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.

Breton wrote:

 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.

Well it once "was" a wargame.

We don't like the smaller sizes quite as much. It really compounds the "mosh-pitting" issue that comes naturally with 9th. Some people have said it makes maneuvering more important, which is odd to me. It makes both placement and movement considerably less important. On those smaller sizes, you can put an infantry squad down in the wrong spot and it's still got a really good chance to get where it needs to go. Pretty much everything can get just about anywhere at those smaller sizes, and almost every army has at least one or two units that can clear the length of the table each turn.

It DOES make timing very important as the flip side is that while almost everything can get almost everywhere, almost everything is also in range of enemy fire very quickly. So timing moves and deep strikes, etc, becomes really important, but the game as a whole feels even less tactical than before. You end up with either everyone jamming midfield and mosh-pitting, or a more cagey "5th ed" style of play where players are milling about behind cover for a few turns before trying to break out.

Our group played a LOT of games (over 200 at this point since a few restarted playing 9th after we all took a break from it), and we found that 9th felt best at something between the min size and the old standard. More space (but not as much as in 8th) seems to create a much better balance for positioning, moving AND timing and also helped minimize the mosh pits.

Also find the comments of "well now tournaments will have more space for more people" kind of odd. Did the actual tables literally shrink somehow? People will have a little more space for on-table staging areas, but no, it will not make more space for people at tourneys ...

Now I actually want to play that way

 Jidmah wrote:
Now I actually want to play that way

it can be a bit, well , iffy with the measurements on really big tables, but it certainly is a more manouvre intensiv game then it would be now.
Allbeit you also have to adapt the missions, artillery can become really devastating (especially heavier types), you should also implement a Fog of war type system potentially.

Can be massive fun though but it certainly get's away from hot heated middle of the board ball of death torwards a more calculated cold approach, especially if you really weigh in with differing terrain types.

Tycho wrote:
We don't like the smaller sizes quite as much. It really compounds the "mosh-pitting" issue that comes naturally with 9th. Some people have said it makes maneuvering more important, which is odd to me. It makes both placement and movement considerably less important. On those smaller sizes, you can put an infantry squad down in the wrong spot and it's still got a really good chance to get where it needs to go. Pretty much everything can get just about anywhere at those smaller sizes, and almost every army has at least one or two units that can clear the length of the table each turn.

The reason why I feel it makes maneuvering more important is because of two things.
For one, the small movements matter more, because melee is much more important to both capture/contest objectives, but also to gain speed. A unit of deathshroud terminators (4" move, have advances) could be kited indefinitely on larger tables by just moving maximum distance in a straight line from them. With less space to run away and units being spaced out less, now it's essential for my opponents to either stop them or not allow them charges, lest the go on a rampage across his entire army. Deploying terminators on the table is an actual option now and actually is seen frequently in my group now, as good positions to deep strikes can easily be denied. It also extends to my orks - taking Da Jump is no longer an auto-take because the only spot where you can fit a mob of 30 boyz might be your own deployment zone. When I play on 6x4 table, deep striking becomes much more of a no-brainer as there are a lot less modes on the table than there were in 8th, both due to the increased points and because people play less troops due to the detachment/CP changes. So while it is less important on which flank you deploy shooting units, it is just as important for melee units, plus you always have to weigh the risks of moving where you want to be vs moving where your opponent wants you to be.
The second thing many people are describing as flanking maneuvers is essentially just having long-ranged units stay at maximum range or fast units denying low range attacks and charges. With orks and DG I have two particularly slow moving armies, and in editions of old when I played my arch-nemesis of old and his eldar, it usually took me till turn three or four until I could touch one of his hover tanks. It worked in a similarly when playing guard, assaulting a tank that was hugging the table edge usually took all game. With firepower cranked up over the edition, while most ork units got slower and more expensive, this simply doesn't work anymore. Reducing the depth of player's deployment zone by 6" massively chances how long units Units with long ranges and high mobility are still powerful tools, but it makes the game much more interesting when you actively have to maneuver around multiple threats instead of just staying out of the fight completely because of a superior statline.

You end up with either everyone jamming midfield and mosh-pitting, or a more cagey "5th ed" style of play where players are milling about behind cover for a few turns before trying to break out.

I wonder about this, I haven't seen these mosh-pits in many of our games. There are usually two or three heavily contested objectives across the board, but isn't that how the game should be working?

Also find the comments of "well now tournaments will have more space for more people" kind of odd. Did the actual tables literally shrink somehow? People will have a little more space for on-table staging areas, but no, it will not make more space for people at tourneys ...

Well, GTs tend to rent their tables and not have them in storage like some local store event have. Multiple organizers have said that they can either get cheaper or less tables due to the change and thus save money.
Even if the tables didn't change, if you had a row with 10 6x4 tables you can now fit 12 games on those same 10 tables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Can be massive fun though but it certainly get's away from hot heated middle of the board ball of death torwards a more calculated cold approach, especially if you really weigh in with differing terrain types.

In 8th most of my games were about creating a ball of death in my opponent's deployment zone. The only thing that has changed is that armies like mine no longer have to wait till turn 3 to start playing the game.
I really don't see an issue with the way 9th edition plays, quite the opposite. I think people are just having issues with melee finally becoming a real alternative to shooting and most sit&shoot strategies becoming obsolete.

There are usually two or three heavily contested objectives across the board, but isn't that how the game should be working?

Those are mosh pits. Just personal preference here, but the way it works out, it feels less like you're fighting one large cohesive battle, and more like you're fighting out two or three small, unrelated skirmish games. Plenty of people like it that way, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. I just don't like the feel as much.

That said, I also find that it's all much worse at 2000 points. So far, 9th has felt "bad" at that size, but way better at closer to 1000-1200 points. A lot of the issues I mentioned having go away at that size.