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.

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
Peregrine, don't forget that this is not only a game that you enjoy. It has to be enjoyable for others too. While YOU may like the game for tanks, shooting, etc, others may like the assault armies. This does not make them wrong, they just enjoy different parts of the game than you. If anything, you should want those assault armies to be balanced to give you a good fight, not just winning with your IG because the rules are imbalanced. I have played both types of army, and I greatly prefer there to be a balance of power between the two. With some checks and balances, it makes the game much more dramatic and fun for me. I would rather lose, knowing I played at my best, than beat a handicapped opponent.

Well, don't forget that I want assault armies gone, not weakened. There won't be any problem with winning too easily against them because they won't exist at all.

I also don't agree with your description of grimdark.. Futility and failure? I believe you have grimdark mixed up with emo/suicidal. "Grimdark"... think about the word for a minute. Literally a combination of the words "grim" and "dark". Grim, meaning a situation that seems hopeless. Dark, meaning without light. Futility you could make a case for, but failure for the sake of failing doesn't really equate to grimdark... More like slapstick comedy. The whole point of having these heroic space marines is that in the end, they are not enough to save mankind, no matter how valiantly or fervently they fight. That, to me, is grimdark. A sergeant falling on his own chainsword is not grimdark.... just stupid. Much like that rendition of the 3 Stooges they just made.

I'm not the one who posted the comedy bit. Let me make it simple:

Grimdark should be about hopelessness. The Death Korps of Krieg are grimdark. It's trench warfare in space, with horrifying casualty lists and commanders whose strategy is "we have more men than you have bullets, we win". And yet there is no hesitation to die, the endless ranks of guardsmen march straight into machine gun fire and die for their emperor. The whole thing is a stupid, tragic waste and you want to scream at the Imperium for being so cruel and ignorant.

Chainsawing an ork in half, on the other hand, is just your average young male fantasy about being the hero. It isn't grim, it's "chainsaw melee would be SO COOL". The grimdark version of it would be that the marine code of honor says that you fight the enemy up close with a sword because it is honorable, and so you take your sword into battle. And you, along with your entire unit, die pointlessly to an artillery barrage because your commander cares more about honor than winning.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What a fail of a statement in light of the Carnifex or power armour existance, not to mention magic. daemons. space elves and countless other fantasy stuff that makes your call for realism sensless (not to be mistaken with inside 40k realism which is ofc important but assault army fits perfectly to it). Also melee has its place even today in certain conditions and we have no protection from bullets to speak of, if there was a new proper armour introduced or we met creatures large in numbers and careless for their lives today, melee could be back instantly.

Except that power armor doesn't save you from nuclear weapons. Melee might have a place in a world where you have to avoid collateral damage, but in a world of total war like 40k 90% of battles would consist of the navy bombing everything from orbit, and the other 10% would consist of long-range shooting followed by infantry shooting, with maybe an assault by a few marines against the last surviving traitor guardsmen hiding in cover on the key objective. An entire unit or army dedicated to assault would just get shot off the table by various heavy weapons.

The ONLY reason assault works at all is that movement ranges are not in scale with shooting ranges, and neither of them are in scale with model sizes. If weapon ranges were actually scaled right compared to everything else instead of laughably short you'd have bolters shooting at 72" and deployment zones ten feet apart. Good luck crossing that distance to assault

Also not sure why anyone would want assault out, that's dumbing down the game because of less posibilities.

Yeah, because nobody has ever made a complex strategy game with just movement and shooting, if there aren't screaming idiots with chainsaw swords it's too dumbed down to be interesting.

-Removed by insaniak. Please keep it on topic. -


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Chainsawing an ork in half, on the other hand, is just your average young male fantasy about being the hero. It isn't grim, it's "chainsaw melee would be SO COOL". The grimdark version of it would be that the marine code of honor says that you fight the enemy up close with a sword because it is honorable, and so you take your sword into battle. And you, along with your entire unit, die pointlessly to an artillery barrage because your commander cares more about honor than winning.

No chainsawing an ork in half is a silly bloodbath, I don't feel heroic playing that in the videogame or at the table. What you propose would require removing the Orks from the game in the first place, I'm all for grimdark but there is a great silly side to 40k that is hard to remove. You would need a second game, 40k why so serious edition or sth.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What a fail of a statement in light of the Carnifex or power armour existance, not to mention magic. daemons. space elves and countless other fantasy stuff that makes your call for realism sensless (not to be mistaken with inside 40k realism which is ofc important but assault army fits perfectly to it). Also melee has its place even today in certain conditions and we have no protection from bullets to speak of, if there was a new proper armour introduced or we met creatures large in numbers and careless for their lives today, melee could be back instantly.

Except that power armor doesn't save you from nuclear weapons. Melee might have a place in a world where you have to avoid collateral damage, but in a world of total war like 40k 90% of battles would consist of the navy bombing everything from orbit, and the other 10% would consist of long-range shooting followed by infantry shooting, with maybe an assault by a few marines against the last surviving traitor guardsmen hiding in cover on the key objective. An entire unit or army dedicated to assault would just get shot off the table by various heavy weapons.

And even taking your assumptions into account, maybe 1% of battles would be fought exactly at distances the TT battles due to various reasons and those are the ones we play. 1% battles in 40k or a fraction of it is stil a lot, anyway who cares obviously you are not simulating long range sniper battles or those that consist of a single nuke blowing everyone out instantly.

 Peregrine wrote:
The ONLY reason assault works at all is that movement ranges are not in scale with shooting ranges, and neither of them are in scale with model sizes. If weapon ranges were actually scaled right compared to everything else instead of laughably short you'd have bolters shooting at 72" and deployment zones ten feet apart. Good luck crossing that distance to assault

In fact I am thinking about making shooting distance unlimited in my games, the distance would only affect BS like -1 each 24", this way you would have the gun ranges right but still assault would be a viable option. That would obviously require changes for the sake of balance, point is you can make ranges right but explain assaults differently like it's not that easy shooting targets moving from cover to cover that are not in the short range and in the open, especialy when the target is a rapidly regenerating fungus or a fast alien beast.

Also bolter is kind of a grenade launcher so one could argue it is more a short range weapon.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also not sure why anyone would want assault out, that's dumbing down the game because of less posibilities.

Yeah, because nobody has ever made a complex strategy game with just movement and shooting, if there aren't screaming idiots with chainsaw swords it's too dumbed down to be interesting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
Peregrine, don't forget that this is not only a game that you enjoy. It has to be enjoyable for others too. While YOU may like the game for tanks, shooting, etc, others may like the assault armies. This does not make them wrong, they just enjoy different parts of the game than you. If anything, you should want those assault armies to be balanced to give you a good fight, not just winning with your IG because the rules are imbalanced. I have played both types of army, and I greatly prefer there to be a balance of power between the two. With some checks and balances, it makes the game much more dramatic and fun for me. I would rather lose, knowing I played at my best, than beat a handicapped opponent.

Well, don't forget that I want assault armies gone, not weakened. There won't be any problem with winning too easily against them because they won't exist at all.

I also don't agree with your description of grimdark.. Futility and failure? I believe you have grimdark mixed up with emo/suicidal. "Grimdark"... think about the word for a minute. Literally a combination of the words "grim" and "dark". Grim, meaning a situation that seems hopeless. Dark, meaning without light. Futility you could make a case for, but failure for the sake of failing doesn't really equate to grimdark... More like slapstick comedy. The whole point of having these heroic space marines is that in the end, they are not enough to save mankind, no matter how valiantly or fervently they fight. That, to me, is grimdark. A sergeant falling on his own chainsword is not grimdark.... just stupid. Much like that rendition of the 3 Stooges they just made.

I'm not the one who posted the comedy bit. Let me make it simple:

Grimdark should be about hopelessness. The Death Korps of Krieg are grimdark. It's trench warfare in space, with horrifying casualty lists and commanders whose strategy is "we have more men than you have bullets, we win". And yet there is no hesitation to die, the endless ranks of guardsmen march straight into machine gun fire and die for their emperor. The whole thing is a stupid, tragic waste and you want to scream at the Imperium for being so cruel and ignorant.

Chainsawing an ork in half, on the other hand, is just your average young male fantasy about being the hero. It isn't grim, it's "chainsaw melee would be SO COOL". The grimdark version of it would be that the marine code of honor says that you fight the enemy up close with a sword because it is honorable, and so you take your sword into battle. And you, along with your entire unit, die pointlessly to an artillery barrage because your commander cares more about honor than winning.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What a fail of a statement in light of the Carnifex or power armour existance, not to mention magic. daemons. space elves and countless other fantasy stuff that makes your call for realism sensless (not to be mistaken with inside 40k realism which is ofc important but assault army fits perfectly to it). Also melee has its place even today in certain conditions and we have no protection from bullets to speak of, if there was a new proper armour introduced or we met creatures large in numbers and careless for their lives today, melee could be back instantly.

Except that power armor doesn't save you from nuclear weapons. Melee might have a place in a world where you have to avoid collateral damage, but in a world of total war like 40k 90% of battles would consist of the navy bombing everything from orbit, and the other 10% would consist of long-range shooting followed by infantry shooting, with maybe an assault by a few marines against the last surviving traitor guardsmen hiding in cover on the key objective. An entire unit or army dedicated to assault would just get shot off the table by various heavy weapons.

The ONLY reason assault works at all is that movement ranges are not in scale with shooting ranges, and neither of them are in scale with model sizes. If weapon ranges were actually scaled right compared to everything else instead of laughably short you'd have bolters shooting at 72" and deployment zones ten feet apart. Good luck crossing that distance to assault

Also not sure why anyone would want assault out, that's dumbing down the game because of less posibilities.

Yeah, because nobody has ever made a complex strategy game with just movement and shooting, if there aren't screaming idiots with chainsaw swords it's too dumbed down to be interesting.

It's science fantasy, much like star wars, with energy swords and lasers. If you can't get over that I'd suggest you change genres.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Dislike it. I always liked guessing ranges. Adds skill and more suspense. Sometimes, you just guessed 1'' short and lose your squad in return...awesome times back then.

40k should be less forgiving.

Is being able to accurately eyeball 6" increments really skill that should be rewarded in wargaming though?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
If they'd made assault range something like D6+6 inches, or even 2d6 pickhighest plus 3", or anything other than what we have really, just to make sure you have at least a minimum distance you could move always move (instead of the dreaded snake eyes), while still keeping it random so people weren't always "just" out of assault range, I would be 100% ok with it.

Try thinking about how far your models move in an entire turn, rather than just in the assault phase. Each turn, your infantry gets 6"+2D6" movement, if they attempt an assault. It's not so bad when you look at it like that.

 Peregrine wrote:
I want... lots of movement. Just movement to get into a better shooting position, not movement to go hit someone with a sword.

Close combat is, and should be, a very viable army focus. It always has been, and is as equally important in the lore as it is in the game. Really, it's a critical part of the science fantasy genre: Dune, Star Wars, 40K... I don't see why you'd invest time and energy into a setting where it features so prominently if you detest it so much.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Dislike it. I always liked guessing ranges. Adds skill and more suspense. Sometimes, you just guessed 1'' short and lose your squad in return...awesome times back then.

40k should be less forgiving.

Is being able to accurately eyeball 6" increments really skill that should be rewarded in wargaming though?

To me, yes. Any change that reduces luck at the cost of skill is

As "more grimdark" idea was mentioned, I say get rid of Look Out Sir. It would be over the top grimdarky hilarious to see Calgars Draigos etc dying from a few shots if only they decided to stay on the front. The choice for the hero would be either to go where a lot of heroes are born, somewhere more in the middle of the unit surrounded by troops or later by honour guards etc or die a fast death of the stupid and honorable. The end of herohammer, that would be something not to mention that acidental heroic actions developing on the table would really be something, not like today produced by rules in nearly every game therefore meaningless.

 Peregrine wrote:
As for random charge range, I love it and my only complaint is that it should only be D6. Cry more assault army fans, your idiotic melee armies have no place on a battlefield where guns exist and I approve of anything GW does to destroy the entire concept of an "assault army" and reduce assaults to a rare event to wipe the last survivors of shooting off a critical objective.

I'm not a fan of measures or the 2d6 charge. I feel like the d6+6 makes sense to me since over watch is so brutal. I failed back to back charges 3 inches away against 10 necron warriors with my 10 grey hunters. Needless to say over watch killed my entire squad. That to me is kinda lame. Either over watch needs tweaking with how many shots you can fire or the assault range needs fixed. Because as it stands now being able to pump out 20+shots from over watch is brutal even if 6s are needed.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Dislike it. I always liked guessing ranges. Adds skill and more suspense. Sometimes, you just guessed 1'' short and lose your squad in return...awesome times back then.

40k should be less forgiving.

Is being able to accurately eyeball 6" increments really skill that should be rewarded in wargaming though?

To me, yes. Any change that reduces luck at the cost of skill is

Well, how about this. Instead of rolling a dice to see who goes first, there is an hand stand competition where both players do a handstand, and the first to fall over loses. The winner then decides whether to go first or second.

Or is the ability to do a handstand not a skill we should be rewarding in wargaming? Because to me, it's about as relevant as being able to eyeball 6" increments.

 Kaldor wrote:
Well, how about this. Instead of rolling a dice to see who goes first, there is an hand stand competition where both players do a handstand, and the first to fall over loses. The winner then decides whether to go first or second.

How is that even remotely the same thing?

Requiring you to estimate distances is one way of keeping the game a little more challenging. If you never know exactly how far away an enemy unit is until you try to attack them or charge them, then you are forced to build your tactics around your ability to estimate distances. In that sort of ruleset, your ability to estimate distances is important, and a skill to be developed.

By contrast, being able to do a handstand plays no part in playing the game, and adding a requirement to do so would add nothing much of value to a game of toy soldiers.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Well, how about this. Instead of rolling a dice to see who goes first, there is an hand stand competition where both players do a handstand, and the first to fall over loses. The winner then decides whether to go first or second.

How is that even remotely the same thing?

Requiring you to estimate distances is one way of keeping the game a little more challenging. If you never know exactly how far away an enemy unit is until you try to attack them or charge them, then you are forced to build your tactics around your ability to estimate distances. In that sort of ruleset, your ability to estimate distances is important, and a skill to be developed.

By contrast, being able to do a handstand plays no part in playing the game, and adding a requirement to do so would add nothing much of value to a game of toy soldiers.

The game measures certain skills. Application of assets, resource management, target priority, and basic movement, tactics and strategies.

Being able to gauge 6" is not one of those skills, and should be lumped in with all the other skills that aren't measured in wargaming. Like, ability to throw darts or curl your tongue. It has absolutely zero bearing on your ability as a player.

 TheAngrySquig wrote:
I've gotten snake eyes trying to charge a MM dread that was 3 inches away. One of my terminators got a bucketful of bad time

Ditto! Laughed a lot at that one.

Was running a newbie through a game telling her all about charge ranges and it was probably a good idea to get as close as possible before the charge. She held back a little bit (about 4") and you guessed it, she rolled snake eyes too.

It never made sense to NOT have pre-measuring. All of the advanced technology, targeting gear, some troops having hundreds of years of training, and you DON'T know if your gun is in range?

That was just dumb. Random charge distance is no big deal.

I'm not at all opposed to the randomness of the charge range. In fact, I'd like to see more "fog of war" elements in the game (eg, random movement ranges), but this would reduce playability further so on balance wouldn't be good.

The fact that certain armies can field units with rules like Fleet, gives them a tactical advantage in assaults over those that can't, and that variety is good.

I like it.

I liked eyeballing distances, I was not that good at it but it seperated veteran players from newcomers and I like such factors in games, rocket jumping in Quakes, shock combo in UT etc. Properly eyeballing 24" or more within half an inch for the first time was epic.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Also it's been heavily suggested by WD employees that nids will be getting a major overhaul soonish and i doubt orks are far behind.

Didn't know that, any link or sth? Is it a nid codex or faq? When? By whom? How much is the fish?

It would be enough to adjust point costs for nids to shine, the idea of new dex sent shivers down my spine though (of joy or terror, that depends on Mat Ward's engagemet in this).

Snapshot wrote:
I'm not at all opposed to the randomness of the charge range. In fact, I'd like to see more "fog of war" elements in the game (eg, random movement ranges), but this would reduce playability further so on balance wouldn't be good.

No, for the love of nurgle please no. Fog of war somehow yes but not bluntly like just further randomising movement, there is enough of a luckfest in 40k already. Possibility to ambush, hide manouvers or sth would be great, not sure how to do it properly though.

Snapshot wrote:
The fact that certain armies can field units with rules like Fleet, gives them a tactical advantage in assaults over those that can't, and that variety is good.

Fleet gave you tactical advantage in 5th as well. It was sadly random because of d6 run but at least you had that guaranteed 7 inches.

I tend to fall with the "premeasuring is good" crowd, not because it's more or less challenging, but because it removes a system that's easily exploited in practice. Movement was usually used to measure for shooting in my experience, either purposefully or accidentally. Anything that encouraged players getting away from the intent of the rules is bad in my opinion, and in that case intent didn't match reality.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I liked eyeballing distances, I was not that good at it but it seperated veteran players from newcomers and I like such factors in games, rocket jumping in Quakes, shock combo in UT etc. Properly eyeballing 24" or more within half an inch for the first time was epic.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Also it's been heavily suggested by WD employees that nids will be getting a major overhaul soonish and i doubt orks are far behind.

Didn't know that, any link or sth? Is it a nid codex or faq? When? By whom? How much is the fish?

It would be enough to adjust point costs for nids to shine, the idea of new dex sent shivers down my spine though (of joy or terror, that depends on Mat Ward's engagemet in this).

Snapshot wrote:
I'm not at all opposed to the randomness of the charge range. In fact, I'd like to see more "fog of war" elements in the game (eg, random movement ranges), but this would reduce playability further so on balance wouldn't be good.

No, for the love of nurgle please no. Fog of war somehow yes but not bluntly like just further randomising movement, there is enough of a luckfest in 40k already. Possibility to ambush, hide manouvers or sth would be great, not sure how to do it properly though.

Snapshot wrote:
The fact that certain armies can field units with rules like Fleet, gives them a tactical advantage in assaults over those that can't, and that variety is good.

Fleet gave you tactical advantage in 5th as well. It was sadly random because of d6 run but at least you had that guaranteed 7 inches.

i don't remember where i found it but it was on dakka dakka i'm sure I can find it. I am on the case!

here is what i found it's the article in question sorry I thought it was WD but it appears to be a reliable rumors website instead http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/07/faeit-212-exclusive-40k-design-studio.html

 Kaldor wrote:

The game measures certain skills. Application of assets, resource management, target priority, and basic movement, tactics and strategies.

Being able to gauge 6" is not one of those skills, and should be lumped in with all the other skills that aren't measured in wargaming. Like, ability to throw darts or curl your tongue. It has absolutely zero bearing on your ability as a player.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. I like premeasuring (what a stupid term, why not just call it measuring). I'm not a big fan of random charge lengths, and don't believe that they're necessary to compensate for measuring either.

We have these guys, see, and they've got laser weapons that can fire roughly 48 yards (24", where 1" = 2 yards based on a 28mm scale). And, they know, with absolute certainty that their shot will be useless at 49 yards, but might hit something at 48 yards (BTW, American Civil War muzzle-loading guns were effective to a range of about 500 yards, roughly ten-times as useful as a lasgun's range in this game - and they still relied on bayonette charges, so don't let anyone tell you that it's foolish to carry a sword in a universe where a laser loses all stopping power in 48 yards.) - anyhow, so we have these guys who know with absolute certainty that they cannot hit something 49 yards away. And this certainty, of being able to tell the difference between 48 and 49 yards doesn't ruin the game or detract from "the excitement", yet, when you go to charge, our super-human warriors with 200 years of experience are going to fall to the uncertainty of not knowing whether they can cover four yards or twenty-four yards, and this is meant to be fun and add excitement.

Watching professional athletes run over open ground, they're remarkably consistent at how fast they can run a few yards. And, non-super-human athletes can cover 40 yards in 4-5 seconds. Consistently and repeatedly. So the idea that our super soldiers, running over open ground, couldn't consistently make it twelve yards (6") on a charge is ridiculous. If it's not detrimental to the game to allow the guy with the laser weapon to know, with certainty, that at 24 yards he can hit twice, and at 49 yards he can't hit at all, then it shouldn't be detrimental to the game to allow the guy with the chainsword to know that he can run ten yards in a couple of seconds (a fairly conservative range based on real-world speeds.)

^ agreed 100%

 Redbeard wrote:
American Civil War muzzle-loading guns were effective to a range of about 500 yards

Really? Who on earth could hit anything with a musket at 500 yards? That's a long shot for a scoped rifle!

The Civil War used rifled muskets, still muzzle loaders, but the corresponding increase in effective range is the main reason that it was as deadly a war as it was. 500 yard shots were possible, not common.

 Redbeard wrote:
The Civil War used rifled muskets, still muzzle loaders, but the corresponding increase in effective range is the main reason that it was as deadly a war as it was. 500 yard shots were possible, not common.

I'm sure the shot was still potentially lethal at 500 yards, but it's the effective range I'd be more interested in for comparison sake. Also, I'm more inclined to consider 40K ranges logarithmic, or similarly flexible. It means we can play with 28mm models, and still play on a 6 x 4 table.

I like it. I don't love it but it definitely helps me; I'm quite bad at judging distances. I understand how some people don't like it as it removes a bit of skill from the game but this gives my already impotent foot-dar just that much more of a chance. One problem with this is it feels like being able to measure was traded for random charge distances. Even with fleet I've failed the last 7 of my 8 attempts at charging (typical roll ~4"). With overwatch in play, even declaring a charge causes me to lose models which will already have trouble in melee -_-'. Having them fail to charge AND giving my opponent a free round of shots at them makes me want to scoop.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
The Civil War used rifled muskets, still muzzle loaders, but the corresponding increase in effective range is the main reason that it was as deadly a war as it was. 500 yard shots were possible, not common.

I'm sure the shot was still potentially lethal at 500 yards, but it's the effective range I'd be more interested in for comparison sake. Also, I'm more inclined to consider 40K ranges logarithmic, or similarly flexible. It means we can play with 28mm models, and still play on a 6 x 4 table.

I was a weapons instructor and there is a difference between max effective range (the average range an average person can hit a target) and max range (the range the bullet can travel in perfect conditions before touching the ground). Indeed it's the effective range you should worry about.

A cinematic experience for shooting would to allow better saves or a higher miss rate the further the distance...kinda like how night fighting is now (which makes sense to me).

Yep gun range should be unlimited but the further the target, the more BS should drop like -1 each 24" for example, bar shotguns and meltas which should have limited range.

As for premeasuring it's not a problem, it has its positives. I prefer the old system but don't care that much really, the real problem is, as said numerous times above, the random charge especialy that it's 2d6.

Kal-El wrote:
I was a weapons instructor and there is a difference between max effective range (the average range an average person can hit a target) and max range (the range the bullet can travel in perfect conditions before touching the ground). Indeed it's the effective range you should worry about.

Well, don't forget that there's a huge difference between effective range against a point target (like a marine melta gunner behind cover) and effective range against an area target (like a horde of orks). One requires precise aim, one lets you shoot rifles like mortars and still hit the target easily.

And of course that's with bullets. With laser weapons effective range is infinite with a good enough scope.

A cinematic experience for shooting would to allow better saves or a higher miss rate the further the distance...kinda like how night fighting is now (which makes sense to me).

Except the table for a standard 40k game is too small for effective range to matter at all. Well, maybe it would for pistols, but everything else would be shooting at full BS anywhere on the table.

Also, I'm more inclined to consider 40K ranges logarithmic, or similarly flexible. It means we can play with 28mm models, and still play on a 6 x 4 table.

Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

And of course this would STILL only represent an incredibly rare close-range battle. Most of the time it would be decided by aircraft and orbital support before any of the ground troops could ever see each other.

 Peregrine wrote:

Kal-El wrote:
Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

And of course this would STILL only represent an incredibly rare close-range battle. Most of the time it would be decided by aircraft and orbital support before any of the ground troops could ever see each other.

I know it's been said before but I think it warrants saying again: If you really feel this strongly about realism and close combat, I think this is the wrong game for you. There is nothing realistic about 40k, it's meant to offer a diverse way of playing the game. Assault is another tactical element to give more flavor to games and to break up the tedium of just shooting all the time. I play a shooting army, but I still keep Harlequins around for assault because the assault phase is just fun, and, as GW keeps reminding us, cinematic. Maybe you don't care for that in your games, but there are a lot of people who do and the assault phase isn't going anywhere.

And the way I see it, the battles o the tabletop represent a really small fraction of battles in the 40k universe, where air support is not a viable option for whatever reason, or the objectives you need to capture are too important to risk getting blown up. Sometimes things need to be done on the ground in close quarters, it's part of the universe and always has been, and always will be.

Kal-El wrote:
I was a weapons instructor and there is a difference between max effective range (the average range an average person can hit a target) and max range (the range the bullet can travel in perfect conditions before touching the ground). Indeed it's the effective range you should worry about.

Well, when talking about the American Civil War, troops were still using tightly packed formations, perhaps only minimally less packed than Napoleonic formations, so they weren't target shooting, they were aiming at masses of guys...

 Peregrine wrote:

Well, don't forget that there's a huge difference between effective range against a point target (like a marine melta gunner behind cover) and effective range against an area target (like a horde of orks). One requires precise aim, one lets you shoot rifles like mortars and still hit the target easily.

Exactly.

And of course that's with bullets. With laser weapons effective range is infinite with a good enough scope.

Not entirely true, you have the curvature of the earth to consider. Also, you need to consider that while the light might still travel the distance, it may well lose power as it travels.

Also, I'm more inclined to consider 40K ranges logarithmic, or similarly flexible. It means we can play with 28mm models, and still play on a 6 x 4 table.

Yeah, you can deal with the model size problems that way (it's the same way that every space combat game says "the models aren't in scale, we just wanted to have models that are more than a tiny dot at real combat ranges"), but that still leaves movement and table size. The problem is that both of these are completely out of scale with shooting ranges. You start way too close to the other side, and their assault units can cross that distance way too fast. In a to-scale game of 40k you'd start on opposite sides of the store with artillery and heavy weapons, then start adding infantry guns as you got around, say, the 10' mark. And of course you still move 6" a turn. End result: anything with a sword is dead before it gets anywhere near a target to hit with that sword.

Well, unless the flying tanks or drop pods put them closer before the shooting started. I think this is really the easiest to justify. Consider, the IG have all this artillery and air support, and they're facing 50,000 tyranids. By the time the tyranids get close to the guard, there are only 100 left. Then the game starts.



Still, all this is really an aside to the topic of premeasuring. The point I was trying to make, before sending us down this tangent, was that if them guys with laser weapons can know with 100% accuracy if they're close enough to hit their opponents, then why would it be so detrimental for the assault unit to know that they could always cover ten yards in a second? Premeasuring good, random charge ranges, bad and unnecessary.

Peregrin, play a different game. 40k doesn't sound like the game for you.