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.

Ahhh, then I see a major problem when it comes to translating pre-measuring into 40k. Most weapons in 40k being unique to each faction, they can't just change the core rulebook and everyone's happy.

THen again, I kinda like not pre-measuring. I think for new players you can cut them some slack on not pre-measuring, maybe have them guess whether or not they're in range, and them let them measure? Just so they begin to get the skills down? We can't change the core rules around to make everyone happy, unfortunately...

The current system is wide open to abuse. You can't check behind your opponent, so movement fudges occur on a regular basis.

Then the entire concept of unknown distance goes out the window once you've played on a table a few times and are familiar with the distances between terrain objects, etc

The nice thing about pre-measuring is that it helps prevent the movement slippage that some people seem to have a problem with.

You know, where two units are >24" apart but three 6" moves and a 6" assault somehow gets them into combat...

I have to say I'm against pre-measuring because , to me, it removes a very important tactical element from the game.

There have been a lot of times when I've been faced with the "Do I shoot at not very threatening unit A, because it's definitely in range, or do I shoot potentially game-winning unit B which is rattling on the margin of my range??" I find that type of situation adds real pressure to the game.

Plus I'd much rather lose a game because I misjudged the distance and missed a charge or round of shooting, than have it snatched away by the dice gods with a random range roll.

Why do the dice gods hate me so? :-(

Jadenim wrote:I have to say I'm against pre-measuring because , to me, it removes a very important tactical element from the game.

There have been a lot of times when I've been faced with the "Do I shoot at not very threatening unit A, because it's definitely in range, or do I shoot potentially game-winning unit B which is rattling on the margin of my range??" I find that type of situation adds real pressure to the game.

Plus I'd much rather lose a game because I misjudged the distance and missed a charge or round of shooting, than have it snatched away by the dice gods with a random range roll.

Why do the dice gods hate me so? :-(

+1 I agree completely here. If I'm going to lose (which I do alot ) I want it to be because I misjudged something, or made a tatical error. I don't want it to be because my lascannon has 36" + d6" range and I rolled a 1. Yes, premeasuring is a skill that takes time to master, and new players won't have it down yet...but that's why new players lose a few games before they get better. You can always be nice to a new player, and let them pre-measure. Or what I do is let them guess if it's in range or not THEN measure so they get a better eye for these things quickly.

In any case, I really don't think pre-measuring works from a fluff perspective, or an in-game perspective. Maybe, you can add more pieces of wargear or some kind of 'targeting' usr that allows pre-measuring? As had been said earlier, Space Marine suits have lots of fancy sensor doohickeys to measure range. Guard has binoculars. Eldar prob have some kind of psychic detect range power...adding these types of wargear and psychic abilities to 40k would be a much better way than to introduce pre-measuring universally.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Jadenim wrote:I have to say I'm against pre-measuring because , to me, it removes a very important tactical element from the game.

There have been a lot of times when I've been faced with the "Do I shoot at not very threatening unit A, because it's definitely in range, or do I shoot potentially game-winning unit B which is rattling on the margin of my range??" I find that type of situation adds real pressure to the game.

Plus I'd much rather lose a game because I misjudged the distance and missed a charge or round of shooting, than have it snatched away by the dice gods with a random range roll.

Why do the dice gods hate me so? :-(

+1 I agree completely here. If I'm going to lose (which I do alot ) I want it to be because I misjudged something, or made a tatical error. I don't want it to be because my lascannon has 36" + d6" range and I rolled a 1. ...

... ...

Isn't that random factor present whenever you shoot or melee anything? You can have a model standing and inch away from an immobilised Necron Monolith the size of a small building, and have a 50% chance to miss it.

Just move to range 36 of the target.

Killkrazy: Yes, that's true, and there is an element of random chance involved that you simply can't get rid of, but for things like movement? Or range? Every mini game has rules for probability to hit and other fun stuff, and players build their plans around it. Yes, if you changed to rules to allow pre-measuring and random ranges, people would build their plans around that too, but it makes less sense to me than chance to hit and stuff.

The battlefield is not pre-sighted, and unless you take the time to range your target, even the best soldier is guessing at distance. He can be reasonably sure he's in range, but he still won't be. To me, this is something that 40k represents well, and like I said. I would be totally in favor of each faction getting wargear of some kind that allows premeasuring, but I'm against making it a core rule.

SaintHazard wrote:

From a fluff standpoint, simply because your troops do not have your godlike knowledge of the battlefield. They can't simply look over yonder hill and tell instantly that the enemy is two hundred yards away, etc.

Ill call that argument less than valid. Most modern armies like the USA, GB, France, etc have easy access to laser range finders. I would hope that 38,000 years from now a very simple item like that would be part of every ranged weapon built. Perhaps not for the Orks...but Im fairly sure they dont really aim anyways, more like fire in the general direction of the enemy.

I make a similar argument for Battletech...modern tanks that are like 8 feet tall can get something like an 80% hit rate on other targets, while moving at 40+ mph. However, in the year 3000 or so a 50ft tall walking tank has about a 30% hit rate on targets of similar size.

ChrisWWII wrote:The battlefield is not pre-sighted, and unless you take the time to range your target, even the best soldier is guessing at distance. He can be reasonably sure he's in range, but he still won't be. To me, this is something that 40k represents well, and like I said. I would be totally in favor of each faction getting wargear of some kind that allows premeasuring, but I'm against making it a core rule.

I disagree. Even if they don't know exactly how far away the target is, they know approximately how far away the target is, and that's close enough. Pre-measuring is not a solution to any real-life problem, it's a solution to the abstraction in the game that makes the difference between 23.99" and 24.01" more important than it should be.

Mad4Minis wrote:

Ill call that argument less than valid. Most modern armies like the USA, GB, France, etc have easy access to laser range finders. I would hope that 38,000 years from now a very simple item like that would be part of every ranged weapon built. Perhaps not for the Orks...but Im fairly sure they dont really aim anyways, more like fire in the general direction of the enemy.

I make a similar argument for Battletech...modern tanks that are like 8 feet tall can get something like an 80% hit rate on other targets, while moving at 40+ mph. However, in the year 3000 or so a 50ft tall walking tank has about a 30% hit rate on targets of similar size.

That's hardly grimdark though. You're also neglecting that they use tanks that look like they were developed in WWI, and that the IG, rather than manning them with veterans who have experience, toss whatever yahoos they just picked up behind the guns.

AlexHolker wrote:
I disagree. Even if they don't know exactly how far away the target is, they know approximately how far away the target is, and that's close enough. Pre-measuring is not a solution to any real-life problem, it's a solution to the abstraction in the game that makes the difference between 23.99" and 24.01" more important than it should be.

And that's true within 40k too. You'll know if something is definitely close enough for you to shoot at it, and you can direct your fire accordingly. However, the issue comes out at longer ranges when you're not so sure. Is that tank 47" away, or is it 49"? I can shoot at that or I can shoot at the tank I know is within my range. A soldier will know if something is definitely within their range, but without taking the time to sight out and acquire the range with a rangefinder or something, he'll have a hard time discerning if something at the edge of his range is within range or not.

Mad4Minis wrote:

Ill call that argument less than valid. Most modern armies like the USA, GB, France, etc have easy access to laser range finders. I would hope that 38,000 years from now a very simple item like that would be part of every ranged weapon built. Perhaps not for the Orks...but Im fairly sure they dont really aim anyways, more like fire in the general direction of the enemy.

I
Yes, they do have easy access to laser range finders, but even then, you have to set up the range finder, point it at your target and wait for it to tell you the range. I'm all for a wargear upgrade that lets your troops do it, maybe even make it standard for Marines, and have balancing rules. But somehow I doubt every single grunt in the military has a laser rangefinder, and such it is with the IG.

daedalus wrote:That's hardly grimdark though. You're also neglecting that they use tanks that look like they were developed in WWI, and that the IG, rather than manning them with veterans who have experience, toss whatever yahoos they just picked up behind the guns.

No, that's not true.

In the IG, regiments are an All or Nothing affair (to force them to have to work together and prevent 1 renegade Regiment being able to rebel effectively).

The reason you don't see any veteran Tanks (at least in normal 40k) is a) A Balance issue and b) they all get killed before they get a chance to be good.

ChrisWWII wrote:And that's true within 40k too. You'll know if something is definitely close enough for you to shoot at it, and you can direct your fire accordingly. However, the issue comes out at longer ranges when you're not so sure. Is that tank 47" away, or is it 49"? I can shoot at that or I can shoot at the tank I know is within my range. A soldier will know if something is definitely within their range, but without taking the time to sight out and acquire the range with a rangefinder or something, he'll have a hard time discerning if something at the edge of his range is within range or not.

Unless you're talking about things like the RPG-7 (which has a self-destruct timer that prevents the rocket flying more than ~1 kilometer), in real life there's no such thing as "at the edge of his range". There is no edge, just a slow tapering off.

AlexHolker wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:And that's true within 40k too. You'll know if something is definitely close enough for you to shoot at it, and you can direct your fire accordingly. However, the issue comes out at longer ranges when you're not so sure. Is that tank 47" away, or is it 49"? I can shoot at that or I can shoot at the tank I know is within my range. A soldier will know if something is definitely within their range, but without taking the time to sight out and acquire the range with a rangefinder or something, he'll have a hard time discerning if something at the edge of his range is within range or not.

Unless you're talking about things like the RPG-7 (which has a self-destruct timer that prevents the rocket flying more than ~1 kilometer), in real life there's no such thing as "at the edge of his range". There is no edge, just a slow tapering off.

The edge is an abstraction to represent that tapering off. Past a certain range, you can be reasonably sure that even if it DOES hit, it won't cause much damage.

AlexHolker wrote:
Unless you're talking about things like the RPG-7 (which has a self-destruct timer that prevents the rocket flying more than ~1 kilometer), in real life there's no such thing as "at the edge of his range". There is no edge, just a slow tapering off.

That is true, but there is a range past which a soldier can accurately hit something. It doesn't matter if your bullet can go 10 miles, if your scope can only pick out a target 5 miles away. That is what range represents in this game, as Gwar has said.

Me and my friends have a house rule that says we can pre measure. There has not been a significant difference in gameplay.

Soldiers with any amount of experience know the edge of their effective range (the actual range of the weapon being far longer than that), while rookies follow the lead of more experienced soldiers or their commanding officers. Like someone said, blind firing of the current system makes the difference between 23.99" and 24.01" way too significant (as in your odds of success dropping from

I think WFB's system of modifying ranged attacks based on distance to target, whether you're moving, and whether there's cover/concealement/etc. is way better. It certainly is more "realistic", and for me at least, fun than 40K's uber-simplified version of: roll die to hit, if target has foot in shrubbery ignore half the hits.

And really, I would love to have pre-measuring in 40K if only so I can keep tabs on my opponent's movement. Tiny "mistakes" in movement (oh oops, I measured front of base to back of base by "accident") happen all the time, and calling your opponent out at every instance makes you feel and look like a dick even if you're completely in the right. With premeasurement, I could just keep track of where's what, and any cheating/errors during movement would be so obvious that I wouldn't even have to say anything.

Terminus wrote:Soldiers with any amount of experience know the edge of their effective range (the actual range of the weapon being far longer than that), while rookies follow the lead of more experienced soldiers or their commanding officers. Like someone said, blind firing of the current system makes the difference between 23.99" and 24.01" way too significant (as in your odds of success dropping from

Yes, and that is perfectly true. However, I think this would be best represented, not by pre-measuring, but by specialized wargear allowing premeasuring. Even the best soldier can't perfectly tell whether an object is 500 metres away or 550. However, this range could easily be significant in terms of being able to hit that target. As said earlier, grant veteran soldiers or commanders access to upgrades allowing pre-measuring, and avoid having to rework systems to allow for random changes in range.

I think WFB's system of modifying ranged attacks based on distance to target, whether you're moving, and whether there's cover/concealement/etc. is way better. It certainly is more "realistic", and for me at least, fun than 40K's uber-simplified version of: roll die to hit, if target has foot in shrubbery ignore half the hits.

Yes, it is more realistic, but it's much more complicated as you pointed out yourself. Some may enjoy this extra complication, but to me that makes the game much less fun. We may differ here, but I'd rather spend more time killing things than trying to calculate all kinds of variables jjust to see if I can shoot something. More importantly, a lot of new players pick up 40k as their first game, and I like to think they get into it faster and easier because the rules are simple and easy to understand. Yes, there a little dumbed down, but it's so much easier to explain and introduce than Fantasy.

I do agree cover rules are a little generous in 5th, but still. You'd have to be a real TFG to claim that a models foot behind a bush = 4+ cover save. I'd say maybe 6+ would be more appropriate, if the entire squad was behind the bush and in cover. Cover rules need reworking, yes, but complicating the shooting system is not the way to go about it.

The problem with Wargear that allows pre-measuring is that it essentially means the whole army gets pre-measuring anyway.

Case in point, you have a squad of Lootas and Flash Gitz. The Flash Gitz are parallel to the Lootas, and you are unsure if that enemy Manticore directly ahead of you is in range of the lootas.

Just shoot the Flash Gitz first, and now you KNOW that the lootas are in range.

You can even do it now anyway. Not sure if them Bolters are within 24"? Use a Land Speeder to Move, then "Change your mind" in another direction to get a range on them.

Gwar! wrote:The problem with Wargear that allows pre-measuring is that it essentially means the whole army gets pre-measuring anyway.

Case in point, you have a squad of Lootas and Flash Gitz. The Flash Gitz are parallel to the Lootas, and you are unsure if that enemy Manticore directly ahead of you is in range of the lootas.

Just shoot the Flash Gitz first, and now you KNOW that the lootas are in range.

You can even do it now anyway. Not sure if them Bolters are within 24"? Use a Land Speeder to Move, then "Change your mind" in another direction to get a range on them.

Mhmmm, yep. Besides, everyone does it already, no? Using a squad with not that good guns to range for the bigger toys? If we look at it this way, then pre-measuring is basically moot. The only problem is you have to sacrifice something for it.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The problem with Wargear that allows pre-measuring is that it essentially means the whole army gets pre-measuring anyway.

Case in point, you have a squad of Lootas and Flash Gitz. The Flash Gitz are parallel to the Lootas, and you are unsure if that enemy Manticore directly ahead of you is in range of the lootas.

Just shoot the Flash Gitz first, and now you KNOW that the lootas are in range.

You can even do it now anyway. Not sure if them Bolters are within 24"? Use a Land Speeder to Move, then "Change your mind" in another direction to get a range on them.

Mhmmm, yep. Besides, everyone does it already, no? Using a squad with not that good guns to range for the bigger toys? If we look at it this way, then pre-measuring is basically moot. The only problem is you have to sacrifice something for it.

And that is what balances it out!

Gwar! wrote: And that is what balances it out!

And we have no need for a new rule, da?

ChrisWWII wrote:Yes, and that is perfectly true. However, I think this would be best represented, not by pre-measuring, but by specialized wargear allowing premeasuring. Even the best soldier can't perfectly tell whether an object is 500 metres away or 550. However, this range could easily be significant in terms of being able to hit that target.

Prove it. If this claim is going to be the foundation of the argument against allowing pre-measuring, I'd like to see evidence that it is true.

AlexHolker wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yes, and that is perfectly true. However, I think this would be best represented, not by pre-measuring, but by specialized wargear allowing premeasuring. Even the best soldier can't perfectly tell whether an object is 500 metres away or 550. However, this range could easily be significant in terms of being able to hit that target.

Prove it. If this claim is going to be the foundation of the argument against allowing pre-measuring, I'd like to see evidence that it is true.

Are we talking 40k wise or IRL?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Are we talking 40k wise or IRL?

In real life. We already know that in 40k half an inch can be the difference between an 83% chance of hitting and 0%. If a 10% increase in range does not cause more than a 5-10% decrease in accuracy in real life, enforcing the "no pre-measuring" rule only serves to draw attention to the inaccuracies of the abstraction.

My claim was based on knowing that a rifle must be properly sighted in order to be accurate, and its sights adjusted so that the bullet hits directly where you want it to at a certain range. If the target changes its range, you must then adjust your sights to compensate. Now, granted this only has an affect of inches over a hundred yards, but still. If you've got a gun sighted at 100 yards, and your being told to shoot at a target 150 yards away....that's going to throw off your accuracy. Part of why most soldier aim for center of mass...even if you're a few inches off you still hit them. But how is a poorly trained Guardsman gonna know that? More importantly...does a lasgun even have iron sights? o.O

Now, of course, I'm not a trained rifleman or a soldier, and if one could come along and tell us more about sighting a weapon as well as the impact range has on accuracy in the military that'd be awesome.

I'm trying to find a debate acceptable article for this....but I'm only finding blogs and stuff right now. I'll post a proper article when I find one.

A weapon that doesnt really care about windage or drops probably doesnt need to have adjusted ranges...

You also ignored that, in fluff at least, Marines have standard equipment which tells them exactly when to start shooting. They KNOW exactly when their firing will be most effective - its projected into their HUD.

Premeasuring should be put in, it levels the playing field for a skill that isnt particularly required in a war game, in my opinion. Fantasy has GREATLY benefitted from it.

Nosferatu: That's true, since the beam probably dissipates slightly at a set point, but ah well. Even without wind factor and drops, the lasgun would benefit from iron sights.....But that's a bit OT.

That is true, and like I said I'm all for a wargear upgrade that factors in pre-measuring. You just have a pay points for it. As I understand, the rolling to hit is not just accounting for how acccurate your guy shooting it, but also factors in the target jumping out of the way, changing position and all kinds of other things. So yes, just because a Space Marine sees his target, and knows where to put his firepower doesn't guarantee he'll hit. More importantly....Space Marines are famous for putting honor before reason. I'm willing to bet that sometimes a Marine will ignore what his technology is telling him, just so he can follow the more 'honorable' course of action.

E.g. (kinda) Eisenhorn, Xenos Eisenhorn's assault team has a Space Marine. Despite being informed constantly by Eisenhorn on how to adjust his aim, the Marine ignores said advice in order to follow the more honorable course.

I personally feel like judging distances IS a very important skill to have in wargaming. If you look at the table, you know you can move your guys forward 6" in one way to get within shooting distance of Target A (threatening and vulnerable to shooting). BUT in another direction is Target B (possible game winner and vulnerable to assault). You could, potentially, be in able to assault Target B if you move towards it, but in doing so you will definitely be out of range of Target A. What do you do? Do you take the risk of maybe wasting your assault and shooting because Target B is 13" away. Or do you play it safe and just go attack Target A? Premeasuring would eliminate this type of tactical problem that a player needs to face, not to mention, judging distance IS a major part of wargaming.

Interesting. So theoretically, Marines should be BS5, except that they're idiots.

I like it!

During the American Civil War, George Custer, who later died at the Battle of the Little Big Horn was a captain on the staff of one of the Union generals.

One day they were riding along on march, and came to a river that the general wanted to cross. No-one had a map that might show a ford, so they spent some time discussing how deep the river might be, according to the speed of flow and such factors, but they couldn’t come to a conclusion.

Custer was noted for being impetuous, and he suddenly said, “You want to know how deep the river is, General?”

And he rode into the middle of the river.

Turning back he called out, “It’s this deep.”

This story makes two points in relation to the pre-measuring question.

1. Generals don’t have to guess how deep a river is.
2. Generals don’t have to send their entire force into the river to find out.