Tabletop Tactics on Playtesting 9th

[BitsHammer]

No new info about the rules but a nice peek into GW's process:

 

The Cliff Notes written up on Dakka:

Playtestings and preamble:

- cant reveal anything new (no suprise), they gonna talk about their thoughts on stuff already revealed.

- exp of play testing has been long, and is saying GW do, do it in depth

- they think 'everything' will work well

- they get the rules, submission feedback deadlines using forms

- gw rules team, suprised how responsive they were

 

Points:

- points going up is a good thing, games had too many models in them.

- everything being cheaper makes things hard to point at the lower end

- It plays better when its faster

- Stu black saying loosing a squad from his list is fairly accurate as to what to expect (so 200ish pts in current money)

 

Table sizes:

- table size is a guideline

- but, they recogmened the new table sizes

- it makes it more tactical

- it also makes combat armies better (interesting point).

- its been playtested on the new sizes

- good for tournaments, will be able to have more players + quicker games. expect all tournies to run the new size

 

Missions:

- big changes here

- current 40k environment is disparate, ITC, ETC, core etc

- Missions are an attempt to bring these inline with the use of secondaries

- Missions very much support a theme in an army and secondaries really support tailoring the mission to your specific army

- focus on seeing variety of opponents

- still wise to have some balance as missions might punish you.

 

Command points:

- They like paying for detachments. 8th was bad because detachments covered weaknesses from other armies and rewarded you for doing it with CP.

- Will be more refined, cross faction strats might be harder

 

Crusade:

- First time in their opinion 40k has a robust narative system since rouge trader

- Its not like necromunda 100% but similar to it in the xp system

- They really like crusade, very social experience and themed

 

Closing:

- best bits of 8th, new stuff makes it better. Sky isn't falling. They are very upbeat about it.

[Dark Shepherd]

Them really emphasising the new table size is my takeaway from that

[G8Keeper]

Them really emphasising the new table size is my takeaway from that

 

Same here, the fact that it's 2 killzone boards side by side makes it a bit more acceptable for me. I'll definitely try it.

[BluejayJunior]

I think it's cool that it's based on Kill Team boards. Makes a lot of sense. Now they just need to sell individual boards so I can pick some up. 

[NTaW]

That was an interesting listen. I am currently making a small skirmish table and I just went from needing 64 tiles for a 4x4' area to 35 tiles for a 42x30" playing area. That fits everything better.

[Kain Mor]

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

[BluejayJunior]

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

That's fine. No one is forcing you to (unless you go to tournaments). I'm sure you'll still enjoy the game and I'm glad you will. 

[BitsHammer]

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

If you watched the video they said the smaller tables are a tighter, more balanced game size, but the 6x4 is still fun and playable, just a touch less competetive.

[War Angel]

Would have been nice to hear a little more about weather any play styles will still work.

[BitsHammer]

Would have been nice to hear a little more about weather any play styles will still work.

Tied into rules details I suspect.

[Fajita Fan]

Is the smaller table area coupled with more or less terrain? A smaller table with the TLoS blocking terrain people have already made for a few decades might mean fewer avenues to move around.

 

Also I hope the game is fun at lower points levels.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[War Angel]

Is the smaller table area coupled with more or less terrain? A smaller table with the TLoS blocking terrain people have already made for a few decades might mean fewer avenues to move around.

Also I hope the game is fun at lower points levels.

I’ve played a few 500 point games this year (prior to the shutdown) they aren’t the awesome showdown that a larger game is, but they’re fun.

[Bulwyf]

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

 

same here. I've played on 6 x 4 since I think Rogue Trader days. Not a chance I'm giving up the table or the mats I have for some hair brained one edition off change in MINIMUM table size.

[Moonstalker]

 

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

 

same here. I've played on 6 x 4 since I think Rogue Trader days. Not a chance I'm giving up the table or the mats I have for some hair brained one edition off change in MINIMUM table size.

 

 

I could be down with giving up 6x4, but I'm not gonna use those wonky sizes they suggest.  If you have a realm of battle board, or have made your own tile-based board, or have gotten one of any number of other tile-based boards, 44x60 isn't really gonna work for you.  That only specifically works if you've got several kill team setups to push together.  Even making a new modular tile board to fit those dimensions is going to give you uneven tiles.  I'll play 4ftx3ft for 500-1000, and 4ftx5ft for up to 2k.

[Fajita Fan]

Well it is nice to have some sideboard area for codices, iPads, cards, rulers, etc. AT is played on a 3x3 and having a 4’ table is great for all the cards and data sheets you need for every titan.

[General Strike]

That's my thoughts. I think a tighter game will help in a lot of ways, but having extra room at both ends of the table for my dice, ruler, cards and codex is good news. The store that my buddy just opened has extra room for these already, but at home itll help

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

 

same here. I've played on 6 x 4 since I think Rogue Trader days. Not a chance I'm giving up the table or the mats I have for some hair brained one edition off change in MINIMUM table size.

 

 

I could be down with giving up 6x4, but I'm not gonna use those wonky sizes they suggest.  If you have a realm of battle board, or have made your own tile-based board, or have gotten one of any number of other tile-based boards, 44x60 isn't really gonna work for you.  That only specifically works if you've got several kill team setups to push together.  Even making a new modular tile board to fit those dimensions is going to give you uneven tiles.  I'll play 4ftx3ft for 500-1000, and 4ftx5ft for up to 2k.

 

 

I had started making modular tiles that were 12" x 12". I only had 4 tiles assembled and ready to paint, so when I saw the news, I figured, "What the hay, might as well embrace the new."  What I had planned to do was step it up to 15" x 15". You'd always be out 1" on the consistent 44" side, but you'd hit the 30, 60 and 90 dead on. Ignoring the first 1/2 inch of your deployment zone is worth it to be able to rearrange the tiles in any pattern or orientation. 

 

Trouble is, I wanted to do this on the cheap, and I've been using cardboard- it's surprisingly much harder to find 15 x 15.

 

Haven't figured out how to roll yet. I could finish the 12" x 12" and just ignore the parts of the battlefield that are off limits if I feel it's better for balance. But I also feel like building those 4 tiles was all the prototyping I needed, and maybe I should just cut to the chase and build a quality board of 15 x 15.

[G8Keeper]

I don’t care how many people tell me how great it is, I’m not leaving the 6x4.

 

That's completely fine, I'm pretty sure most of my games will be 6x4 too but, I think I'll try he new size a few times just to see how it plays as I have a couple of kill team boards already.

[mughi3]

Well it is nice to have some sideboard area for codices, iPads, cards, rulers, etc. AT is played on a 3x3 and having a 4’ table is great for all the cards and data sheets you need for every titan.

 

I play at a FLGS with loads of tables including lots of side tables this has never been a problem even when we use the entire 4X8 minis game tables for big games.

 

 

I find it laughable that they go on about play time, crucial loss of certain units, and getting assault based armies into CC as being fixes for 8th.  when all of these things already existed (in 5th) and worked as they are now claiming 9th is going to(in a much more straightforward and simpler format),  in order to make the game better after 8th. play time for a 2k  game has always been about 2 hours in every game of 40K i have played since 3rd ed for a 1v1 game. the only time it takes much longer is team games or apocalypse level since your are spending a large amount of time waiting for the multiple other players. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by mughi3

[Lord Marshal]

I wouldn't exactly read too much into the video. They don't bring up a single honest issue or concern, since obviously GW wouldn't like that and would deny them future freebies/behind-the-scenes opportunities. I wouldn't be shocked if they were sent an e-mail prior 'suggesting' some key talking points they should really, ahem, 'discuss'.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Lord Marshal

[G8Keeper]

I wouldn't exactly read too much into the video. They don't bring up a single honest issue or concern, since obviously GW wouldn't like that and would deny them future freebies/behind-the-scenes opportunities. I wouldn't be shocked if they were sent an e-mail prior 'suggesting' some key talking points they should really, ahem, 'discuss'.

 

That's almost directly questioning their integrity though as Lawrence specifically says if there was any issues he would tell us.  At some point you have to actually trust people and what they say.

 

TTT have sometimes been very critical of releases, especially Chef and BBone. I can't see GW involving them at all if they had any concerns in that regard.

[Umbros]

 

I wouldn't exactly read too much into the video. They don't bring up a single honest issue or concern, since obviously GW wouldn't like that and would deny them future freebies/behind-the-scenes opportunities. I wouldn't be shocked if they were sent an e-mail prior 'suggesting' some key talking points they should really, ahem, 'discuss'.

 

That's almost directly questioning their integrity though as Lawrence specifically says if there was any issues he would tell us.  At some point you have to actually trust people and what they say.

 

TTT have sometimes been very critical of releases, especially Chef and BBone. I can't see GW involving them at all if they had any concerns in that regard.

 

 

It is also worth noting that their whole approach is positive and humours but even they've been increasingly frustrated with things like the SM codex and the endless rerolls. This was with them receiving free copies of codexes.

[Larkyn]

Don't forget how disappointed they've been in a few of the Psychic Awakening updates too. Specifically GSC, as they said that the new "chapter tactics" in the book were far worse than the base codex ones, and Bone saying how sad he was that that was the case.

 

So I think if there were any issues, they'd tell us. Or maybe they were paid off in this case. Who knows?

[The_Chaplain]

 

 

I wouldn't exactly read too much into the video. They don't bring up a single honest issue or concern, since obviously GW wouldn't like that and would deny them future freebies/behind-the-scenes opportunities. I wouldn't be shocked if they were sent an e-mail prior 'suggesting' some key talking points they should really, ahem, 'discuss'.

That's almost directly questioning their integrity though as Lawrence specifically says if there was any issues he would tell us. At some point you have to actually trust people and what they say.

 

TTT have sometimes been very critical of releases, especially Chef and BBone. I can't see GW involving them at all if they had any concerns in that regard.

Chef's rant regarding the genestealer cult rules in the psychic awakening book comes to mind. I agree, if they werent keen on any particular thing they wouldve mentioned it somehow. TTT are solid guys who are genuinely enthusiastic about the hobby and their battle reports-- seeing them as playtesters made me very hopeful about the next edition

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I wouldn't exactly read too much into the video. They don't bring up a single honest issue or concern, since obviously GW wouldn't like that and would deny them future freebies/behind-the-scenes opportunities. I wouldn't be shocked if they were sent an e-mail prior 'suggesting' some key talking points they should really, ahem, 'discuss'.

That's almost directly questioning their integrity though as Lawrence specifically says if there was any issues he would tell us. At some point you have to actually trust people and what they say.

 

TTT have sometimes been very critical of releases, especially Chef and BBone. I can't see GW involving them at all if they had any concerns in that regard.

Whilst that’s a fair point, it’s also very hard to believe that there are absolutely no issues with this new ruleset or edition. It seems very unlikely given GWs track record. Just in 8th they said it was the most playtested and thorough edition ever and straight out the gate they had to fix a bunch of stuff like flyers holding objectives.

 

I’m not at all saying these guys are being disingenuous but they’re also really close to it and sometimes that blinds people to problems.