment zones is not defined- but tables are shown to be rectangles with symmetrical deployment zones with 24" between each deployment zone.
Page 120 Battlefield Size
"This section assumes that you are playing on a battlefield that can be divided equally into 2' x 2' sections If [you can't] instead divide it into a number of equal sections as close to 2' x 2' as possible.

7th Edition BRB Page 130, The Battlefield, The Field of War
"The battlefield is usually a flat surface ... The battlefield can be of any size from 2' x 2' upwards. We recommend that it not be more than 6' wide at any point [because hard to reach]. Battlefields are most often rectangular in shape, but can be square, round, L-shaped, or whatever other configuration is agreed upon. A realm of Battle board makes an excellent battlefield, but a typical dining table will suffice."
Page 131, Deployment Zone maps
Same or similar maps from 6th edition showing rectangular tables of undefined maximum size with a minimum of 24" between deployment zones.
Page 132, Not Enough Room
"It's not uncommon to find that you can't fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone [they go into reserves]. This being said, a far better solution is to increase the size of the battlefield and/or the size of the deployment zones being used." [Or less scenery, or shuffle things around till they fit].

8th Edition BRB Page 186, The Battlefield
"A battlefield can be any surface upon which the models can stand - a dining table for example, or the floor. We typically assume a battlefield is 6' x 4' (although some missions will state other dimensions), but it should always be large enough to accommodate all your models - if it's not, simply increase the size of the battlefield."

So, I don't like the new board size; but I also think that 6'x4' is too small. 6'x8' might still be too small.

That said, I don't dislike the new size any more than I disliked 6x4, and conveniently 30"x44" is exactly the size of my kitchen table so like from the sense of practicality I imagine it's much more play-at-home friendly for the missions to be at the new size and players with their own tables get a few extra inches of space. That said, I already have a 7'x4' table built, and I intent to continue using it.


The fundemental problem with a small board is that there's no operational and tactical depth-of-field. There's a general broad-front attack... and then nothing because there's no penetration or exploitation because there's nowhere to penetrate to. There's no defense in depth, attack/counterattack, and fluid maneuver combat because everything from the long range guns to the shock infantry are stacked right up on top of each other. And with progressive scoring the major focus on holding the no-man's land over penetrating enemy positions the game is by and large decided by a ball in the middle.

Also, with such a small board and the general lack of trade-off for fire and maneuver, all but the slowest units can flex far too easily once committed to the action further drawing units into a ball.

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger.

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

Smaller boards make infantry more viable, larger boards are better for vehicles.

Currently with the reworks on some armies and the introduction of so many new infantry (primaris) guys it makes sense that GW would go with a smaller board size.

It does make the game more action packed but also requires more terrain concentration to not be blown off the board early.



If you find you do not have enough terrain go with larger and more sparse tables (Mountain Vally's, Tundra's, forests).

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Smaller boards make infantry more viable, larger boards are better for vehicles.

It's not entirely true. Some vehicles like the Bonebreaka love the smaller tables as they want to charge turn 1 if possible. Other vehicles carry flamers or some short ranged weapons and they couldn't be able to do anything after they moved in a big table.

Larger boards are also better for big blobs of troops. Deepstriking 30 boyz is super efficient in a large board as they'd always find a convenient spot to be re-deployed, not so easy in a smaller table.

You need fixed board sizes for competitive play, it impacts too many variables to have a balanced game without it.

I don't really see why this is even really a discussion. If you want to, play on whatever size board you want. But the game can only be balanced to play on one board size, and the more you deviate from that, the wonkier the balance is going to become. GW has to be balancing based on a given assumed size, so it only makes sense for GW to tell us what that size is, which they have done.

Voss wrote:

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

sounds like a perfect spot for large LOS blocking terrain that's impassable.

People dont play with enuff terrain that PREVENTS you from doing something.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
This thread is spun out from another thread where a side discussion developed about whether or Not GW should be recommending the board sizes. The board size thing is something I've been really interested in since it was revealed. I'm not really interested in an argument about "why" they did it - specifically an argument about was the intent to generate sales directly vs balance the game, or streamline the game to make it better (and ultimately generate sales indirectly). I really want to hear your honest opinions of how the new table size is playing out in real life.

In my experience there's no difference now vs before. That's because we're just using the tables/mats/etc that we've got. In most cases the tables 4x6 or 4x8. But we'll play on whatevers handy.
1) The sizes listed are the suggested minimums. NOT maximums.
2) We're lazy. We're not making any effort to zone off any "excess". And our armies didn't suddenly change - either models or ranges. So since we were already fully able to deal with the 4x6/4x8s in all the time prior to 9th ed.....

Honestly, as local gaming venues are still shut down, there is no effect. My gut instinct is that most venues are going to continue using 4x6 size tables, they may mark down play areas or buy new mats for tournaments, but that's probably it, and even then maybe not.

For solo/home/garage gaming, I'll use what I already have (4x6 tables/mats/etc), and I don't intend to artificially shrink the play area to the new minimum, nor acquire new mats/tables/etc, just to fit the new minimum simply just "because", particularly as 4x6 is still perfectly legal and functional. Additionally, the new GW minimum size doesn't really jive for any other tabletop games, so any other tabletop minis related stuff I'd want to play would still require the larger size in at least one dimension.

4x8 was best, with shorter movement all around, shorter weapon ranges, more expensive units. Table felt bigger. Of course, we didn't have marine snipers with bullets that don't need line of sight, so, there is that difference too.

Voss wrote:

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

5'9".

That said, its not the number of models, its how fast they can move, shoot, charge, and threaten each other.

Fewer models doesn't solve the problem of the game being a ball in the middle.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Voss wrote:

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

sounds like a perfect spot for large LOS blocking terrain that's impassable.

People dont play with enuff terrain that PREVENTS you from doing something.

Or a river or long pushers like in the map room where they plotted the planes in the battle of britain.

We have experimented with the smaller board sizes and everyone in our group loves them. Everyone has confirmed that the games just feel like there is more action, maneuvering and decisions going on than on the larger board where some units can just stay out of the fight forever and there always is a spot to deepstrike whatever unit you want.
We are using marking tape and barricades to block off the unused parts of our 6x4 tables.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, not played with the new edition (hell, haven't played since lockdown), but I'm not changing in how I play.

I'll play on whatever table I have available. We've got a 6x4? Great, we'll use that.
We've got a pair of game boards? We'll use that.
We've got a kitchen table that's 5x3? We'll use that.

There is no "forcing" to use new sizes beyond your own choices.

Well, some missions indirectly force you into certain minimum table sizes because you can't fit the setup on smaller ones. You can always go larger, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

Agree, I'm 6' 4" tall and when playing on the one of our table which has ~6" large borders all around a 6x4 battlefields to place books, units, dice and other stuff, reaching into the middle of that board is barely doable for me before I start knocking over things, not to mention that it causes me back pains in longer games. Playing on 44" deep boards is much more comfortable. It's also nice to be able to play 1k point games on my dinner table.
It's also worth mentioning that onslaught games are played on a significantly wider battlefield than you would have played 3k points in past editions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Voss wrote:

Personally, I think a board at the scale of 40k should be 6' wide by 8' deep. Arguably even bigger

How tall are you and how long are your arms?
That's just impractical- 34" is about my reach limit before I need to start going belly-down on the table. Anything in the center is going to be a pain to move, and terrain/models closer to me are going to have to be shuffled out of the way.

I'd suggest a smaller point size before making tables that big.

5'9".

That said, its not the number of models, its how fast they can move, shoot, charge, and threaten each other.

Fewer models doesn't solve the problem of the game being a ball in the middle.

Well, right. That's my point, engaging in the middle is pretty much unavoidable, so players need to be able to comfortably get in there to measure, move things around and etc. Going bigger makes all of that more difficult. It makes playing the game more difficult.

I have boards to let us play 6'x4' but as we mainly play 1500 to 2000 point games we got off the end to play the "minimum" length but keep the 4' width. Otherwise it is just awkward. Haven't played anything other than Strike Force missions yet though but we'll have to shrink the table somewhat just to try it out.

I've noticed that under the small table size that games are more brutal and bloody. You can't sit back in gunlines and you have to go forward. Close quarters combat seems to be the way of 9th edition now past turn 2 for the most part. I get the impression that GW want to speed the game up somewhat and that is why tables and smaller, and why they have made you go forwards. It just takes getting used to really.

I wish they had left it to the original 6'x4' as now tables feel too small and confined at Strike Force sizes. Will have to see what the smaller tables feel like when I can convince someone to play a smaller game size.

Played a lot of games of strike force on the 44x60.

I love it. This goes hand in hand with missions being far far better (or, I prefer them), as the risen importance in objective holding has shrunk the board further- you need to be in the opponents face, or lose. The smaller board encourages far far far more thought to be put into movement and positioning, and it better characterizes armies speeds, I find. Slow armies still feel slow, implacable, and unwieldy while fast armies feel properly speedy, and that they can get where they want when they want. It means that the game is played across the whole board, not just parts of it. That one unit you'd stick on a far flank to hold an objective or something is far more a part of the game in 9th than in 8th- and it requires proper thought to get gambles of position right to help win games.

I always see lots of whinging about a big ruckus forming in the middle- but isn't that what a battle is? past the bottom of t2 all my games are just a messy fistfight vying for objectives and point scoring- which I find wonderful. Maybe it's not how people prefer to play, but I find it so much more interesting than sitting back and trying to bait/destroy each other.

Admittedly, 44x30 at incursion is ridiculous, cramped and unbalanced to hell. But then again it's almost a different game entirely.

Also, noone is stopping you from playing on a bigger table. We tried it and it was ok, but ultimately just prefer the smaller size.

In my opinion, there's a hell of a lot going for smaller tables

 Vaktathi wrote:
Honestly, as local gaming venues are still shut down, there is no effect. My gut instinct is that most venues are going to continue using 4x6 size tables, they may mark down play areas or buy new mats for tournaments, but that's probably it, and even then maybe not.

For solo/home/garage gaming, I'll use what I already have (4x6 tables/mats/etc), and I don't intend to artificially shrink the play area to the new minimum, nor acquire new mats/tables/etc, just to fit the new minimum simply just "because", particularly as 4x6 is still perfectly legal and functional. Additionally, the new GW minimum size doesn't really jive for any other tabletop games, so any other tabletop minis related stuff I'd want to play would still require the larger size in at least one dimension.

I can only speak locally (Though I do live in a very large urban area) All of the gaming stores have been buying mats with the new min size to place on the table. They are not getting rid of the tables, but putting the mats on top.

The new missions work really well on the new size board, and melee is actually really strong now. I think it's much better for the overall balance of the game so far.

 Sasori wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Honestly, as local gaming venues are still shut down, there is no effect. My gut instinct is that most venues are going to continue using 4x6 size tables, they may mark down play areas or buy new mats for tournaments, but that's probably it, and even then maybe not.

For solo/home/garage gaming, I'll use what I already have (4x6 tables/mats/etc), and I don't intend to artificially shrink the play area to the new minimum, nor acquire new mats/tables/etc, just to fit the new minimum simply just "because", particularly as 4x6 is still perfectly legal and functional. Additionally, the new GW minimum size doesn't really jive for any other tabletop games, so any other tabletop minis related stuff I'd want to play would still require the larger size in at least one dimension.

I can only speak locally (Though I do live in a very large urban area) All of the gaming stores have been buying mats with the new min size to place on the table. They are not getting rid of the tables, but putting the mats on top.

The new missions work really well on the new size board, and melee is actually really strong now. I think it's much better for the overall balance of the game so far.

Have you had a chance to play any of the new missions on the old boards before they added the new sized ones?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, not played with the new edition (hell, haven't played since lockdown), but I'm not changing in how I play.

I'll play on whatever table I have available. We've got a 6x4? Great, we'll use that.

The difference is both pretty minor potentially significant. 6x4 is 3456 Square inches. 44x60 is 2640. Your table size dropped by about roughly 25%. But much of the Not-Within rules remained the same or similar. Deploy Not within 24, Not within 12, etc. Points changes will usually result in fewer models on the smaller table, changes to "Infiltrate" (the not in your own zone deployment by whatever name they're calling it in the current edition) has also changed to not within your opponent's deployment zone. So most of that 25% table area we "lost" will be the unused to no-longer-used areas anyway i.e. you can't infiltrate into the empty corner of their board in preparation to run up their table edge into their Devastator types or to get easy credit for Four Corners secondaries etc.


The potentially significant comes in longer weapon and movement ranges not shrinking. Your back edge isn't 24 deep for bolter defense anymore, more of the table is within 5 turns of mobile ground troops - but we no longer have a 6th turn and potentially a 7th or more. Fewer artillery type units can hit more of the board if split and spread. on 48x72, the halfway hypotenuse is 60 inches. You stick a model on the exact halfway point of your long edge on the edge, they need a 59/60" weapon to make that shot to either corner. You do it on a 44x60 and you need just under a 54" inch range. Start making those models 6" artillery tanks and they're hitting the whole board from the center line. The Earthshaker can still pretty much set up anywhere and hit everywhere, but the Whirlwinds, Wyverns, about 50% of the various tanks etc now cover the whole board from that center line. Likewise your 48" Heavy Weapons Teams/Devs etc also cover about half the board from the corner. So overall the board isn't all that different with slightly less stuff on slightly less area, but the stuff on the board can reach out and touch more of it from places they couldn't before.

My experience of the smaller table size thus far is that things get to contact much faster and nothing's ever out of range. Some of that's the fault of the king-of-the-hill nature of the missions, but it makes the game feel very punishing if you're not well-equipped for melee.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My experience of the smaller table size thus far is that things get to contact much faster and nothing's ever out of range. Some of that's the fault of the king-of-the-hill nature of the missions, but it makes the game feel very punishing if you're not well-equipped for melee.

Right, that's some of what I was just talking about, the longer range weapons are now in range a lot more often, the change to Infiltrate is also part of the iffy Turn 1 Easy Turn 2 charges... infiltrate onto the objective 12 inches in, and the other guy gets to move 5-6" and charge average 7". I'm not convinced Infiltrating on the objective itself is the right move, especially when you can't score Turn 1. I doubt we'll see changes to Infiltrate in the first flight codexes, but I wouldn't be surprised to see.. well I would be surprised, but I'd like to see a change to Infiltrate before the edition is over something to make Infiltrate more strategic.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
Have you had a chance to play any of the new missions on the old boards before they added the new sized ones?

We have some tables which have terrain built onto them that are difficult to reduce in size because trenches or riverbed paths would get cut off. It feels very different to play as it's a lot harder to protect backfield objectives from deep strikes, and it's a lot easier to keep long-range units out of the heat, especially as long-ranged units like a basilisk or predator can just drive 12" and continue shooting without penalty. It's also a lot harder to intercept units trying to move onto midfield objectives as an extra 6-12" distance can make a huge difference when your army has 18-24" as their default weapon ranges.

In general, the large boards make it easier to avoid the actual game. You need to make less decisions and take less risks and the extra space just inflates the advantages that fast and long-ranged armies have had for many editions. If those tables weren't adding a layer of complexity due to the terrain modeled on them, people would probably stop using them,

 Jidmah wrote:

Agree, I'm 6' 4" tall and when playing on the one of our table which has ~6" large borders all around a 6x4 battlefields to place books, units, dice and other stuff, reaching into the middle of that board is barely doable for me before I start knocking over things, not to mention that it causes me back pains in longer games. Playing on 44" deep boards is much more comfortable.

So how do you account for your physical table not changing sizes? Sure, you're only USING 44" of it. But it's still a 48" (or whatever) table

 Jidmah wrote:
It's also nice to be able to play 1k point games on my dinner table.

But.... you could do that any day prior to 9th ed. What's different today? GWs permission?

 Jidmah wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that onslaught games are played on a significantly wider battlefield than you would have played 3k points in past editions.

Hmm, nope. The tables I play on today are still the same 4x6 or 4x8s I was playing on prior to 9th ed arriving. Everything up to around 5k easily fit & still does. Same tables, same models....

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Agree, I'm 6' 4" tall and when playing on the one of our table which has ~6" large borders all around a 6x4 battlefields to place books, units, dice and other stuff, reaching into the middle of that board is barely doable for me before I start knocking over things, not to mention that it causes me back pains in longer games. Playing on 44" deep boards is much more comfortable.

So how do you account for your physical table not changing sizes? Sure, you're only USING 44" of it. But it's still a 48" (or whatever) table

You took that out of context. I was answering to a post talking about making boards even deeper than 48" which I think is a really bad idea.
The table in question is ~60" deep, and the simple answer is we don't use it anymore. We have 7 gaming tables/boards and a couple of mats for our group, so given the choice people prefer using some folding tables with a battlemat on it over using it.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's also nice to be able to play 1k point games on my dinner table.

But.... you could do that any day prior to 9th ed. What's different today? GWs permission?

Missions, mostly. Missions and deployment types in previous editions simply didn't scale well to smaller boards and armies, and neither did CP, maelstrom cards and whatnot. I feel for the first time 40k works well at 1k without requiring house rules. Small table sizes are part of what makes 500/1000 points actually feel like real games, playing those missions on 4x6 or 4x4 tables makes them feel odd.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that onslaught games are played on a significantly wider battlefield than you would have played 3k points in past editions.

Hmm, nope. The tables I play on today are still the same 4x6 or 4x8s I was playing on prior to 9th ed arriving. Everything up to around 5k easily fit & still does. Same tables, same models....

44x90 is larger than 48x72, which was the default size for games that weren't explicitly planned as apoc games anywhere I ever played. Some onslaught missions physically cannot be played on a 4x6 table.

 Jidmah wrote:

You took that out of context. I was answering to a post talking about making boards even deeper than 48" which I think is a really bad idea.
The table in question is ~60" deep, and the simple answer is we don't use it anymore. We have 7 gaming tables/boards and a couple of mats for our group, so given the choice people prefer using some folding tables with a battlemat on it over using it.

I can absolutely see that. Ever play pool/billiards? Ever see the contortions people will go through with a behind the back cue stick to avoid using the bridge stick? At that point you'd practically have to use those croupier sticks you see in movie war rooms pushing models around.

Most everyone around me that's able to play has embraced the new sizes as the standard, not a minimum. I doubt most places will replace their tables but block off the actual game area unless they decide to buy the new size mats or someone donates some for shop use.

New size is officially adopted though to where I'm pretty sure asking to use 6x4 would be met with the same looks as asking for a 2000 point game and then showing up with 2005 points.

Wayniac wrote:
Most everyone around me that's able to play has embraced the new sizes as the standard, not a minimum. I doubt most places will replace their tables but block off the actual game area unless they decide to buy the new size mats or someone donates some for shop use.

New size is officially adopted though to where I'm pretty sure asking to use 6x4 would be met with the same looks as asking for a 2000 point game and then showing up with 2005 points.

I certainly won't cut my battle maps and if you have 2005 points I'm happy to add a power axe to that Champion