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.

Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Key distinction

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

How is that related to board sizes?

It's not.

Turn 1 charges relate to army rules. The no-mans-land between deployment zones has not meaningfully changed. What has changed is the "back field", having been reduced quite a bit. The deployment to deployment distance hasn't changed.

The distance from the front of your deployment to the back of the enemies deployment has reduced. Which can matter sometimes, but most the turn 1 charges are getting pulled off by 36" supermove units, where the changed backfield would barely matter.

Just looks weird and cramped to me on the smaller boards, especially given the larger units like Knight Titans and the base size creep for normal units. I actually played on smaller boards a lot as a kid and you can for sure still have a good game, but 6x4 seems to fit 28mm games at army level moreso.

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

It was a battle though! The 40k/aos players liked the smaller tables and have been pushing for Conquest to let them get into fighting turn 1 as well lol.

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Better than having units deployed in the corner that shoot every turn with no or little chance to charge them.

 auticus wrote:

Glad to hear the conquest players stuck up for their table sizes though.

It was a battle though! The 40k/aos players liked the smaller tables and have been pushing for Conquest to let them get into fighting turn 1 as well lol.

Christ almighty. If people are that set on needing fighting on turn 1 maybe they should go play M:TG with a pure haste creature deck, or just stick to video games.

Still, it does show just how much influence GW have on the hobby as a whole. They changed the game size to accommodate their product, them other companies try to copy that as they were all to aware that a lot of battlements and such would be made to the new size...

6x4 battlemats, its just better and is the standard for good games likes one page rules and kings of war. for 9th 40k just use thin foamboard or something to block off want you dont want

Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

Just play whatever size you enjoy and ignore anyone telling you how you’re allowed to have fun.

So we're all in agreement. 60x44 for 40k at 2k.

Not even slightly...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

In the same way that the use of D6s was simply based on what size dice typically are available at hobby shops, and D6s weren't dreamt up as the 'magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming'.

So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

 catbarf wrote:
The game was still designed around 6x4 tables

That's not true though.

 catbarf wrote:


So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

It was and this edition is designed around 60x44. 6x4 was "jUsT tHe MiNiMuM" table size, too. What did everyone default to? 6x4. It will be the same with this edition. 60x44 is just the minimum, but that's what people will play because it's the standard. Also my kitchen table or island will fit a 60x44 but a 6x4 hangs off the edges so it's more convenient if I don't want to break out the gaming table.

 catbarf wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Folks, previous standard war gaming board sizes were simply based on what sizes sheets of wood typically comes cut in at DIY places/lumber yards. They weren’t dreamt up as the magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming. Use yer loaf!

In the same way that the use of D6s was simply based on what size dice typically are available at hobby shops, and D6s weren't dreamt up as the 'magical unicorn correct size for perfect wargaming'.

So what? The game was still designed around 6x4 tables and D6s, and changing either can have unintended effects.

So don’t change then? No one is making you. If you like what the changes bring play that way. If you don’t, don't. What part of this is hard to grasp for so many people?

What part of this is hard to grasp for so many people?

Your community.

If your community provides you players that are happy to play on either table, this is not a problem.

My old community was very rigid in only playing by tournament standard, so if I wanted to play on a 6x4 I had to wade through a lot of bitching and complaining and finding someone willing to do so because "the game isn't balanced on a 6x4 it was designed for 60x44" (also known as "all my games are tournament tuning games and you wanting to play on 6x4 means i'm just wasting my time since I can't use it to tune for anything)

Things are vastly different here in the States in regards to how gaming groups operate as opposed to elsewhere. I know my UK friends all have very open gaming groups that are open to a lot of things, so a lot of what they hear coming from over here baffles them but here there are places where its very very difficult to have people deviate from what they consider a standard.

Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

While I agree, their insidious influence does tend to spread out into casual gaming, unfortunately.

Cancer is more like it tho, malignant and needing to be excised.

I mean, people can decide to do differently. No group all think alike, so even a hardcore all tourney all the time group will have two people who want a narrative battle. Two in our group play 3rd edition on an 8x4! Anything is possible and you don’t have to do what you don’t want to. Take a bit of control over your hobby and play like minded people.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I mean, people can decide to do differently. No group all think alike, so even a hardcore all tourney all the time group will have two people who want a narrative battle. Two in our group play 3rd edition on an 8x4! Anything is possible and you don’t have to do what you don’t want to. Take a bit of control over your hobby and play like minded people.

As Auticus points out, much of this is a national mindset/style thing. You lot over there tend to do clubs, where it tends to be a much more regular group and finding like minded individuals is often easier. The States, on the other hand, tends to center around stores, where you're more likely to run into people you've never met/played and thus having a more codified way to play has historically been more important(especially for people like myself who are subject to frequent moves). The most expedient and accepted way to do this tends to be by following whatever tournament system is popular in that area and so most people play expecting that style and finding like minded people is much harder.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Tournaments are such a tiny fraction of the game though. So weird to force everything into that mould.

Thats another thing where our cultures may differ quite a bit. Over here tournaments are a big chunk of the game. Big enough that they very much influence every other aspect very heavily.

Which is why this table size debate is such a big deal to a lot of people over here.

JohnnyHell, I am not personally impacted by this as I already, as you suggest "take control of my own hobby". But not everyone can do that, because people might live in relatively isolated areas, areas where gaming groups are uncommon, or be in some other way restricted from which groups they can attend by something as simple as a scheduling conflict. These people have to play with whoever they are able to, and have to therefore go along with the consensus from the group. It seems pretty clear that the US at least is much more competitive in general (and this bears out my experience of working with Americans, they tend to enjoy competition more in general I would say) when it comes to wargames and therefore there's more pressure to default to competitive standards as "fair".

So I dunno, try imagining the POV of people dealing with that and having a bit of empathy for them.

 deviantduck wrote:
So we're all in agreement. 60x44 for 40k at 2k.

No, 60x44 is the minimum allowed and 2k is just the most common format. That's it, nothing more.

The game works perfectly by using larger tables and/or smaller formats.

If you feel like you need empathy for being angry about a smaller board, the problem isn't your group though...

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

The people passionately opposing the new board sizes are a vocal minority, most people either don't care and a lot of people prefer the new sizes - because of space, availability and/or gameplay. And don't fool yourself - dakka has long stopped being a representative part of the community.

 Da Boss wrote:
JohnnyHell, I am not personally impacted by this as I already, as you suggest "take control of my own hobby". But not everyone can do that, because people might live in relatively isolated areas, areas where gaming groups are uncommon, or be in some other way restricted from which groups they can attend by something as simple as a scheduling conflict. These people have to play with whoever they are able to, and have to therefore go along with the consensus from the group. It seems pretty clear that the US at least is much more competitive in general (and this bears out my experience of working with Americans, they tend to enjoy competition more in general I would say) when it comes to wargames and therefore there's more pressure to default to competitive standards as "fair".

So I dunno, try imagining the POV of people dealing with that and having a bit of empathy for them.

I have a tonne of empathy for people in such situations, let’s not be so reductive. But threads like this are full of unhelpful whataboutism and folk who simply go with a flow that they dislike. And Karol. All the shifting hypotheticals and lack of personal agency don’t in any way make it easier for people who simply cannot play another way, but I’d wager that isn’t the majority. People need to talk more pre-game and not play games they don’t enjoy.

Imagine for a second my post wasn’t aimed at everyone and we’re closer to being on the same page!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you feel like you need empathy for being angry about a smaller board, the problem isn't your group though...

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

The people passionately opposing the new board sizes are a vocal minority, most people either don't care and a lot of people prefer the new sizes - because of space, availability and/or gameplay. And don't fool yourself - dakka has long stopped being a representative part of the community.

Damn well put.

 Blackie wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Getting into melee is one thing.

Getting into melee, in the opponent's deployment zone, in turn one (which I believe is possible for some armies), or in turn two whilst not taking any incoming fire? Not so much.

Better than having units deployed in the corner that shoot every turn with no or little chance to charge them.

New size actually helps shooting(even more so in AOS). Can't hide from shooting with distance.

Ranged weapons love this board size.

If you hide in your corner you're giving up primaris and you lose. Terrain rules help mitigating long range shooters' effectiveness. Short range powerful weapons like meltas may love this board size, not things like the hammerhead or units that fire from a corner and never move from there.

 Jidmah wrote:

It's also a proven point that not everything done in tournaments automatically enters casual play, just those things which are widely considered to be beneficial to the game do.

Unfortunately, that included ITC rules and we see where that got us.