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.

So I was curious, what does everyone reckon the real world translations would be for the ranges used on the table top. My guess is that if your standard infantry trooper can rapid fire at say, 12", then this could approximate say, 100m? That would make the charge distance say, 50m (6").

Thoughts?

I agree that 12 inch rapid fire range is probably 100m. Most infantry combat is done at ranges of under 300m.

Time scale has to be considered as well.

The game's ranges are basically completely unrealistic and out of proportion with each other.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The game's ranges are basically completely unrealistic and out of proportion with each other.

Not so. That's only your interpretation of the ranges.

If you view range logarithmically it's entirely consistent with real-world physics.

Table weapons range scale is not a basic linear one.

I recall it is based more on a logarithmic scale.
12"-24" is along the lines of the 150-250m 'effective combat range', but 48" is closer to 1-1.2km.

If it was linear, you'd be playing on a sporting field with 28mm models.

In my view: 1" is about a foot (0.3m). That explains why a model with a 12" gun range won't have time to fire against a unit that can move+run+charge. Someone running full speed at you may be able to cover 12 feet or so before you have time to turn your gun and fire, but anything more than that is just silly.

Of course, that means that most weapons are incredibly short ranged. But, what do you expect when you have people shooting shurikens and lasers? Those simply don't work very well as projectiles.

40k groundscale is highly abstracted and doesn't match the figure scale. About the best I can figure is groundscale is somewhere around 1:100 (which means it is actually a much closer fit to 15mm minis- see FoW) or so and is *not* linear. If you figure a 12 inch assault weapons has a range a little over 30 yards, that means a 24 inch rapid fire is looking at under 100 yards and an artillery piece less than 1000! That also means a HMG (heavy bolter) is only good out to 100 yds, which is ridiculous. Basically, they trim down long range weapons to fit the table and make CC viable. Rate of Fire has similar scaling, since it is pretty odd that and HMG can, at best, cause 3 casualties in a round (including opponents due to no responsive fire) with an average around half that.

Logarithmic? Don't make me laugh. No one in RT days was sitting around making an alogrythm for ranges and weapons ranges haven't changed substantially since then.

It's not realy sensible to try and make real-world range translations for 40k weapons. It is true that small arms are not too terribly off-scale when you figure that in a battle, effective range is quite short.

However, the ranges for Tanks, artillery, Mortars, M-Launchers, snipers, etc are so short as to be positively laughable.

It's Future-Fantasy, and that's why it's so much fun.

The only way you can force the 40K ranges to make sense is to invent some sort of magical distortion field that renders firearms inaccurate past the distance a person can run each round.

The Handwavian Field Effect explains everything.

jmurph wrote: If you figure a 12 inch assault weapons has a range a little over 30 yards, that means a 24 inch rapid fire is looking at under 100 yards and an artillery piece less than 1000!

While artillery is noticeably shrunken in order to fit it on the tabletop, other weapons aren't really that bad if you consider their range in the game to represent effective combat range rather than actual weapon capabilities.

Many modern day assault rifles can, under controlled conditions kill a target a kilometre away. But their usual effective range in a running fire-fight is much, much less.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The game's ranges are basically completely unrealistic and out of proportion with each other.

Not so. That's only your interpretation of the ranges.

If you view range logarithmically it's entirely consistent with real-world physics.

Do you also view time logarithmically?
What about vertical distance?
What about the occasional vehicle which is so long it can't move on to the table in one move?

You can't look at weapon ranges without considering the scales used for the other elements of the game. They all interact, and they do not fit together in a realistic manner.

The game hasn't been designed with a cunning logarithmic scale, it has been cobbled together with factors that work for a game.

They're all just multiples of 6. I'm sure they just judged what was a fair range to set it at and used the standardized range numbers. I'm sure Demolisher Cannon shells should reach very far in real life, but on a tabletop game, people would complain that they're imbalanced.

insaniak wrote:

jmurph wrote: If you figure a 12 inch assault weapons has a range a little over 30 yards, that means a 24 inch rapid fire is looking at under 100 yards and an artillery piece less than 1000!

While artillery is noticeably shrunken in order to fit it on the tabletop, other weapons aren't really that bad if you consider their range in the game to represent effective combat range rather than actual weapon capabilities.

Many modern day assault rifles can, under controlled conditions kill a target a kilometre away. But their usual effective range in a running fire-fight is much, much less.

Yeah, That's why I was using the smaller arms as a base to show the scale isn't really consistent across range bands. 100 yards is a pretty good estimate for a battle rifle in combat conditions as a clear shot in perfect weather and good lighting is rarely the case. 30 yards is a bit short for an SMG but not terrible- I would say 50 is probably a better approximation for maximum *effective* range in battlefield conditions. The range and ROF issues for HMGs, though, is a major divergence, though as these have very long range and pour out death to infantry- they are dangerous far away (a decent MG op will send small burts with good accuracy at range) and absolute murder if you get to close and don't have hard cover. There is a reason tanks have plenty of MGs! It is a very good way to keep infantry off. In 40K, not so much.