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.

Slipspace wrote:

ccs wrote:

Cyel wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The issue with lower points from a serious/competitive stance is that you really exaggerate skew potential.

Weirdly that's also the argument against playing higher pts games.....

I disagree. I have played a lot of game sizes (in 40k from Combat Patrol to massive 2-days long, 8-player, 20.000pts affairs) and it's definitely the case, that the higher point limit, the better the balance. The most powerful abilities, instead of affecting (and deciding) entire battles, affect only a tiny portion of the battlefield, the same goes for absurdly improbable dice rolls. Most players' collections also limit how optimised a very large army can be fielded by them.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. It IS an argument that's been used against playing larger game sizes.

It matters if the argument is flawed.

No, your opinion of wether or not it's valid doesn't have anything to do with it. Wether the people who made it are right or wrong doesn't matter either. They made the claim & it exists. I told you it exists.
If you need to debate the merits of their claim you'll have to take it up with them, not me (it's not my argument or position).
BTW, I can skew a list at any size. So whoever's right....

Btw, this applies to every miniature wargame I've played. It's just that impact of an overpowered unit is dilluted by the size of the game. For example in Warmachine many warcasters' feats are crushingly powerful, but not if they only affect 1/4of the battlefield instead of the entirety of it.

Cyel wrote:
Btw, this applies to every miniature wargame I've played. It's just that impact of an overpowered unit is dilluted by the size of the game. For example in Warmachine many warcasters' feats are crushingly powerful, but not if they only affect 1/4of the battlefield instead of the entirety of it.

That's only half of the 'bigger picture' though. Sometimes its a 'system' issue. See my example of tau in 4th ed. 40k.

The tau 'maxed out' in their power at 1000pts with 3 hammerheads. Increasing the point level meant taking options that were less than ideal. At 1500 the tau were taking a load of bloat to make up the points whilst the 'power builds' of the day (iron warriors etc) were only getting into their stride. You could argue that the iron warriors list was broken (it was) and it shouldn't exist (it shouldn't have), you could also argue thevtau were severely limited by the restrictions of the old foc which limited their 'heavy' slots and 'good' choices (also true) as well as other options being too expensive and lacking low-ap weapons (also true), and the tau codex power level being fairly mediocre overall, especially towards the end of the edition (very true). This absolutely effected their ability to.counter the power units in turn.

I'm.not saying this to critique your point- you're not wrong cyel. My experiences in wmh for example mirrored yours. Goreshade1 at 15pts was brutal. At 50 he was a cake walk. I'm just pointing out the bigger the game the more diluted the power units isn't strictly true all of the time.

Voss wrote:
Primaris hit the ground with a splat, and it took GW multiple iterations to get them passable, and they still aren't great. Some are absolute, utter pants (Reavers) and always have been.

They're stuck in a Catch-222 there. They've got a three way mutually exclusive problem. They want to make the board smaller, but feel larger, while the models get bigger and move slower. And they're often not very good at what they do. Reivers are basically really bad assault marines that only get to jump once and even then, its only sort of. Combine that with their release coinciding with the time GW really dropped the ball on the close combat phase and they never had a chance. Primaris Jump infantry? All Shooters. Inceptors and Suppresors. Primaris Close Combat? All Foot Sloggers - Aggresors and Bladeguard (which were something like wave four or five of Primaris) and often slow (aggressors) with limited transport options(Repulsor not Impulsor which didn't even exist until recently). No Drop Pod, No Teleportarium, No Stormraven. Give Reivers with both graps and gravs (at roughly the same price point as Assault Marines) the benefit of Jump Packs and they start looking decent. Plus they still found a way to sell a bunch of Reivers by putting them in every boxed set ever. Kill Team dropping? Add some Reivers. Space Wolves Patrol box? Add some Reivers. Tyranid Christmas Army Box? Add some Reivers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


The tau 'maxed out' in their power at 1000pts with 3 hammerheads. Increasing the point level meant taking options that were less than ideal. At 1500 the tau were taking a load of bloat to make up the points whilst the 'power builds' of the day (iron warriors etc) were only getting into their stride. You could argue that the iron warriors list was broken (it was) and it shouldn't exist (it shouldn't have), you could also argue thevtau were severely limited by the restrictions of the old foc which limited their 'heavy' slots and 'good' choices (also true) as well as other options being too expensive and lacking low-ap weapons (also true), and the tau codex power level being fairly mediocre overall, especially towards the end of the edition (very true). This absolutely effected their ability to.counter the power units in turn.

I'm.not saying this to critique your point- you're not wrong cyel. My experiences in wmh for example mirrored yours. Goreshade1 at 15pts was brutal. At 50 he was a cake walk. I'm just pointing out the bigger the game the more diluted the power units isn't strictly true all of the time.

You could also say that the Iron Warriors (and other armies with high cost basic units) were hamstrung by not being able to get up and running in less than 1500 points. It goes both directions and happens every edition. Ever try making an Imperial Knights Kill Team?

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

You joke but when the Conquest people were looking for companies to produce licensed matts, apparently just about every matt maker they spoke to had stopped selling 6'x4 because of the 9th changes.

I''m not surprised. GW is the market leader when it comes to TT wargames, so any change they make to their games is going to influence the market. There's a lot more people playing warhammer than Conquest.
Which is a problem, because of market diversity, / monopolies and all that.
Big Fish in a Small Pond, you know.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

You joke but when the Conquest people were looking for companies to produce licensed matts, apparently just about every matt maker they spoke to had stopped selling 6'x4 because of the 9th changes.

I had to check this, went and looked at Deepcut studio, gamemat.eu, pwork, frontlinegaming and kraken wargames and they all still do 6x4 and 4x4 (which is the common size for 1000points games) sized mats.
So I wonder who they asked.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

You joke but when the Conquest people were looking for companies to produce licensed matts, apparently just about every matt maker they spoke to had stopped selling 6'x4 because of the 9th changes.

I had to check this, went and looked at Deepcut studio, gamemat.eu, pwork, frontlinegaming and kraken wargames and they all still do 6x4 and 4x4 (which is the common size for 1000points games) sized mats.
So I wonder who they asked.

It might be they are still selling off current stock, but not looking to restock those lines. Or that they are still going to stock them in smaller amounts or that they weren't looking to do new custom mats in the larger scale.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

Obviously you never faced an opponent with 9 basilisks and 9 earthshaker batteries and demanded the game to be played on a 10' long table. You don't play tennis on a football field. Don't talk about balance when you're willfully and purposely skewing the game.

 skchsan wrote:
Obviously you never faced an opponent with 9 basilisks and 9 earthshaker batteries and demanded the game to be played on a 10' long table. You don't play tennis on a football field. Don't talk about balance when you're willfully and purposely skewing the game.

Can we not make hyperbolic examples that never happened IRL? Playing a standard 6x4 game is not deliberately skewing the game, it's acknowledging that the game was designed to be played on a 6x4 table and the only reason 6x4 isn't the minimum table size is that GW cut the sizes to make their mats fit into their standard cardboard box. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with balance or any other game design issue, it was purely a matter of simplifying their packaging and shipping logistics.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Obviously you never faced an opponent with 9 basilisks and 9 earthshaker batteries and demanded the game to be played on a 10' long table. You don't play tennis on a football field. Don't talk about balance when you're willfully and purposely skewing the game.

Can we not make hyperbolic examples that never happened IRL? Playing a standard 6x4 game is not deliberately skewing the game, it's acknowledging that the game was designed to be played on a 6x4 table and the only reason 6x4 isn't the minimum table size is that GW cut the sizes to make their mats fit into their standard cardboard box. The decision had absolutely nothing to do with balance or any other game design issue, it was purely a matter of simplifying their packaging and shipping logistics.

It's not hyperbolic. I personally know someone who's been collecting basilisks since 3rd ed and we sometimes play open play games across 3 strikeforce boards for the hell of it. Who's to say we don't do that in matched play? The board sizes are RECOMMENDED MINIMUM after all, am I right?

The move from 6'x4' to 60"x44" was probably driven by the fact that the latter is closer to standard dining table dimensions, not because they wanted to save money on packaging (although arguably it IS a benefit they dipped on for sure). Do you even realize how hard it is to find a 6x4 flat surface (that is not floor) you can play 40k on?

If you are playing incursion on a 60x44 or any other larger boards (than the recommended minimum), you are giving advantage to the army with better shooting capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

Melee was nerfed in several ways in 9th and already sub-par in 8th, the smaller tables, insane terrain density at tournaments and missions are the only things keeping melee alive as far as I can see.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

People who prefer the new size can argue that the game has been balanced around 60x44 as a default, and playing on 72x48 instead is Doing It Wrong and may negatively affect balance.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

Precisely because melee has been dominating the game, right?

More so, what does "historic precedent since the 80's" have anything to do with the current state of affairs? That's like saying "it doesn't matter if it works now, that's not the way it has been for generations, it doesn't matter if the new system is better, we have to stick to the old way because boomer."

Also, it's more than just the board size. The matter of fact is:
1. large majority of people who collect 40k figures don't buy plastic terrain because its "expensive"
2. large majority of people who actually invest in terrain follow LVO standards with four non-los area terrain in the middle of four quadrants & 1 med LOS blocker in the middle with scarcely placed scatters. Guess how many edge-to-edge straight line fire corridors you end up with this set up.

Nearly everyone who complains of overpowered unit analyzes the unit in a vacuum and fails to take into consideration that they have terrain density issue.

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

People who prefer the new size can argue that the game has been balanced around 60x44 as a default, and playing on 72x48 instead is Doing It Wrong and may negatively affect balance.

They can, but they'd be wrong. It's all about Box sizes, nothing more. Any effect on the game is more or less coincidence as far as GW is concerned. They can hardly playtest codizes next to each other, is anybody really thinking the minimum size was the result of any kind of extensive testing prior to 9th edition?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
They can, but they'd be wrong. It's all about Box sizes, nothing more. Any effect on the game is more or less coincidence as far as GW is concerned. They can hardly playtest codizes next to each other, is anybody really thinking the minimum size was the result of any kind of extensive testing prior to 9th edition?

Because 11"x15" is such a standardized dimension?

Back your argument with a mathematical optimization, and maybe it'll hold some value.

The smaller battlefield is because they wanted to stop spilling their profits to mom and pop stores who are actually able to host 6x4 tables in their store. No common household readily has a 6x4 surface in their house. The go to option is combine two 5x3 folding tables to make 5x6. But where can we set this up? Small bedroom typically measures 8x10. Unless you have a dedicated room for wargaming, youre looking into invading the living room, kitchen or dining room, or basement/cellar to play your game. Unless of course, you can always give up your master bedroom for wargaming. Who cares about sleep and a bed, roght?

But then again, not a lot of people who live in urban city centers don't have basements or cellars. The coffee table in your living room probably isnt large enough. So you eventuallly end up in the kitchen or dining room.

Standard 4 seat dining table typically measures about 38"x54". Standard island kitchen is 24"+18" deep. You starting to see a pattern here? No readily available flat surface in common household is as large as 6x4. Its a specialized dimension that you typically don't see in a house.

By making the board smaller, GW is making the game more ACCESSIBLE. PERIOD.

The suggested table size hasn't made the game any more nor any less accessible. You could play on any table evne if it isn't the suggested size. The change GW made was purely to fit with the board sizes GW was selling which were basically the largest ones they felt they could fit in their packaging boxes.

You can bet if GW makes bigger boxes and bigger boards the game size would randomly change again.

GW balance is NOT tight enough that they are factoring in board size in exact measurements.

 Overread wrote:
The suggested table size hasn't made the game any more nor any less accessible. You could play on any table evne if it isn't the suggested size. The change GW made was purely to fit with the board sizes GW was selling which were basically the largest ones they felt they could fit in their packaging boxes.

You can bet if GW makes bigger boxes and bigger boards the game size would randomly change again.

GW balance is NOT tight enough that they are factoring in board size in exact measurements.

For what it's worth:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/05/four-sizes-fit-allgw-homepage-post-1/

"In fact, most dining room tables should be able to accommodate a Strike Force game!"

Clearly, the game was downscaled to make 22x30 work, and the recommended 60x44 is a multiple of that. Calling it MINIMUM size was so that people wouldnt get so pissed at having invested in a 6x4 table to wargame on.

It doesn't matter whether it was a conscious balancing decision or a simple post rationalization. The main goal was to have combat patrol work as a gateway drug into larger strikeforce games. Hence, ACCESSIBILITY FOCUSED.

 catbarf wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you are playing games on a 60x44 or any other smaller board than what is tabletop and 40K standard since the 80s you are giving advantages to the army with better CC capabilities. If you fail to see that, then you're just being ignorant.

People who prefer the new size can argue that the game has been balanced around 60x44 as a default, and playing on 72x48 instead is Doing It Wrong and may negatively affect balance.

I'm just grateful for the smaller size, because otherwise my local store would never have fit 30 people for the yearly hobby tournament.

I know it isn't GW's motive, but it sure does help more people play.

 skchsan wrote:

The smaller battlefield is because they wanted to stop spilling their profits to mom and pop stores who are actually able to host 6x4 tables in their store. No common household readily has a 6x4 surface in their house.

and there is no table with 60x44 (standard Euro kitchen/dining table is 90x150cm ~35"x59")
you need a dedicated table to play that game with both sizes as the "standard" sized tables are smaller than that and the larger dining tables would hold 72x48 as well

I still don't know were GW buys their table or if Nottingham as the only place in Europe were the standard sized dining table is 60x44
a standard 6 seater is 118-140cm x 75-90cm, a 8 seater 150-220cm x 75/90cm and 44" wide would not even fit a standard sized 10 seater as those are 90-100cm wich is 11cm short

the only reason for the different size is that GW started making new cardboard tiles for their boxed games (to fit the box) and did not want to invest into different sized ones dedicated to specific games but "one size fits all", hence 40k changed from 72x48 to the next best multiple of the new tiles (30x22), which is 60x44

there is no other reason and larger tournaments supported this because a smaller "official" size meant they can get more players in the same space (6 players instead of 5 for the same table length)
hence you don't hear any complaints about it from this side of the community

 kodos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

The smaller battlefield is because they wanted to stop spilling their profits to mom and pop stores who are actually able to host 6x4 tables in their store. No common household readily has a 6x4 surface in their house.

and there is no table with 60x44 (standard Euro kitchen/dining table is 90x150cm ~35"x59")
you need a dedicated table to play that game with both sizes as the "standard" sized tables are smaller than that and the larger dining tables would hold 72x48 as well

the only reason for the different size is that GW started making new cardboard tiles for their boxed games (to fit the box) and did not want to invest into different sized ones dedicated to specific games but "one size fits all", hence 40k changed from 72x48 to the next best multiple of the new tiles (30x22), which is 60x44

there is no other reason and larger tournaments supported this because a smaller "official" size meant they can get more players in the same space (6 players instead of 5 for the same table length)
hence you don't hear any complaints about it from this side of the community

The GW boards are stiff enough to overhang a few inches and still have models on top - i assume this is what GW was banking on when they claimed strikeforce fits on most dining tables.

Again by shrinking the table amd letting more people play = accessibility.

Don't think it's often entire codexes but definitely models and why not? They're a toy selling company where the product itself is inert so it can't sell just by being a model, it's rules need to be the 'hotness' same as a new nerf gun or match attack work with new players or technology etc. Not expecting this is just unrealistic for a company with ranges that have been established for decades imho. The real issue is that sometimes they go a bit too far with the power and suddenly the balance impact is significant and that's an issue understanding the nuances of their game.

 skchsan wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Remember that 1k games are played on 30x44. In theory, its half the battle field versus 2k strike forces' 44x60.

I had a few good chuckles while reading this "1k vs 2k" chapter, right until this sentence. 1k on 30x44... Holy crap, time to feel old .

Because GW have told them that is how it MUST be played! Time to get the scissors out on those mats because daddy GW said so! No. A 1000pt game is played on whatever board size you damn well like. There are ZERO "official" board sizes. Anyone who says so is talking out of their backside.

Obviously you never faced an opponent with 9 basilisks and 9 earthshaker batteries and demanded the game to be played on a 10' long table. You don't play tennis on a football field. Don't talk about balance when you're willfully and purposely skewing the game.

Here's a ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it?

 skchsan wrote:
Again by shrinking the table amd letting more people play = accessibility.

only if it shrinks enough to fit the actual tables
it does not matter if the game size is 30cm to large or 20cm too large, it gets not more accessible as it is still too large

and if GW would have kept their plastic tiles it would be different, but cardboard is not heavy enough to hold the army in the deployment zone with 10cm on each size overhanging the table

stores and events benefit from it, for everyone else there is no real advantage over 6x4

 kodos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Again by shrinking the table amd letting more people play = accessibility.

only if it shrinks enough to fit the actual tables
it does not matter if the game size is 30cm to large or 20cm too large, it gets not more accessible as it is still too large

and if GW would have kept their plastic tiles it would be different, but cardboard is not heavy enough to hold the army in the deployment zone with 10cm on each size overhanging the table

stores and events benefit from it, for everyone else there is no real advantage over 6x4

Anecdotal but my 4 seat dining table fits an incursion game almost perfectly, no overhang and a couple of inches spare long ways either side. I wouldn't have managed a 4x4 on it with a mat or whatever to fit with older smaller game sizes, but the card mats actually work well for my needs in the space I have.

Admittedly for a "full" size game, I agree. I have to get 2 folding tables that are 6x2.5 and then store those somewhere and then commandeer my living room to play.

Anecdotal but, my dining table is 5x4 with an extension plate for 6x4, to fit the family on holidays

but it was custom made as it was impossible just buy one that was 120cm wide instead of 90-100

 kodos wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Again by shrinking the table amd letting more people play = accessibility.

only if it shrinks enough to fit the actual tables
it does not matter if the game size is 30cm to large or 20cm too large, it gets not more accessible as it is still too large

and if GW would have kept their plastic tiles it would be different, but cardboard is not heavy enough to hold the army in the deployment zone with 10cm on each size overhanging the table

stores and events benefit from it, for everyone else there is no real advantage over 6x4

Let's think of it this way:

How many times did you "skip" your charge phase in a standard strikeforce?
How often do you skip including melee-centric units at list building for strikeforce game?

The only ones that truly are at disadvantage going from 72"x48" to 60"x44" are the players who rely on parking their entire army in the back row. Mathematically speaking, when you play on the short edge of the board, it takes 3 turns for a unit, deployed at the edge of no-mans, with 6" M and 24" range weapon to start hitting units hugging the rear 6" from board edge. In 60x44, it only takes two turns to do the same. The game is designed to go for 5 rounds. 50% of missions are played on the short side (including diagonal deployment zones). This is why basic infantries are worth less in larger boards because they get shot down in the time it takes for them to get in position to do anything. Buying transports for them means naught because the transports get blown up in a single turn. The only way to make them worth anything is if you put them into reserves, but there are better units to put into reserves than your measly basic troops as you have reserves limit. At that point, its much more worthwhile to invest your points into something that can start hitting in turn 1 - which escalates the lethality.

There are three (four if you count charge as a standalone "offensive" phase) offensive phases in a round. If the rule (board size, in particular) are facilitating a case where you only need to play one of the three phases to win the game, then it's a poorly made game.

Sure, the whole 60x44 could be arbitrary, but smaller board has some real advantages for most players.

well, if you don't see Alpha Strike as a problem in 40k, this is on you

increasing ranges, increasing army size, decreasing point levels and the same time decreasing the board size sums up and I don't see any advantage here

that basic infantry is worthless on 72x48 but totally worth it on 60x44?
this has more to do with the different scenarios and army rules rather than any change in size

I could see the advantage if GW would have said 1000-1500 points on 60x44 is the ideal size of the game, any larger games need larger tables
but not going from 1500 points on 72x48 with 12" effective killing range in 3rd, to 2000 points on 60x44 with 24" killing range in 9th and that there is a hidden advantage for the players because infantry and melee units are now worth it