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.

Mad4Minis wrote:A modern Marine cant exactly stride through small arms fire like a 40K termie can.

Exactly. You all seem to be forgetting that we are dealing with massivlely superior technology. Inventions like Power Armour etc or even the Orks rapid regeneration would render a lot of the fire power ineffective.

And, you know, its a game.

d-usa wrote:Modern warfare does not inflict a hit for every 6 bullets fired.

I recall reading that a staggering 250,000 bullets are fired for every enemy casualty in Iraq because the majority of shooting is suppressive fire, for which 40K doesn't have rules. It used to have overwatch, which was a close approximation.

CC does happen but it is rare, can still be very effective.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

Not sure about the source but this was reported in the "respected press" but this was the first account that I found.

As stated GW have made a game where the ranges are set to both facilitate and encourage movement. Don't thay also suggets that CC is not only H2H but also short range fire ergo why pistol/SMG type weapoms are included for attacks?

FoW have an interesting take, which basically comes down to an increasing scale as you close with the enemy. Thus allowing all units (especially arty for example) to be represented on the battlefield, which is what the players want.

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

Same for Artillery.

Soldiers actually hitting each other with swords and things has been rare in warfare since the mid-17th century. It tends to happen in special circumstances, such as fighting in very close quarters like trenches or ships, where ranges are restricted to a few yards.

The kind of close combat that happens in modern warfare is that the two forces attempt to suppress each other's morale with firepower. If the attacker is not suppressed, he gets closer and close to the defender until they think, "Crap, they're not going to stop. I'd better get out of here!" If this is going to work, it happens when the attackers are maybe 50 metres away and can cover the remaining ground quickly enough to be an immediate physical threat.

When this pattern fails, both sides tend to bog down into a costly and indecisive firefight.

Bartholomew001 wrote:

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

By terrain dependent I mean if you are fighting in an urban, jungle, desert, or wooded terrain. So for instance in a desert environment you are more likely to be able to engage at longer ranges because you will wider open spaces. Even in a lot of places in Europe you really have a hard time acquiring targets from a distance because of trees, walls, buildings, or small rises in the ground.
Even in the American army we train to hit targets out to 300 meters but in practice this is very hard to do. Hitting a non-moving target at these distances is not easy for a lot of soldiers and when you add in a moving target (who really has a great reason to not get hit), weather, and terrain and it becomes really hard for a standard soldier to effectively engage a target.
And as a previous poster pointed out in the jungle or even a wooded area these ranges will easily drop down to well under 100m. So in my determination the most important limiting factor in successful target acquisition is not usually the range of the weapon in question.

notprop wrote:CC does happen but it is rare, can still be very effective.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

Not sure about the source but this was reported in the "respected press" but this was the first account that I found.

Man, if you're getting into close combat in a 2011 era military conflict, you're doing it wrong.

In my head, scary thought, I've always pictured that the armor revolution has outstripped the weapon evolution, at least at range, at that point in time.

The medieval era the armor tech was ahead of the ranged weapons tech.

The modern era the ranged weapon tech is ahead of the armor tech.

Future: who knows?

Take medieval combat for example. The weapons that fired at range didn't have either the rate of fire or the capacity to destroy enemy armor in sufficient numbers to prevent them from getting close. In modern combat the weapon tech is higher than the armor tech, which seems to me is interested in keeping you alive as opposed to unscathed, so close combat is a rarity. Sometime in the future, armor is revolutionized and once again ranged weapons become ineffective against the armor to drop the enemy in sufficient numbers. Also, close combat weapons have also had a revolution that enables them to get through the advanced armor, not only making close combat doable, but actually preferable.

Luco wrote:In my head, scary thought, I've always pictured that the armor revolution has outstripped the weapon evolution, at least at range, at that point in time.

The medieval era the armor tech was ahead of the ranged weapons tech.

The modern era the ranged weapon tech is ahead of the armor tech.

Future: who knows?

Take medieval combat for example. The weapons that fired at range didn't have either the rate of fire or the capacity to destroy enemy armor in sufficient numbers to prevent them from getting close. In modern combat the weapon tech is higher than the armor tech, which seems to me is interested in keeping you alive as opposed to unscathed, so close combat is a rarity. Sometime in the future, armor is revolutionized and once again ranged weapons become ineffective against the armor to drop the enemy in sufficient numbers. Also, close combat weapons have also had a revolution that enables them to get through the advanced armor, not only making close combat doable, but actually preferable.

Oooh, I like this one. Yet, there are weapons such as Lascannons, Meltaguns, Plasmaguns, D-cannons which can rip open enemy Armour at some ranges. I suppose the rarity of these weapons limit their effectiveness on the battlefield. Can you imagine a fully Guardsman unit with Plasmaguns, wow that would be devestating.

Back on topic, shouldn't the weapons have unlimited range unless they really suffer range wise like the Meltagun or Pistols. Obviously firing further will cause shots to be far more inaccuracte however.

Bartholomew001 wrote:

Back on topic, shouldn't the weapons have unlimited range unless they really suffer range wise like the Meltagun or Pistols. Obviously firing further will cause shots to be far more inaccuracte however.

I would agree with you on this. You could simply use a modifier to hit to model it but that would slow down the game and make it more complicated. Now if you are ok with that you should try it with some friends and see how you like it. It may turn out you enjoy playing more that way.

There's a good discussion here; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/269484.page
about the evolution of weapons in 40K.

The result was that you can't beat the rule of cool and GW want you to buy more models.

As you can see from the Avatar, I would love for 'true' range firepower to be in the game, but alas I must accept my fate to be beaten about the head with a rifle butt like a baby seal.

Cheers

Andrew

Ouze wrote:

notprop wrote:CC does happen but it is rare, can still be very effective.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0bd_1249524865

Not sure about the source but this was reported in the "respected press" but this was the first account that I found.

Man, if you're getting into close combat in a 2011 era military conflict, you're doing it wrong.

Thats the Scots for you!

But I am sure if we had the number of aircraft the Yanks have then we could just flatten any troublesome positions as well and keep the pigstickkers sheathed.