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.

 vict0988 wrote:
Huhr duhr, I'm sure my opponent isn't trying to abuse my goodwill by bringing a gunline to an 8 foot bowling ball table. Being suspicious isn't a crime if you're not hurting anyone.

You sound like a joy. Do you float peoples dice in salt water to make sure they're not weighted and demand to see they're not adding another 0.1" on everything they measure too? Cause you know, they might be trying to abuse your trust. Doesn't hurt to be suspicious.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Huhr duhr, I'm sure my opponent isn't trying to abuse my goodwill by bringing a gunline to an 8 foot bowling ball table. Being suspicious isn't a crime if you're not hurting anyone.

You sound like a joy. Do you float peoples dice in salt water to make sure they're not weighted and demand to see they're not adding another 0.1" on everything they measure too? Cause you know, they might be trying to abuse your trust. Doesn't hurt to be suspicious.

It does hurt to check people's dice or measurements since that takes time and makes the game less enjoyable for the other player, but I would do that if I found my opponent's Movement or dice rolls to be too suspicious. But suspicions I keep to myself do not hurt anyone but myself, I think condemning me for thought crimes is a little harsh.

 vict0988 wrote:
Huhr duhr, I'm sure my opponent isn't trying to abuse my goodwill by bringing a gunline to an 8 foot bowling ball table. Being suspicious isn't a crime if you're not hurting anyone.

Why are you playing on planet bowling ball?
If you're not in a tourney, or some environment where you don't have any input on the terrain, you're just as much at fault for your poor xp as your opponent.

Speaking of planet BB....
My only experience there was in a tourney way back in 3e.
One of my matches took place on an open field that had 1 "6 fence line, TWO trees (single trees, each on a 1" hex base from Battletech, and a tiny gentle hill on the farleft side of nomans land - where it'd play no role.
Good thing I was playing a mechanized SM force. I advanced across the field using my rhinos & Razorback as mobile cover.
When they were destroyed I then used their burning hulls as cover/fire bases.
My victory quite surprised the opponent. He didn't expect me to sacrifice my vehicles like that.

God I LOVED using wrecks as cover back in the day. I totally miss those maneuvers being possible.

 Insectum7 wrote:
God I LOVED using wrecks as cover back in the day. I totally miss those maneuvers being possible.

I don't "miss" using those tactics at all........mostly because I play a game where they're still possible.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
God I LOVED using wrecks as cover back in the day. I totally miss those maneuvers being possible.

I don't "miss" using those tactics at all........mostly because I play a game where they're still possible.

30k I assume?

^^^^Yup. Excellent assumption.

 Insectum7 wrote:
God I LOVED using wrecks as cover back in the day. I totally miss those maneuvers being possible.

Yea I don't see why they can't be brought back. Just make them breachable so you can't gum up the board.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
^^^^Yup. Excellent assumption.

Yah I get the draw, but imo some of the worst times in 40k were when everybody showed up to gaming night with some flavor of Marine, and 30k is basically founded on the idea. Plus yet another rule set, armybooks etc to buy, that I have little faith in lasting for more than a few years.

It makes perfect sense that when a lasgun kills my Baneblade, it yeets it into orbit. I mean that's just realism.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
God I LOVED using wrecks as cover back in the day. I totally miss those maneuvers being possible.

Yea I don't see why they can't be brought back. Just make them breachable so you can't gum up the board.

Yech. How about "no". Part of what makes wrecked vehicles remaining on the board interesting is that it changes the board state by adding an obstacle that you have to use movement to get around/over. That forces you to adjust your tactics and game plan. Just letting certain units "walk through" them as if they weren't there would largely remove that. Learn to adapt and overcome.

Could have them count as some sort of difficult terrain. Like reintroduce dangerous terrain. So you cant just totally block of an opposing force by planting a cheap vehicle in the way of the opponent so no matter if they kill it or let it live it blocks them in. Having them be los blocks and slowing things down a bit should be impactful enough. At least to start with.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yech. How about "no". Part of what makes wrecked vehicles remaining on the board interesting is that it changes the board state by adding an obstacle that you have to use movement to get around/over. That forces you to adjust your tactics and game plan. Just letting certain units "walk through" them as if they weren't there would largely remove that. Learn to adapt and overcome.

This is one of those things that sounds cool in theory but makes miserable games in practice. Do you really want to play a game where I move some cheap transports into the 2-4 gaps between terrain (which your vehicles can't move through) and now suddenly none of your own vehicles can ever leave your deployment zone even if you kill the transports?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yech. How about "no". Part of what makes wrecked vehicles remaining on the board interesting is that it changes the board state by adding an obstacle that you have to use movement to get around/over. That forces you to adjust your tactics and game plan. Just letting certain units "walk through" them as if they weren't there would largely remove that. Learn to adapt and overcome.

This is one of those things that sounds cool in theory but makes miserable games in practice. Do you really want to play a game where I move some cheap transports into the 2-4 gaps between terrain (which your vehicles can't move through) and now suddenly none of your own vehicles can ever leave your deployment zone even if you kill the transports?

That sounds like a terrain setup problem, if there's only 2-4 gaps that vehicles can possibly get through, and they can be blocked that easily.

Also, keep in mind I'm thinking of a system where vehicles can move through Difficult/Dangerous terrain. So, unless you've built a board of nothing but Impassable terrain? It works just fine.

Also, having played games like that, that stuff is fun! Get creative and use unconventional tactics. One of my more memorable games games in recent years involved a "wagon circle" with Rhinos defending against a Tyranid swarm.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That sounds like a terrain setup problem, if there's only 2-4 gaps that vehicles can possibly get through, and they can be blocked that easily.

Also, keep in mind I'm thinking of a system where vehicles can move through Difficult/Dangerous terrain. So, unless you've built a board of nothing but Impassable terrain? It works just fine.

It's the standard setup for 9th. You need tons of LOS blocking terrain and vehicles can't move through any of it, which means there are only a few lanes for vehicles to move out of their deployment zone. If you can clog those lanes with cheap movement blockers that remain on the table even after they're destroyed taking a vehicle-heavy list is an automatic loss and investing in vehicles at all (other than as cheap movement blockers) becomes highly questionable.

And yeah, if you do a complete re-write of the game so this is no longer necessary you could make it work. You'd have to have a lot less terrain, since merely giving vehicles the ability to move through terrain rules-wise doesn't help much when the physical vehicle model struggles to fit in a terrain piece, and do something to mitigate alpha strikes and back-table gunlines now that the wall of ruins no longer does that job. But it could be done. It's just not something that IMO should be much of a priority compared to a million more important things to fix. Vehicle wrecks look cool but they're not a high-impact change.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
That sounds like a terrain setup problem, if there's only 2-4 gaps that vehicles can possibly get through, and they can be blocked that easily.

Also, keep in mind I'm thinking of a system where vehicles can move through Difficult/Dangerous terrain. So, unless you've built a board of nothing but Impassable terrain? It works just fine.

It's the standard setup for 9th. You need tons of LOS blocking terrain and vehicles can't move through any of it, which means there are only a few lanes for vehicles to move out of their deployment zone. If you can clog those lanes with cheap movement blockers that remain on the table even after they're destroyed taking a vehicle-heavy list is an automatic loss and investing in vehicles at all (other than as cheap movement blockers) becomes highly questionable.

And yeah, if you do a complete re-write of the game so this is no longer necessary you could make it work. You'd have to have a lot less terrain, since merely giving vehicles the ability to move through terrain rules-wise doesn't help much when the physical vehicle model struggles to fit in a terrain piece, and do something to mitigate alpha strikes and back-table gunlines now that the wall of ruins no longer does that job. But it could be done. It's just not something that IMO should be much of a priority compared to a million more important things to fix. Vehicle wrecks look cool but they're not a high-impact change.

You're right, they're are about a million things in 9th edition that need "fixing", and the rules for vehicles and how they interact (or rather don't) with terrain are one of them. How important those particular problems are compared to the myriad of others is a matter of opinion, though, as you point out.

Not sure about needing less terrain though. Most of the HH games that I play use plenty (though maybe not as much as is required for the godawful lethality of 9th edition tournament level lists), and again, it works just fine.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yech. How about "no". Part of what makes wrecked vehicles remaining on the board interesting is that it changes the board state by adding an obstacle that you have to use movement to get around/over. That forces you to adjust your tactics and game plan. Just letting certain units "walk through" them as if they weren't there would largely remove that. Learn to adapt and overcome.

This is one of those things that sounds cool in theory but makes miserable games in practice. Do you really want to play a game where I move some cheap transports into the 2-4 gaps between terrain (which your vehicles can't move through) and now suddenly none of your own vehicles can ever leave your deployment zone even if you kill the transports?

Yes.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dai wrote:
Couldnt you just say my guy has crazy, sci fi invisible eyes all over the body and therefore i get full los if someone tried that.

You'd just say that "there's transparent glass in the helmets", the same way you'd say "lol no" to someone wanting to play a pick-up game on a huge table with lots of infinite-range weapons. I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to deliberately play on a larger table, the same way I'd be suspicious of someone wanting to play with huge amounts of terrain or almost no terrain.

How much larger are we talking here, though? Is a 6' by 4' table for a 2k game enough to set alarm bells ringing, or is that acceptable?

Yeah, it's enough. I'm sure you'd quickly dispel any worry. I expect people to have their alarm bells ringing when I bring a casual spam list if they don't know that the things I am spanning aren't undercosted they might assume I am spamming them because they are undercosted. If someone has a 6x4 table I'd be assuming we'd be playing on the whole table though, just to be clear.

I'd just assume they built the table before the size changes and weren't about to waste the money to throw it away and build a new one, or cut that one down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It makes perfect sense that when a lasgun kills my Baneblade, it yeets it into orbit. I mean that's just realism.

I don't think its Yeeted into orbit, I think it's now just minor hill that doesn't affect rules and gets removed because nobody wants to stand a model on top of another model and scratch the paint. Or have to stop and have a rules argument about if the wreckage is a model or a terrain.

When I said deliberately playing on a larger table I didn't mean playing with the one table you got, but going out of your way to play on a 6x4 like if you're playing on Tabletop Simulator and the minimum table size is a download away or if you're playing in a store where they have minimum size matts and 6x4 matts and you choose 6x4 that's suspicious.

 vict0988 wrote:
When I said deliberately playing on a larger table I didn't mean playing with the one table you got, but going out of your way to play on a 6x4 like if you're playing on Tabletop Simulator and the minimum table size is a download away or if you're playing in a store where they have minimum size matts and 6x4 matts and you choose 6x4 that's suspicious.

I also think the 60x44 shrink from 72x48 was a huge mistake for GW. The issues with Fortifications and Vehicles bear that out. (assume the 44 or 48 is "North/South" and 60/72 is East/West) The North South shrink was bad. The East/West shrink was atrocious. Assume roughly the same terrain and how many more roads do larger vehicles have? How many more spots do you have to drop a Fortification? On that map of where you could and couldn't drop a Fort - "lock the aspect ratio" so to speak of the terrain, and drag the board larger by what is it, about 20% on the East/West? All of a sudden a whole lot of places where you couldn't drop a Fort because there was just not QUITE enough room for the required (what was it 1" all around?)"personal space" between two terrain pieces and around the Fort are now valid. I'm not sure if the IG Super Heavies can now be placed behind buildings with an extra two inches, but they're surely going to have some places they can cross to the other side of the board now. When it comes to 40K I'm a diversity junkie. In my own lists I try and take a little of everything. When it comes to everyone else's lists anything that negates a theme or even an entire faction is a bad thing - be it points totals, board size, or terrain density. How many models/rules were designed for a 6x4 board? Nearly all of them. The only board size relevant rule I can think of that was updated for pre-existing models is movement.

 vict0988 wrote:
When I said deliberately playing on a larger table I didn't mean playing with the one table you got, but going out of your way to play on a 6x4 like if you're playing on Tabletop Simulator and the minimum table size is a download away or if you're playing in a store where they have minimum size matts and 6x4 matts and you choose 6x4 that's suspicious.

And lf you deliberately insist we play only the minimum size?

1) I'll assume youve carefully tailored your list so that the smallest size is most advantageous for you.
Especially if you prefer CC.

2) I'll also assume you've got other issues that'll spoil our coming game.
And on this one I've rarely been proven wrong.

Me? I'm flexible. So let's roll a dice. High roll picks the battlefield size.

How is this even a problem in reality.

If you play with the same people regularly, just let them know in advance that you like to play a specific size so they can take it into account during list creation.

If you play regularly at a specific place, you know what table sizes they have.

If you play with a complete random dude for the first time, maybe don't force a game on planet bowling ball with your artillery list / force a cage fight with your all melee army.

a_typical_hero wrote:
How is this even a problem in reality.

If you play with the same people regularly, just let them know in advance that you like to play a specific size so they can take it into account during list creation.

If you play regularly at a specific place, you know what table sizes they have.

If you play with a complete random dude for the first time, maybe don't force a game on planet bowling ball with your artillery list / force a cage fight with your all melee army.

I imagine this is more aimed at the people about to build a table in their garage.

it just has to be a problem because otherwise the argument that the change in table size is an advantage for the player and a real benefit for balance does not hold

if there is no problem in reality, the new size solves nothing but only has disadvantages the white knights try to defend

hence some artificial problems are created to have a base for the argument

Breton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
How is this even a problem in reality.

If you play with the same people regularly, just let them know in advance that you like to play a specific size so they can take it into account during list creation.

If you play regularly at a specific place, you know what table sizes they have.

If you play with a complete random dude for the first time, maybe don't force a game on planet bowling ball with your artillery list / force a cage fight with your all melee army.

I imagine this is more aimed at the people about to build a table in their garage.

Wouldn't building the larger table be advantageous in case you ever decide to play a different game or previous edition? You can always mark off a smaller zone with tape or extra range rulers.

I play with a 72x48 mat on a 72x60 table. The 6" runner is very handy for dice, reserves, cards, etc. For smaller games (<50PL or so), I split it into two 36"x48" tables.

 Asmodai wrote:

Breton wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
How is this even a problem in reality.

If you play with the same people regularly, just let them know in advance that you like to play a specific size so they can take it into account during list creation.

If you play regularly at a specific place, you know what table sizes they have.

If you play with a complete random dude for the first time, maybe don't force a game on planet bowling ball with your artillery list / force a cage fight with your all melee army.

I imagine this is more aimed at the people about to build a table in their garage.

Wouldn't building the larger table be advantageous in case you ever decide to play a different game or previous edition? You can always mark off a smaller zone with tape or extra range rulers.

I play with a 72x48 mat on a 72x60 table. The 6" runner is very handy for dice, reserves, cards, etc. For smaller games (<50PL or so), I split it into two 36"x48" tables.

I would think a larger table would always be advantageous - yes you can artificially shrink it, but I also think the smaller table size was a mistake that caused issues and I'm not even sure what it was trying to solve.

 kodos wrote:
it just has to be a problem because otherwise the argument that the change in table size is an advantage for the player and a real benefit for balance does not hold

if there is no problem in reality, the new size solves nothing but only has disadvantages the white knights try to defend

hence some artificial problems are created to have a base for the argument

There does not need to be a benefit to balance by having smaller tables, that's just something that makes logical sense. I'm not a white knight for defending a change to the game you silly git. Have I created an argument for why Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines need to be in the game? If I'm a white knight why wouldn't I? Why would a white knight routinely argue that these changes are bad for the game and that the designers should feel bad about how they implemented them? If I thought the game would be better on bigger tables then I'd say that, you know, like I've said about the bazillion things I don't like about 40k right now. If you have proof that table sizes don't change win rates then show it, if you don't just say you don't find the arguments persuasive instead of calling the people you disagree with white knights.

 vict0988 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
it just has to be a problem because otherwise the argument that the change in table size is an advantage for the player and a real benefit for balance does not hold

if there is no problem in reality, the new size solves nothing but only has disadvantages the white knights try to defend

hence some artificial problems are created to have a base for the argument

There does not need to be a benefit to balance by having smaller tables, that's just something that makes logical sense.

A) You understood that?
B) What is the logical sense of the smaller tables?

I'm not a white knight for defending a change to the game you silly git. Have I created an argument for why Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines need to be in the game? If I'm a white knight why wouldn't I? Why would a white knight routinely argue that these changes are bad for the game and that the designers should feel bad about how they implemented them?

They aren't bad for the game. What was bad for the game was trying to lift the square peg that was this Doctrine/Super Doctrine idea and pound it into the circular hole that is Orks, et al. with minimal changes.

If I thought the game would be better on bigger tables then I'd say that, you know, like I've said about the bazillion things I don't like about 40k right now. If you have proof that table sizes don't change win rates then show it, if you don't just say you don't find the arguments persuasive instead of calling the people you disagree with white knights.

Given that table size changes occured at the same time the game went through a significant edition change how do you propose people prove the table size and not the edition/codex changes - which have a far greater impact on any given faction - changed the win rates?

The logic of smaller tables benefitting melee is the following:
*Melee units want to charge.
*On a smaller table there is less space to move out of charge range.
*Melee units benefit from playing on a smaller table.

Devastators benefit more from Iron Hands Chapter Tactics, while Terminators benefit more from Blood Angels Chapter Tactics, but the points cost stays the same therefore people will be pushed towards only taking units that synergize with their Chapter Tactic despite fluff saying both chapters use Terminators and Devastators. Chapter Tactics also increase lethality in the game.

Combat Doctrines/Super Doctrines are bad for the game because they add a lot of complexity to the game, making the game harder to get into.

I propose you host an 8 man tournament where half the players play shooting lists and the other half play melee lists and everyone plays against everyone once. Then host a new tournament using the same lists on 72x48 instead of 60x44. See whether there's a difference in performance in the tournament using 60x44 vs 72x48. If you're not willing to do that you cannot conclusively say whether the smaller tables are better for melee, so all we can say is whether we think it's logical or illogical that a smaller table should benefit melee lists or perhaps come up with a few games worth of anecdotal evidence.