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.

Recently I realized that in most war-games the maximum range for a rifle or automatic weapon is around 24". Why is this so?

If in 1/64;

1" is 64", 5.3 ft, 1.8 Yards or 1.6 meters
24" is 1536", 127 ft, 43.2 Yards or 38.4 meters

In reality at 1/64th scale (which is roughly what Warhammer 40k is) the 100 meters or 109.4 yards mark is at 65 inches! Most weapons nowadays have a far larger range than 100 meters and so shouldn't all weapons in Warhammer 40,000 or what ever war-game have a range of almost infinite unless on a really large war-game table.

The only time a weapon's maximum range of their weapon would be 24" would be in about 1/144th scale or 15mm, and that is assuming they are firing at their effective range and do not fire over their maximum range which would be roughly about 300 meters, which would make a 15mm range of a rifle about 72".

Why is this massive discrepancy exist within the war-gaming community, even in games were realism is the key to the game?

Range unlimited gets boring after a while?

Wargaming is all abstracted from reality,

Just try not to think how a Leman Russ can power itself using a wood burning stove.

Well I suppose, but then again that could simply be removed by a long range modifier forcing the player to advance distances to get better shots.

Bartholomew001 wrote:

Why is this massive discrepancy exist within the war-gaming community, even in games were realism is the key to the game?

Because realism isn't the only key. Playability and game balance factor in as well.

Sniper models need to roll for wind changes and spin drift IMO...

Bartholomew001 wrote:If in 1/64;

I think general consensus puts the scale closer to 1/54-ish. It's not really consistent, though... an 8-foot tall Marine isn't significantly taller than a 6-7 foot tall Guardsman, for example. Scale isn't really a prime consideration on the part of the designers.


I think there are two factors to consider on weapons ranges though. The first is that everything has to be compacted to work on a reasonable sized table, and most games designers like to keep weapons ranges as something you have to work for rather than being able to shoot at anything anywhere on the table.

The other thing is that effective range and engagement range are two very different creatures. I like to think that 40K's ranges lean more towards the latter... so a lasgun, for example, would in 'reality' have a maximum range of considerably more than 24"... but in game terms, your chances of actually hitting anything further than 24" away while being engaged in a running firefight are negligible enough to be discounted for all practical purposes.

It's not a perfect explanation (doesn't cover artillery, for example) but it's one that works for me.

I think maybe promoting close combat has to do with it as well. If every shooty army could just huddle in the farthest corner and shoot across the field assaulty stuff would have to jump through all kinds of hoops.
Of course the entire concept of close combat in the far future is not really 'realistic' as well. In Space Hulks and such maybe but not on an open battlefield. How often does hand-to-hand combat still take place in modern real-life wars (as a major part of warfare)?

40K is a game, not remotely a simulation.

If you apply the simulation standard to ranged weapons, then
apply the same to melee weapons.

Simulate this:



That's a chain saw. On a sword.

All MY swords have chainsaws on them. Not sure what kind of shoddy blades you use over there

How big are your tables in your house ...?
ranges are based on the fact that most people are 5-6ft tall and household tables are made for 4-10 people normaly so take the average width of a table half it {one half for each army} and you have 24inch any more than that and you would just have to lines of troops standing there shhoting at each other and that would be fun wouldnt it ?

CURNOW wrote:so take the average width of a table half it {one half for each army} and you have 24inch

Most normal household dining tables are closer to 3' across. 3 and a half tops. The 24" is nothing to do with your dining table. It's just an arbitrary distance, chosen because it 'feels' about right. And in GW's case, because it's a multiple of 6, as GW tend to keep all of their ranges divisible by 6 for convenience.

^^ That.

I've argued before with Americans about the size of normal dining tables. I can only repeat that the great majority of British tables (the country where the game is written) are sized about like Insaniak says.

insaniak wrote:

Bartholomew001 wrote:If in 1/64;

I think general consensus puts the scale closer to 1/54-ish. It's not really consistent, though... an 8-foot tall Marine isn't significantly taller than a 6-7 foot tall Guardsman, for example. Scale isn't really a prime consideration on the part of the designers.


I think there are two factors to consider on weapons ranges though. The first is that everything has to be compacted to work on a reasonable sized table, and most games designers like to keep weapons ranges as something you have to work for rather than being able to shoot at anything anywhere on the table.

The other thing is that effective range and engagement range are two very different creatures. I like to think that 40K's ranges lean more towards the latter... so a lasgun, for example, would in 'reality' have a maximum range of considerably more than 24"... but in game terms, your chances of actually hitting anything further than 24" away while being engaged in a running firefight are negligible enough to be discounted for all practical purposes.

It's not a perfect explanation (doesn't cover artillery, for example) but it's one that works for me.

Even in modern combat infantry will not fight at 50m unless ambushed, in which the firefight would be short and bitter. Most targets will be engaged as 100m or about 60" in gaming turns, yet I know of games were 60" is the maximum for sniper rifles.

Why?
Because the ground scale in 40k is not the same as the figure scale (suspending disbelief here that GW HAS a scale, as it seems to be all over the shop).

Because the ground scale is NOT linear, otherwise, you would be playing with 28mm models on a basketball court or carpark.

This is the main reason.

Not sure how much military experience you have. I have 10 years and close in firefights are much more common in my experience then you seem to think. Of course it is all terrain dependent.

According to what I have readn, firefights in Vietnam were often conducted at ranges of 5 to 50 metres in the jungle.

chromedog wrote:Why?
Because the ground scale in 40k is not the same as the figure scale (suspending disbelief here that GW HAS a scale, as it seems to be all over the shop).

Because the ground scale is NOT linear, otherwise, you would be playing with 28mm models on a basketball court or carpark.

This is the main reason.

This makes much more sense now. I kind of always knew that the game was a little abstract considering how many times do Yarrick or Mephiston actually fight only 30 CSM, and when does a Guardsman army out number a Tyranid army?

This is actually quite funny since I actually had a Garden Battle using my mod for W40k and had double ranges for the weapons, the space we had was about 400" IIRC. That was fun, until it rained.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

brettz123 wrote:Not sure how much military experience you have. I have 10 years and close in firefights are much more common in my experience then you seem to think. Of course it is all terrain dependent.

From what I have been told, the British Army attempts to engage the target at about 100 to 150 meters. Yes, I know this is a "idle" environment, and nothing in war is ever idle, but I was using the 100 meter mark as an example.

Just for curiosity, what do you mean by terrain dependent?

If you play 1/3000 scale WW1 naval, the maximum weapon ranges are about 18 feet for models about one to two inches long.

But if this was realism why are the armies meeting each other? Wouldn't most warfare be done from aerial or orbital bombardment? Most games of 40k have two sides run at each other shooting and then clubbing each other to death in hand to hand. I'm fairly sure that is not the real future of warfare particularly on a galactic scale.

Because war isn't about killing the enemy - it's about TAKING what they have.

Sure, ships in orbit can flatten a planet - but if you want to take and hold something, you need guys on the ground, in the mud.

Bartholomew001 wrote:This makes much more sense now. I kind of always knew that the game was a little abstract considering how many times do Yarrick or Mephiston actually fight only 30 CSM, and when does a Guardsman army out number a Tyranid army?

That part is explained by the idea that a 40K battle is just a part of a larger battle. You're just focussing on the important bit.

GW explained it quite well back when Epic 40K was released, with the idea that the closer in firefights between Epic Detachments were essentially a miniature 40K battle going on in that part of the battlefield.

If you look at it the ranges and overall power of 40k weapons is less than modern weapons.

Think of it this way though...

A M1 Abrams can kill almost any other tank out there at more than 1000 meters (aprox 3300 feet). Thats around 650 inches or 54 feet. A typical table size being equal to around 100 is well inside "instant kill" range of modern tank weapons. To be realistic there would be no need for armor roles for larger weapons...they would pierce the targets armor with ease on every shot.

For small arms (bolters, lasgun, etc) the limited ranges are a bit more realistic. Sure the weapons can fire farther with good accuracy, but under low stress target range conditions. In battle under stress and fire shorter ranges do reflect the range that a soldier would have the time and concentration to locate and fire on a target.

If you want a realistic game, you might as well remove the movement phase.
In "real war", people rarely move around. the mostly stay still.
Oh! And don't forget the Assault Phase. That'd be gone too.
Face it, realistic games are boring.

insaniak wrote:

CURNOW wrote:so take the average width of a table half it {one half for each army} and you have 24inch

Most normal household dining tables are closer to 3' across. 3 and a half tops. The 24" is nothing to do with your dining table. It's just an arbitrary distance, chosen because it 'feels' about right. And in GW's case, because it's a multiple of 6, as GW tend to keep all of their ranges divisible by 6 for convenience.

And 4'x8' is a standard size for sheets of wood. I'm sure that factors into why 4x4, 4x6 and 4x8 are such popular sizes for wargames.

Ironically as I just worked out the Musket or Handgun in Warhammer Fantasy has a range only 6" off the real effective range for the weapon.

I think that the shorter range is probably more accurate, especially considering the modern development of warfare.

Modern warfare is mobile and fast paced. Just because your rifle can shoot accurately over 100 yards, it does not mean that the modern soldier will stop with every shot and focus on accurately aim at a target 100 yards away.

Soldiers will hide behind cover, take pot shots at targets or use automatic fire to increase their chances of hitting a close target that is doing the same thing they are doing: Hiding behind cover.

If you take snipers out of the equation, and compare the number of wounds inflicted to the number of rounds fired, I think that we could very easily argue that a ballistic skill of 2 would be very unrealistic.

Modern warfare does not inflict a hit for every 6 bullets fired.

d-usa wrote:I think that the shorter range is probably more accurate, especially considering the modern development of warfare.

Modern warfare is mobile and fast paced. Just because your rifle can shoot accurately over 100 yards, it does not mean that the modern soldier will stop with every shot and focus on accurately aim at a target 100 yards away.

Soldiers will hide behind cover, take pot shots at targets or use automatic fire to increase their chances of hitting a close target that is doing the same thing they are doing: Hiding behind cover.

If you take snipers out of the equation, and compare the number of wounds inflicted to the number of rounds fired, I think that we could very easily argue that a ballistic skill of 2 would be very unrealistic.

Modern warfare does not inflict a hit for every 6 bullets fired.

I don't actually mind the fact that the weapon's rate of fire has been dulled down, since I do not want to roll 30 odd dice for every time I fire a units ranged weapons. The idea that the a shot will hit 50% of the time is the fact that was also followed by seven or so failed shots, unless of course the weapon is very low rate of fire and then they have to aim and fire.

ZacktheChaosChild wrote:If you want a realistic game, you might as well remove the movement phase.
In "real war", people rarely move around. the mostly stay still.
Oh! And don't forget the Assault Phase. That'd be gone too.
Face it, realistic games are boring.

Very true, and mostly because CC is of little value in modern warfare. An assault rifle is far more effective than a knife. Why go to CC with an enemy when its your least effective option? Close to optimal firing distance, gain cover and fire. Move only if needed. Another large factor for this is modern armor. A modern Marine cant exactly stride through small arms fire like a 40K termie can.