I don't play 40k and didn't realize their table size had changed. That's about a 30% decrease in table size, that would have to really change the game.
the 6 book guess came from me and other veterans counting how many armies are featured in each book and assuming everyone would get featured
Yes, 40k it's 60' x 44'. But for that kind of game it was a good change, discouraging camping gunlines lists.
Well, given that Broken Realms is pretty much AoS Psychic Awakening, and Psychic Awakening led to 40K 9th Edition, I’m still assuming Third Edition AoS is just around the corner. New Editions have always arrived around July time since the Warhammer Fantasy days, so I’m counting on that to happen again. Agreed. Given that Kragnos and his Centaurs are likely going to be a brand new Destruction faction, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are the ones who will appear in the boxed game opposite Stormcast. A small range for them will probably be introduced in the beginning with their rules available in the Broken Realms book, and this will likely be expanded upon with the boxed game models and perhaps a few more separate units when Third Edition comes round.
Obviously they're going to be opposite aelves, but other than that. Yeah wouldn't be surprised if that woudl happen.
Not the biggest fan of this idea, to be honest. The board size changes for 40k made armies like Tau and Imperial Guard all but impossible to play, since melee is the primary focus of the game now. I know that we've been talking about how AoS is in a shooting meta for a while now, but shrinking the board size to the point where you can always get into melee in turn 1 will really wreck armies that want to have a turn of shooting and magic before getting into combat. And yes, I do think this will negatively affect us quite a bit, because we rarely get to pick who goes first and our opponents are going to be up in our faces before we get to do anything. This will just solidify FoS as the only viable army list because of the chance to get some overwatch, but even that will be neutered quite a bit if your enemy is getting to charge un-buffed Skinks...
I could see DT being decent in that case too, being able to hold our important units off the table to counterattack
Bear in mind that the 60" x 44" is a minimum board size. Outside of tournaments, which I'm fairly certain most AoS or 40k players don't attend anyway, there's little that prevents you from continuing to play on 72" x 48". And really, far too much of any 'meta' that arises in AoS or 40k can be chalked up to a disproportionate number of battle reports involving people who optimize the fun out of the game, and the subsequent failure of the tournament organizers and game publisher to offer viable alternatives that are actually fun to play with and play against.
That's true to a certain point. The old format is available because GW did not want to exacerbate everyone by tossing aside all those official boards (including costly things as the Sector Imperialis), but the intended format of 9th is 60"x44", and many players are going to play the game "as intended".
Truth be told, outside of rules lawyers and tournament attendees, it would honestly surprise me if the majority of players actually go through the trouble of measuring that out every time they set up for a game, and not just play with the table size they're given.
I mean, a lot of em will at least try to get a table of roughly the right size. But yeah ultimatly most players won't have the luxury of getting a bigger if their dinner table is too small... General issue in competitive games... people are very good at optimizing the fun out of stuff. And that can quickly spiral out of control as it pushes out the "fun" playstyles.
Not sure why we feel the need to be a little critical of players who enjoy the game differently than you do, and certainly don't know why we are blaming tournament organizers who continually do the selfless service of putting on events often with little to no incentive for their time spent.
Indeed, to each their own. That's why tournaments, with a disproportionately loud demographic within the Warhammer community, practically take center-stage when it comes to dictating errata and other revisions pretty much at the expense of everything else. I would definitely like to be proven wrong, but based on the current state of GW's core games there's very little that suggests otherwise to me.
It's odd to me that you're critical of the competitive community determining the competitive landscape of the game. The social contract inherent to this game maintains that fluffy/narrative driven games have a way of balancing themselves... nor is balance an inherent component of those style of games. Fluffy/narrative driven games are often intentionally imbalanced if the narrative dictates that. I also think it's a little unfair to criticize the tournament community as "dictating errata and other revisions" when the tournament community has more or less gone the entire existence of GW games without any semblance of competitive oriented balance changes.
Who said anything about fluffy/narrative driven games? The disconnect is between those who play to win at all costs, and those who play pitched battles in a more relaxed environment.
The amount of people that play win at all costs is exceedingly, exceedingly small and both of those groups are going to wait the same types of balance changes. The idea that there's this massive influx of WAAC players dominating local tournaments and crushing the fun out of the game at every turn is just not factually correct in my experience. Most hardcore tournament players i know bring WAAC lists in exactly 2 scenarios: 1) they are practicing for a serious tournament against other like minded players 2) they are at the serious tournament and have a realistic shot at doing well. A vast, vast majority of tournament gamers are bringing whatever list they like the most, have the models painted for, or simply enjoy playing. Most players are not going to do well at a tournament even with the nastiest of lists. I just think this problem is created and then exacerbated by the online community that throws off these drastic black and white opinions about competitive balance based on the copious amounts of warhammer information they consume but don't experience. For lack of a better term, the "hey whats the best list right now?" crowd and the ones that answer them. There's a whole host of players that probably are just regurgitating information they got elsewhere, but make it seem as the end all be all of any kind of warhammer experience. It creates this illusion of "WAAC" players that gate everyone's fun, but really its just the hyperbolic nature of the internet and the unfortunate result of giving everyone and their grandmother a soapbox. How often have you talked, read, or gotten the opinions of a player who is actively winning tournaments? How many people do you know personally that you'd consider a "WAAC" player?
You are moving the goalposts again. The point, as I saw it, was it is the top level games that get the most coverage in battle reports and skews what people feel the state of the game is, and what issues exist. This is basically the argument you make in the second half of your post.
The first half of this statements I get, though I disagree with it. Meta is the state of the game all around, and can be developed without online connections/interactions. You just need to know how to read a book and understand how it goes together. As well as what the book does, how it fits in the meta. Optimization is just part of how you build an effective force. I find the second part of the statement hard to really take apart and understand without knowing what exactly is meant. What do you mean by tournament organizers and game publisher fail to offer viable alternatives, there are alternative modes of play? And why add 'actually fun to play with and play against'? Are you excluding said alternatives? Your perspective is appreciated on this.
I don't think very many people actually do get exposed to much top level gameplay. However, I do agree that the constant chatter and perception does skew how people at large view the game. I'd argue that's less a problem with the people producing content or playing those games and more a problem with a community that doesnt seem to have any capacity for nuance when it comes to this game. The original comment went out of it's way to blame tournament players and organizers for what is largely a misconception among everyone BUT those categories of players. I think the solution is a more educated, more discussion oriented community that focuses on tactics, gameplay and player agency, over regurgitation of black and white views on "what's better" with no context.