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.

 Blackie wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.

Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.

It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.

I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :

Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)

make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"

What do we want?

New rules need to be free of charge. They will suck anyway and be outdated in a couple of years. Nobody wants to pay with their hard-earned cash for stuff of low value.

 Strg Alt wrote:
What do we want?

New rules need to be free of charge. They will suck anyway and be outdated in a couple of years. Nobody wants to pay with their hard-earned cash for stuff of low value.

Years?

pelicaniforce wrote:
Transports are important in a scenario where units move on the board from the table edge during deployment, and when they effect reserves. Thats not at all normal in ninth edition.

Or in scenarios/games where you need to move longer distances quickly.
My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.
Their truck also serves to extend the threat(?) Range of thier grot blasters.

And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.
(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Having to get out before a transport moves really hurts them as a means of moving up the board. And vehicles are simply not survivable enough to rush forward and sit there for a turn.

You need to be able to get out after the transport moves forward.

Agreed.

Tau Devilfish are considered very good transports, largely because they have a strategem to disembark after moving. This means they can actually fulfill their role as mobility for the infantry in a manner that's actually useful to the 40k design space.

On the other hand, delivering 3 squads of plasma shotguns, with buffs, right in the enemy's face turn 1 has it's own problems for the play of the game. But you can't win everything

I would like to see this also.

It's easy to mitigate the downside of getting strong guns up close so quickly. Classify disembarking as a type of movement that includes a -1 To Hit penalty. The Assault Vehicle rule could then prevent the -1 To Hit. Land Raiders are back baby. WooHoo!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.

Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.

It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.

I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :

Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)

make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"

So for shooting like.... 3rd/4th edition. Rapid fire weapons only let you shoot at their max range if you didn't move. Or if you didn't move you could shoot twice at 12". If you moved, you could only shoot ONCE at 12". Most assault weapons were likewise 12", with a few occasionally at 18".

-----------------------------------------------------------

We often talk about the lethality of the game, and this topic is a subtle shift that often goes unacknowledged. For example:

- Rapid fire weapons in 3rd edition: If the unit moves (no running), one shot at 12". If it's stationary, one shot at max range or two at 12". Can't charge this turn.
- Rapid fire weapons in 5th edition: If the unit moves (no running), TWO shots at 12". If it's stationary, one shot at max range or two at 12". Can't charge this turn.
- Rapid fire weapons in 6th edition: If the unit moves (no running), two shots at "half" range (which can now be more than 12") OR one shot at max range. Being stationary is no different. Can't charge this turn.
- Rapids fire weapons in 9th edition: If the unit moves (no running), two shots at "half" range OR one shot at max range. Being stationary is no different. CAN still charge this turn.

You can see how the baseline lethality and combined damage + mobility has slowly crept up over the years. This is a perfect example of how units have lost differentiation at the same time as lethality ramping up.

Absolutely, this is a big part of why the board feels so much smaller now than it did some time ago.
I don't actually notice the fact that the edges of the board are a few inches closer in, really that's taken off the back of the deployment zones.
What you notice is that the mobility of firepower is so much increased. You didn't even mention the multitude of abilities and strategems that allow units to ignore even the restrictions still left on firepower.
My Space Marines for example can rapid fire at full range if they stay still, or even if they move with a strat! My Tau can advance and fire as if they were stationary as a passive ability.

Right - I didn't even mention how the game has gone from requiring a whole unit to shoot at the closest unit, to getting to shoot at whatever, to EACH MODEL getting to shoot at whatever it wants.

All of these little things compound and increase the lethality AND ALSO hurt the tactics of the game and reduces the need to make tough choices and think carefully about positioning.

ccs wrote:
My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.

Not really though... if you drive your gretchin 12" and then disembark and move them you cover roughly 20", instead of 10+d6" you get from just moving and advancing. That is a bit quicker than just walking, but if your trukk got shot and has degraded or there is any kind of terrain blocking involved, your gretchin will be faster walking than driving.
On top of that, for almost all codices, there are much better and/or cheaper mobility options than transports for them to ever be relevant. Why would you ever use gretchin in a trukk when you can have two units of kommadoz for the same price?

And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.

That's fairly irrelevant for anyone not running crusade because all units are expendable in any other game mode. For cheap units bringing multiples is better protection than bringing transports, for expensive units transports are not only easier to kill, but also auto-kill expensive models when they do.
And even for crusade it's questionable to bring transports because vehicles are the target of many agendas and often cannot perform actions.

(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)

To your point it's irrelevant what you are transporting. It is worth noting though that a lot of infantry is faster than just 5", making the transport matter even less. If there was an actual support for a grot army, you wouldn't be caught dead driving gretchin around in a transport.

Bottom line, most transports neither provide sufficient speed nor protection to matter, especially since transport rules severely limit both speed (no disembark after moving) and protection (extra casualties when transport dies).

I think you've got to turn transports into light tanks, because that clearly works.

So Trukks for example should get a free upgrade in 10th of their Big Shoota to "Trukk mega kustom big-shoota", which is Dakka 20/12 or something like that.

The problem with things like higher movement or being able to charge out after the transport moves, is you hit the hard binary of "plausible 1st turn charge, yes/no". And you can push things to the point you hit "yes" - but I don't think 1st turn charges, making 40k faster and faster, is a good thing. Even if GW seems... confused on the subject.

And you can fish about in the ancient past (6th edition came out nearly 10 years ago guys) - but I feel the real reason damage in 9th up is massive internal synergy that's increased exponentially since the indexes. To my mind at least most of those older limitations were there to try (with... mixed success) to hold back gunlines versus often incredibly hindered assault units waddling across the table. While its a constant clash - I think it would be hard to say 40k today is especially assault unfriendly.

And range matters less because people are forced to move forward to claim Primary (and while I think there was some debate this might change in Nachmund I don't think its proven the case). You can't (typically anyway) camp in your corner for at least the first 2 turns (or more in older editions) while shooting everyone to death and then hope to grab all the points in the turns 4 and 5. If you did that now you're opponent will just run away with the points and use what remnants they have to deny you scoring as the game closes out. Which again, I think is a good thing.

 Jidmah wrote:

ccs wrote:
My grots can dash to objectives/key locations a lot quicker riding in a truck than running on foot.

Not really though...

Look, MATH says you're just wrong on this.
The truck moves more than double the speed of its passengers. And that's before any advance roll.
Even on its last legs their truck is still 1" faster than the grots riding in it. (Mine would be 2" faster as it's an Evil Sunz.)
Saturday? My truck born grots hauled arse 17" across the board. That's 6" further than their best foot speed. They went from out of LoS, across an open area, & (mostly) back out of LoS. On foot? They'd have been hanging out in the open & would've surely caught some morale breaking fire.... At best? If nothing killed them? Or a few survived? They'd have been 2 turns away from where they needed to go.

 Jidmah wrote:
if you drive your gretchin 12" and then disembark and move them you cover roughly 20", instead of 10+d6" you get from just moving and advancing. That is a bit quicker than just walking, but if your trukk got shot and has degraded or there is any kind of terrain blocking involved, your gretchin will be faster walking than driving.

So there's a time to be in a truck, a time not to be, & the player needs to recognize the difference. I got it covered.

 Jidmah wrote:
Why would you ever use gretchin in a trukk when you can have two units of kommadoz for the same price?

Theme.
Physically there's only 1 ork in my list - the MA Warboss. Mechanically, because of the trucks, there's 5. There's a 6th (a Mek) on the overall roster that will never be on the table (I don't even own the model).
*Warboss - required because by the Crusade rules I cannot make either of the named Grots the boss.
*The Mek - in case I decide to do something with the scrap/kustom jobs rules. Has to be on the roster.
*The trucks x4 - because there's no way to add the Gretchin KY to it, yet there's no way to make a grot squad more effective than mounting it in something thats 3x as tough as they are & moves almost 3x as fast. And I love the look of a truck full of grots. So I guess I can live with 4 more orks being hypothetically present.

 Jidmah wrote:

ccs wrote:
And for the record: my Crusading grots are safer IN thier truck than out of it.
The only reason they dismount is to perform mission actions.

That's fairly irrelevant for anyone not running crusade because all units are expendable in any other game mode. For cheap units bringing multiples is better protection than bringing transports, for expensive units transports are not only easier to kill, but also auto-kill expensive models when they do.
And even for crusade it's questionable to bring transports because vehicles are the target of many agendas and often cannot perform actions.

No, matched or narrative, the truck is still tougher & faster than its cargo. Sames true for many other units/transports, just not as dramatic a difference as grot/truck. And units are fully expendable in Crusade - the worst that'll happen is you might get a scar & have to spend pts buying it off. (in my case) Scarred Grotts? Pfft. As long as they can still perform actions if needed - you know, when they hop out of the truck.
And you of all people should know that more grots =/= better protection. Just more running away due to morale failure....
As for anti-vehicle agendas/secondaries wracking up pts vs my trucks? (meh) Believe me, against my force you'll take that agenda/secondary anyways. And I won't cry if do you target the trucks vs the grot tanks/gunz.

 Jidmah wrote:

(Why do I have grots in a truck? Because I'm running a grot army in our Crusade & at the end of the day I still need some troops/infantry)

To your point it's irrelevant what you are transporting. It is worth noting though that a lot of infantry is faster than just 5", making the transport matter even less. If there was an actual support for a grot army, you wouldn't be caught dead driving gretchin around in a transport.

Bottom line, most transports neither provide sufficient speed nor protection to matter, especially since transport rules severely limit both speed (no disembark after moving) and protection (extra casualties when transport dies).

Oh I would definitely still drive my grots about in a transport. Ideally it'd just be one with the Gretchin keyword. Until then the truck will have to suffice.
And when I play the AdMech or Guard player? If I can down their 'Thopter or Valk? (I know both have the transport flyers in their rosters) My grots will get a kit-bashed Chinork!

Bottom line? There's lists & games & metas where transports work. And there're ones where they don't. You, the player need to know wich applies to you.

Since this is a 10e wish list thread?
I'd like to see ork vehicles have the option to add the Gretchin KeyWord. And if made Gretchin then change BS to 4+

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.

Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.

It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.

I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :

Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)

make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"

Halving all ranges IMHO serves two goals: to spread the game across 5 turns and give transports a purpose. Those are all changes that I'd love to see somehow, not necessarily by halving ranges. But I do want games that actually last the whole 5 turns on average and transports (pure transports with little to no damage output) that really are useful.

Halving all ranges makes the first 1-2 turns much more dedicated into positioning and getting LOS (my Mek Gunz know that with their crappy 3''M) so units stay alive much longer and transports could become useful if they have 3x or 4x the infantry movement stat, are faster than jetpack dudes, and are on par with most of the fastest stuff.

 Blackie wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Reducing gun ranges in half while units can move 6” and charge up to 12” is not something I would call interesting.

I suggested reducing ALL the ranges in half, rounding up or down. 1'' ranges which would stay 1'' of course.

Transports could keep their M stat or something close to it to have a purpose. Moving 10-12'' can be very useful when units on foot move 3'', run D3, have D6 charge range, fire 6''-12'' typically.

It's also a way to make use of all 5 turns, instead of calling the game top of 3 as usual.

I wouldnt straight up halve everything, i just said so because its simpler but since we're getting into that discussion :

Make small arms unable to shoot from DZ to DZ (so 12-18")
Make bigger guns 24-36
Have ranges longer than that EXTREMELY rare (i'm talking stuff like basilisks)

make the base move speed 4"(infantry), faster stuff 8"(jetpacks/vehicles), extremely fast stuff (jetbikes) 12"

Halving all ranges IMHO serves two goals: to spread the game across 5 turns and give transports a purpose. Those are all changes that I'd love to see somehow, not necessarily by halving ranges. But I do want games that actually last the whole 5 turns on average and transports (pure transports with little to no damage output) that really are useful.

Halving all ranges makes the first 1-2 turns much more dedicated into positioning and getting LOS (my Mek Gunz know that with their crappy 3''M) so units stay alive much longer and transports could become useful if they have 3x or 4x the infantry movement stat, are faster than jetpack dudes, and are on par with most of the fastest stuff.

I'd be all over a half ranged version of the game, I'd say round up. I'd image it would make sub 50PL (1,000 points) games have a really interesting feel.

Totally love the effect this gives on vehicles. It would really show the slow, implacable, brick that is the Monolith.

 Blndmage wrote:


I'd be all over a half ranged version of the game, I'd say round up. I'd image it would make sub 50PL (1,000 points) games have a really interesting feel.

Totally love the effect this gives on vehicles. It would really show the slow, implacable, brick that is the Monolith.

Check out OnePageRules, its basically exactly that (smaller pts games with smaller ranges)

Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).

Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats

Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).

Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats

Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.

So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

While technically true, you do have to rejig the deployment maps unless you just want bigger deployment zones- all the distances on the map are drawn from the center out, so merely playing on a larger table doesn't change distances between units or objectives.

That said, the math is easy enough to do if you want playing on a larger table to actually make a difference.

Unfortunately, this is another "I only ever play in stores with strangers therefore I don't get to make any decisions" issue for many players.

In my heart I agree with those saying they don't want to see 10th for a long time.

If pushed though...

- Simplification/streamlined rules (I am thinking back to 8th indexes with a little extra seasoning - some faction rules - and sides - some customisation with units, say 3rd ed levels - but not what we have now). This includes returning to the days of saves being simple and lethality reduced without the need for massed FNP, DR, TH etc...

- USR that work the same for everyone

- All codexes written in advance and play tested together, even if they're released over a period of time.

- Introduce something a little more on the lines of IGYG some level lower than whole battleround. Maybe by bringing back initiative and doing it per phase like old Inquisitor.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).

Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats

Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.

So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.

All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Go back to a 6'x4' table. Abandon this 44"x60" crap.

Nothing stopping you from playing on a 6x4. They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

Except that everyone i play with (even the most casual) follow matched play suggestions (legends, rule of 3, table size).

Except that many LGS already cut down their gaming mats

Except that gaming mat retailers now make more options for the new size than for 6x4.

So don't play with a bleeping mat. And the book says MINIMUM size so it's perfectly fine even in matched play. You're literally just making excuses and gatekeeping your own enjoyment of the game.

All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak

I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak

I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.

and playing 40k on a pool table would look like gak

 ClockworkZion wrote:

All of his exceptions are entirely valid.
It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Call me old fashioned, but who *needs* a mat to enjoy the game? I mean it's nice, but it's not a necessity. Then again I played on felt covered plywood tables for years so call me old I guess.

When we say "mat" we mean "table" its the same. And no, i wouldnt play on a felt covered plywood, it looks like gak

I mean felt covered plywood is how they make pool tables too, but you do you.

its only plywood if its a DIY pool table (also terrible choice of material for a pool table top). Mostly they are Either MDF on the cheap tables (do not recommend either, but its better than plywood for the function less bouncy and more stable) or a slab of slate (for any good table) under the felt.

personally my home game table is a 4x6 mat laid out over a ping pong table and that works fine for me. I still also have a roll of good old cut down green felt from the pre game mat days but that only comes out occationally.

I'm not sure going back to the old table sizes would help in the current game. Ranges and movement distances for some units are so huge that an extra few inches to cover isn't going to matter. The big problem is the overall range and speed. It used to be that nothing moved more than 12" and >24" was considered long range. Now every army has units that can move 14" or more as their base movement, with many being able to advance and charge, often with things like guaranteed 6" advance rolls.

60"x44" is fine if you reduce movement and range to more sane levels again.

A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.

People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.

The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... opps... I mean army list building.

Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.

There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.