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.

I don’t see why it can’t be 1 to 1. I feel like a lot of people get hung up on the marine power fantasy and how it doesn’t translate to the tabletop, but the issue is that games of 40k are generally played as fair fights, and realistically that’s a strategic blunder for both sides were it to actually happen.

For example: a space marine is best used when applying lots of force to a small area, such as the narrow corridors in the Astartes fan film. In that film you have one marine squad engaging maybe a dozen guards at a time, and if you do that on the table it’ll work out massively in the marine’s favor. But, as seen in the same film, a single multilaser could have easily killed a marine were it not for cover. Now imagine if the same squad is facing a hundred guards in the open with emplaced heavy weapons giving covering fire… it doesn’t end well for the marines.

So lots of marines dying on the tabletop is not unexpected given they are fighting a force much stronger than those they normally fight. And remember, the imperial guard are canonically stronger than marines in a wide scale battle.

Dai wrote:
Fantasy used to explicitly say that it wasn't 1:1 representation, certainly in the 4th edition rulebook when I started and I assume it stayed that way otherwise it is just ridiculous.

In an appendix to the 5th edition rules, the designers note that the scale doesn't quite work if you compare march speed with missile distances. They offer the notion that missile fire is abstracted and that longer distances just aren't that accurate.

They go on to say that while the scale works as 1:1, fighting a battle with that many figures would be difficult, so it's easy to assume that the units represent far larger bodies of troops than the number of models indicates.

As a sidebar, I agreed with that, when when I set out to design Conqueror, I did so with a larger scale in mind (10 models per infantry figure) which had the added bonus of making the ranges work out better (since unit footprints were proportionately larger).

But in 40k no such discussion took place because the scale was explicitly 1:1, especially when you consider the individualized problems (jams, overheating, recharging weapons, etc.). With 3rd ed., the model count rose (as did the abstraction), but "plasma gets hot!" didn't mean a whole squad succumbed to it, just the unlucky dude holding the red-hot rifle.

 Overread wrote:
I think part of it is that 40K is often made out to be fairly gunpowder age in terms of its references.

Food for thought: if you take the approximate model scale of 32mm = 6ft literally, then a board 44" across represents about 210 feet across, or 64m. Even Renaissance armies, gunpowder age, could engage in decisive shooting from 100-200m or more.

So I agree with OP that the game is a highly abstract take on the setting because the ranges and implied timescales do not make any sort of coherent sense; but I do assume 1 model = 1 dude because that's the only way to square what you see on the table with the TOE of the various forces. Like, I can't imagine what a squad of 7 lasgun dudes, a sergeant, a heavy bolter, and a grenade launcher is supposed to represent if that's 'actually' 100 dudes or whatever.

The '1 model = 10 men' abstraction is more appropriate for historicals or fantasy games, and many of them are up-front about it, telling you that a unit of 20 models constitutes a 'regiment' or 'battalion' when in reality that would be 100+ men.

 catbarf wrote:

Food for thought: if you take the approximate model scale of 32mm = 6ft literally, then a board 44" across represents about 210 feet across, or 64m. Even Renaissance armies, gunpowder age, could engage in decisive shooting from 100-200m or more.

True, but they also weren't engaging point targets dispersed in cover, they were firing at large blocks of troops in open terrain.

40k does have abstractions, particularly in time/space/speed, but if you think of each model as inhabiting a space 3-5 yards across (moving about, lying prone, etc.), the engagement ranges aren't all that far off. The 2nd edition was designed to be played in dense terrain with short LOS. The designers explicitly state that an open board will quickly be swept by armor, which it would at that range. Later versions certainly raised the model count and by association the time/distance scale (such that aircraft can drop by and say hello).

Part of the reason that non 1:1 argument has some traction is the level of extreme abstraction and counter-intuitive rules GW has generated over the years.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Food for thought: if you take the approximate model scale of 32mm = 6ft literally, then a board 44" across represents about 210 feet across, or 64m. Even Renaissance armies, gunpowder age, could engage in decisive shooting from 100-200m or more.

True, but they also weren't engaging point targets dispersed in cover, they were firing at large blocks of troops in open terrain.

They were in sieges and skirmishes. Such ranges are also attested in engagements like the Great Siege of Malta.

I feel this is getting off topic - but isn't the issue that early fire arms could be lethal up to say 200m, but were typically very inaccurate and so just weren't really in practice?

If muskets (etc) had been "effectively lethal" at 100m+ then early modern warfare would have been as lethal as it would eventually become by later 19th and 20th century. This is why in practice large formations were closing to within 30 yards before firing a volley.

Ranges grew as we saw the rise of rifles - but then arguably shrunk in the 20th century because in many circumstances having 1000m range just wasn't all that useful. Submachine guns are notionally "better", despite much worse range, if you are fighting someone across the street or in the next room. As opposed to plinking away at someone running across a field.

For what it's worth, Rogue Trader had this to say on scales:



...along with:





2nd edition, being a rather more streamlined version of RT, had no such apologetics.

There are vaguely similar sentiments in later editions, such as this from 5th edition:



...but most skirt the issue of what a model represents. The implication, however, is generally that each model represents one individual.

This is borne out by Epic, too – as this example from Epic: Space Marine (2nd edition) shows:


Even the explicitly more abstract Epic: Armageddon seems to imply that individual models represent individual soldiers or specific tanks:


...As the game has moved away from '3D Roleplay' to a more streamlined boardgame, quite a lot of the intentional and explicit abstraction has been taken as read.

Secondly, the lore has become increasingly exaggerated and over-the-top – the daunting three-on-one odds of early editions have been replaced with certain troops wading through scores or hundreds of opponents; so in the modern game, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that, for example, a single Gretchin miniature represents more than one being.

Having said that, if you're happy to read the descriptions as propaganda and take the notes on abstraction from RT at face value, then I think one model representing one individual is entirely justifiable.

One solution I've done before is to play in smaller scales like 3mm or 6mm and put different numbers of models on each base. So for space marines you put one model, whereas for Imperial Guard or orcs you put five models per base. Bump that up to ten for tyranids if you can fit them on.

However, you get strange results. For example, one chimera can transport ten bases, so can transport 50 guardmen. Okay, so we understand each chimera to represent five chimera. However, in the game the chimera is either functioning or not, so either gets all 50 guardmen to the objective or does not. Whereas in reality 1 chimera might be destroyed killing all its inhabitants, 2 chimera get knocked out on the way and the inhabitants bail into the open and 2 chimera arrive at the objective safely. Or imagine your one space marine uses his flamer and hits five guardsmen. Actually, that one flamer just took out twenty five guardsmen with a handheld flamer. Then a guard captain is actually representing five men who all happen to be really tough, cool, but why keep all those tough guys in one spot that is vulnerable to a sniper rather than spread them out across the force. Doing this is playable but there are more suitable rules for this approach like Stargrunt.

Apologist wrote:For what it's worth,

Spoiler:

Rogue Trader had this to say on scales:



...along with:





2nd edition, being a rather more streamlined version of RT, had no such apologetics.

There are vaguely similar sentiments in later editions, such as this from 5th edition:



...but most skirt the issue of what a model represents. The implication, however, is generally that each model represents one individual.

This is borne out by Epic, too – as this example from Epic: Space Marine (2nd edition) shows:


Even the explicitly more abstract Epic: Armageddon seems to imply that individual models represent individual soldiers or specific tanks:


...As the game has moved away from '3D Roleplay' to a more streamlined boardgame, quite a lot of the intentional and explicit abstraction has been taken as read.

Secondly, the lore has become increasingly exaggerated and over-the-top – the daunting three-on-one odds of early editions have been replaced with certain troops wading through scores or hundreds of opponents; so in the modern game, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that, for example, a single Gretchin miniature represents more than one being.

Having said that, if you're happy to read the descriptions as propaganda and take the notes on abstraction from RT at face value, then I think one model representing one individual is entirely justifiable.

Thanks, good sources

I'd be interested in playing a game with those range extension rules, see if it makes much difference compared to assuming close-ranged fire. Probably would keep blasts at the default strength, but double scatter rolls.

Tyel wrote:I feel this is getting off topic - but isn't the issue that early fire arms could be lethal up to say 200m, but were typically very inaccurate and so just weren't really in practice?

If muskets (etc) had been "effectively lethal" at 100m+ then early modern warfare would have been as lethal as it would eventually become by later 19th and 20th century. This is why in practice large formations were closing to within 30 yards before firing a volley.

Ranges grew as we saw the rise of rifles - but then arguably shrunk in the 20th century because in many circumstances having 1000m range just wasn't all that useful. Submachine guns are notionally "better", despite much worse range, if you are fighting someone across the street or in the next room. As opposed to plinking away at someone running across a field.

It is complicated, but essentially not all firearms were effective at these ranges*, and even those that were needed careful loading with correctly-sized shot and leather wadding rather than paper to eliminate windage. This isn't conducive to high rates of fire, so is essentially harassing fire at long range. In addition, they are capable of it, but doesn't mean it is easy and a lot of shots would still miss. Armour also plays a huge role as a shot might lethally penetrate armour at 50m but not at 100m, but armour fell out of use largely for socioeconomic reasons over the late 16th and 17th century.

Gunners were elite troops during the late middle ages and through much of the 16th century, they usually cast their own shot, had a horn of higher quality powdervand leather wads for special shots, and knew how to load their guns correctly for long-ranged shooting when required. This skill was increasingly lost as gunners moved to be majority poorly-trained troops in mass armies. Some units still practiced long-ranged area shooting, but that isn't pinpoint targeting like mentioned above but could still be effective at breaking or weakening enemy formations.

The key is none of this was sufficient, generally, to prevent determined enemy forces (especially heavy cavalry) from closing to melee, so gunners were paired with pikemen or halberdiers/billmen for protection in this era. Sometimes more specialised troops like greatsworders or targetiers too.

*The common firearms in the 16th century were arquebus, these are relatively short barelled and lower calibre (usually around 0.50 or 0.60 calibre) compared to the long-barrelled muskets that appeared in the 16th century and much worse at penetrating armour. Indeed, muskets seem to have arisen as anti-armour tools and early muskets were much larger than later muskets, with bigger powder charges and longer barrels (think the muskets with barrel rest monopods)- very much capable of shooting accurately out to 200m or so. These weapons were very heavy and slower to fire, so they tended to be used alongside arquebus for quite some time, with the proportions varying depending on how common armour was on foes. Spanish Tercios of the time typically had 70% arquebus to 30% muskets, but this was flipped in the Low Countries where a high proportion of their enemies were armoured. Later muskets were essentially a fusion of arquebus and early muskets to make a more handy weapon that still packed a bunch- they were shorter than early muskets but kept the typical musket calibres of >0.70.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:40k does have abstractions, particularly in time/space/speed, but if you think of each model as inhabiting a space 3-5 yards across (moving about, lying prone, etc.), the engagement ranges aren't all that far off. The 2nd edition was designed to be played in dense terrain with short LOS. The designers explicitly state that an open board will quickly be swept by armor, which it would at that range. Later versions certainly raised the model count and by association the time/distance scale (such that aircraft can drop by and say hello).

Assuming non-literal scale representation opens up another can of worms. It works fine for squad coherency and weapon ranges, but if that 25mm base represents 3-5yds, just how big is that tiny cottage represented by a terrain piece 4" across? Why is my Leman Russ incapable of passing through a gap ~15yds wide? Why is my maximum frontage, even for teeming hordes of alien bugs or defenders packed in a trench, no closer than 1 per 3-5yds?

You could make a board that shrinks terrain so that the scale fits, but it'd look weird and I've never seen it done. I think it's necessary to accept at some point that the game isn't intended to provide a coherent simulation, rather going purely for 'feel', and just ignore the details. The scale of a 40K table works for something like Kill Team, but requires a lot of handwaving to rationalize for a combined-arms company-level engagement.

Tyel wrote:I feel this is getting off topic - but isn't the issue that early fire arms could be lethal up to say 200m, but were typically very inaccurate and so just weren't really in practice?

Without getting too into the weeds, early firearms were much more accurate than pop culture often depicts, but training was the biggest limitation on battlefield effectiveness.

But the point I was making was that even by the standards of an early gunpowder era, as Overread was comparing to, the 40K battlefield is still a back-alley knife fight tiny if you take the scale literally. Whether a 64-meter-across battlefield is technically within effective arquebus range or not is beside the point. And that's just about ranges; once you start working out the inferred timescales of movement it just gets weird.

Edit: Worked example- If the scale is literal, then 6" represents just under 9m. An average male sprinting speed is about 31kph or 8.7m/s, so if a 6" move + 6" advance is an ideal dead sprint, then a turn is all of two seconds. How quickly can an officer giving verbal orders direct a fire mission or order a charge, and have the squad carry it out? How frequently does a squad stop and start movement? Does a unit stricken with terror really recover in a split-second? How fast does that Leman Russ barrel whip around to engage a new target? Is an entire battle really supposed to be done in ten seconds? Is two seconds really enough to charge into combat and fight two rounds of CC?

It's all nonsense. Everything should be taken as a heavy abstraction for gameplay purposes, and don't think about it too hard.

@catbarf

I don’t believe advancing is meant to represent a sprint. In 3rd I know 6” movement is meant to represent at best a fast walk where soldiers can still designate targets and fire accurately. So from that basis, a turn could be as much as a whole 6 seconds! which admittedly is not a lot. And it would imply a game lasts about 30-40 sec.

 catbarf wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:40k does have abstractions, particularly in time/space/speed, but if you think of each model as inhabiting a space 3-5 yards across (moving about, lying prone, etc.), the engagement ranges aren't all that far off. The 2nd edition was designed to be played in dense terrain with short LOS. The designers explicitly state that an open board will quickly be swept by armor, which it would at that range. Later versions certainly raised the model count and by association the time/distance scale (such that aircraft can drop by and say hello).

Assuming non-literal scale representation opens up another can of worms. It works fine for squad coherency and weapon ranges, but if that 25mm base represents 3-5yds, just how big is that tiny cottage represented by a terrain piece 4" across? Why is my Leman Russ incapable of passing through a gap ~15yds wide? Why is my maximum frontage, even for teeming hordes of alien bugs or defenders packed in a trench, no closer than 1 per 3-5yds?

You could make a board that shrinks terrain so that the scale fits, but it'd look weird and I've never seen it done. I think it's necessary to accept at some point that the game isn't intended to provide a coherent simulation, rather going purely for 'feel', and just ignore the details. The scale of a 40K table works for something like Kill Team, but requires a lot of handwaving to rationalize for a combined-arms company-level engagement.

Tyel wrote:I feel this is getting off topic - but isn't the issue that early fire arms could be lethal up to say 200m, but were typically very inaccurate and so just weren't really in practice?

Without getting too into the weeds, early firearms were much more accurate than pop culture often depicts, but training was the biggest limitation on battlefield effectiveness.

But the point I was making was that even by the standards of an early gunpowder era, as Overread was comparing to, the 40K battlefield is still a back-alley knife fight tiny if you take the scale literally. Whether a 64-meter-across battlefield is technically within effective arquebus range or not is beside the point. And that's just about ranges; once you start working out the inferred timescales of movement it just gets weird.

Edit: Worked example- If the scale is literal, then 6" represents just under 9m. An average male sprinting speed is about 31kph or 8.7m/s, so if a 6" move + 6" advance is an ideal dead sprint, then a turn is all of two seconds. How quickly can an officer giving verbal orders direct a fire mission or order a charge, and have the squad carry it out? How frequently does a squad stop and start movement? Does a unit stricken with terror really recover in a split-second? How fast does that Leman Russ barrel whip around to engage a new target? Is an entire battle really supposed to be done in ten seconds? Is two seconds really enough to charge into combat and fight two rounds of CC?

It's all nonsense. Everything should be taken as a heavy abstraction for gameplay purposes, and don't think about it too hard.

Tbh I’ve always assumed distances as being non-linear so we can have decent sized models and not play across a sports hall. IMO it’s the only way weapon ranges make sense.

So 1” might be 5’ or so, but the 24” range of a boltgun is maybe a few hundred yards like you’d expect for the effective range of a small arm.

By the time you get to things like basilisk shells you’re genuinely getting into BVR territory.

But it’s all compressed so it fits on our reasonably sized tabletop.

 catbarf wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:40k does have abstractions, particularly in time/space/speed, but if you think of each model as inhabiting a space 3-5 yards across (moving about, lying prone, etc.), the engagement ranges aren't all that far off. The 2nd edition was designed to be played in dense terrain with short LOS. The designers explicitly state that an open board will quickly be swept by armor, which it would at that range. Later versions certainly raised the model count and by association the time/distance scale (such that aircraft can drop by and say hello).

Assuming non-literal scale representation opens up another can of worms. It works fine for squad coherency and weapon ranges, but if that 25mm base represents 3-5yds, just how big is that tiny cottage represented by a terrain piece 4" across? Why is my Leman Russ incapable of passing through a gap ~15yds wide? Why is my maximum frontage, even for teeming hordes of alien bugs or defenders packed in a trench, no closer than 1 per 3-5yds?

I should clarify that what I meant was that the actual physical model occupied a potentially larger space than the model appeared to, because they could stand, lie down, etc. This is in large part a function of the fact that the models don't conform themselves to terrain, but if you have a terrain feature, they would naturally cluster into it.

This is one of the problems when you get into detailed tactical gaming, right?

"Hah, I can see his head, I have LOS!"

"But he would be prone behind the wall."

"Not under Tru LOS (TM)!"

Regarding ranges, there are a couple of things going on. The first is that GW tried to preserve the Fantasy range bands, which were necessary to prevent ahistorically deadly missile fire. With a base movement of 4" and marching at 8", archers and crossbowmen could only inflict so many hits before the advancing units made impact.

In 40k the situation is different, because if we're using a more firm 1:1 system to scale, troops should easily be able to shoot from edge to edge. The best justification I've had for GW limiting most small arms to 24" is that beyond that range, the accuracy against point targets is so low as to make dice-rolling a waste of time. Thus, while weapons were still effective beyond 24", they were not enough of a threat for opposing forces to care. Heavier weapons, by contrast, did have an expanded threat range, so they can shoot much farther.

After finishing Conqueror, I started a "Conqueror 40k" and one of my first decisions was to eliminate range limits altogether because I wanted a known, consistent scale. After preliminary work, I decided that 2nd was good enough and I may as well save myself some work

I think that 40k is somewhat unique in how it keeps redefining cover, whether it works, how it works, how important it is, and this leads to using weapon range as a way to limit total firepower so that close combats are even possible. Otherwise, charging troops would never make contact.

Dandelion wrote:
@catbarf

I don’t believe advancing is meant to represent a sprint. In 3rd I know 6” movement is meant to represent at best a fast walk where soldiers can still designate targets and fire accurately. So from that basis, a turn could be as much as a whole 6 seconds! which admittedly is not a lot. And it would imply a game lasts about 30-40 sec.

My headcanon was always that we were largely abstracting away a unit being in cover and taking potshots for half an hour and things like that but tbh you really have to commit to the abstraction to make it work. I guess that sort of thinking always worked better for fantasy than 40k which I do think is meant to represent a 1:1 short battle on the whole.

@Commissar von Toussaint: ah was the 5th edition rulebook? Thankyou that was driving me crazy!

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The best justification I've had for GW limiting most small arms to 24" is that beyond that range, the accuracy against point targets is so low as to make dice-rolling a waste of time. Thus, while weapons were still effective beyond 24", they were not enough of a threat for opposing forces to care. Heavier weapons, by contrast, did have an expanded threat range, so they can shoot much farther.

It's a nice handwave- and the optional 'long-range' rule from 2nd makes for an interesting dynamic- but in the scale of the models, 24" is about 36m. You can effectively engage point targets farther than that with a paintball gun. The idea of troops standing around in the open at 50m because that's too far for rifles to be a threat doesn't work for me.

Similar deal with non-linear distances. Okay, so 0-6" represents the last 50yds but maybe 18-24" represents 250-500yds. Sure- except my horde of oncoming critters moves a fixed distance per turn, so the implication is that their movement drops heavily as they close to contact, even if they aren't taking fire and have no reason to slow down. They're also occupying a purely linear tabletop, where it's bizarre that the same cottage might occupy either 50yds or 250yds depending on how far away you are from it, and now we have borderline relativistic effects where every unit has a different idea of just how far away and how big every other unit is.

I mean, again, I feel like these explanations all fall into 'yeah, sure, don't think about it too hard' territory. Nonlinear distances, sure, makes sense. Non-representative model size, sure, makes sense. Effective range vs maximum range, sure, makes sense. But if you start running numbers or thinking through the implications it all falls apart. Better to just take it for a fun wargame and don't try to make it represent anything- I find it much easier to suspend disbelief with 40K than when a game like Bolt Action starts doing the same things.

Well, the 1st edition blurb suggests 1" = 2m which is reasonable based on a typical human being about 1" tall. So a typical table would be a little shy of 100m by 150m. I don't think this is an unreasonable range for a firefight, but it is with the ranges where most infantry small arms can effectively shoot at targets out of cover. Even with that 50% increase over your numbers, 50m (24") for a rifle is not exactly far. Heavy weapons can easily clear this distance.

In a somewhat related tangent, our group was interested in range modifiers. After some research & self reflection we abandoned them except for what we call Point Blank firing @ 12".

The reason is more psychological than physical when soldiers are in combat. The closer a soldier is to the enemy, the worse his aim tends to become. That is because the closer you are the more likely you are to catch an enemy shot, aimed or otherwise. The further away a soldier is the more confident he becomes in taking better aim. So the longer range is somewhat mitigated by the difficulty of longer shots.

Of course there are exceptions, but as a principle we felt it was cleaner to not try & recreate range effectiveness as if firing was done at a range.

 catbarf wrote:
It's a nice handwave- and the optional 'long-range' rule from 2nd makes for an interesting dynamic- but in the scale of the models, 24" is about 36m. You can effectively engage point targets farther than that with a paintball gun. The idea of troops standing around in the open at 50m because that's too far for rifles to be a threat doesn't work for me.

Right, but the designer's notes for 2nd explicitly state that boards should have very short LOS because otherwise heavy weapons will mop the floor with everyone. And that's exactly what would happen - who cares if your bolters are one inch out of range, the heavy bolters, lascannon, battle cannon, etc. is going to sweep the tabletop.

To put it another way: in WHFB, limited ranges were necessary to put a check on excessive missile fire casualties, but in 40k, terrain was more important - at least in 2nd ed.

With 3rd, things changed a lot, and you have more open battlefields (because cover and power armor were either/or and to hit mods went away), and so weapon range became more important.

But it was still very much 1:1, albeit imperfectly abstracted. Since then, the level of abstraction has ramped up. Again, aircraft?! How big is this tabletop?!!!

I'm also going to drop the obligatory comment that 2nd had rules for vehicle acceleration and turning radii, which you can't do with a squadron of vehicles. There was another thread on this, but not only did vehicles have facings, but parts of them had facings, so Razorback turret slewed to one side offered a flank shot against the gunner, while hits to the hull or tracks got frontal armor.

GW has since said that carnifex is a warrior is a gretchin is a tank, so that's serious abstraction. Who knows what the scale is?

 catbarf wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The best justification I've had for GW limiting most small arms to 24" is that beyond that range, the accuracy against point targets is so low as to make dice-rolling a waste of time. Thus, while weapons were still effective beyond 24", they were not enough of a threat for opposing forces to care. Heavier weapons, by contrast, did have an expanded threat range, so they can shoot much farther.

It's a nice handwave- and the optional 'long-range' rule from 2nd makes for an interesting dynamic- but in the scale of the models, 24" is about 36m. You can effectively engage point targets farther than that with a paintball gun. The idea of troops standing around in the open at 50m because that's too far for rifles to be a threat doesn't work for me.

Similar deal with non-linear distances. Okay, so 0-6" represents the last 50yds but maybe 18-24" represents 250-500yds. Sure- except my horde of oncoming critters moves a fixed distance per turn, so the implication is that their movement drops heavily as they close to contact, even if they aren't taking fire and have no reason to slow down. They're also occupying a purely linear tabletop, where it's bizarre that the same cottage might occupy either 50yds or 250yds depending on how far away you are from it, and now we have borderline relativistic effects where every unit has a different idea of just how far away and how big every other unit is.

I mean, again, I feel like these explanations all fall into 'yeah, sure, don't think about it too hard' territory. Nonlinear distances, sure, makes sense. Non-representative model size, sure, makes sense. Effective range vs maximum range, sure, makes sense. But if you start running numbers or thinking through the implications it all falls apart. Better to just take it for a fun wargame and don't try to make it represent anything- I find it much easier to suspend disbelief with 40K than when a game like Bolt Action starts doing the same things.

The solution to the variable speed problem of non-linear distances it to assume non-linear time. At longer distances each turn represents a longer period of action. As models close, the amount of time per unit can start getting shorter.


Which is a bit brain bending, but I think it's the best way to think of it.

I recall at some-point GW mentioned that if you would use realistic ranges you would need to play in a parking lot. (I think it might be in a 2nd edition era WD).

The abstraction gets very funny with the movement combos of 8th edition.

I miss my literally supersonic genestealers that could outrun aircraft.

 Tyran wrote:
The abstraction gets very funny with the movement combos of 8th edition.

I miss my literally supersonic genestealers that could outrun aircraft.

In 3rd infantry could outrun most tanks, which made for some pretty comical instances of land raiders being chased by characters waving power fists.

I think late in the edition there was a "flank speed" rule to solve this.

As for needing a parking lot, that's only germane if you think the game should include an "approach to battle" or be a meeting engagement. In most tactical, squad-level games the troops start within weapons range, but they are not in LOS of one another, so there's still maneuver needed to bring them into contact.

I mean, you could do a WW I style game where both players entrench across and open field, and that might even make a challenging combat if you do it right.

That also serves as a reminder that one of the tactical problems of WW I (and even before it) was that commanders could no longer maneuver in open view of the enemy. The threat range was now effectively as far as one could see - and thanks to artillery, a little beyond even that.

Our generation has grown up with that assumption, and games of modern combat reflect it. I think it's useful to compare 40k to Bolt Action, which also uses some abstraction, but is more consistent and therefore a more representative simulation of platoon-on-platoon combat.

In 3rd, tanks could move 12", twice the speed of infantry normally, and the same speed if the infantry also charged. So infantry could only catch a cornered/boxed in tank or a tank they had already caught.

On the other hand, most tanks could not shoot if they moved that fast.

 Haighus wrote:
In 3rd, tanks could move 12", twice the speed of infantry normally, and the same speed if the infantry also charged. So infantry could only catch a cornered/boxed in tank or a tank they had already caught.

On the other hand, most tanks could not shoot if they moved that fast.

Yeah, so the rhino rush gets you into contact and then the tank guns its engines and...still can't outrun Eldar infantry.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
In 3rd, tanks could move 12", twice the speed of infantry normally, and the same speed if the infantry also charged. So infantry could only catch a cornered/boxed in tank or a tank they had already caught.

On the other hand, most tanks could not shoot if they moved that fast.

Yeah, so the rhino rush gets you into contact and then the tank guns its engines and...still can't outrun Eldar infantry.

Now, it's been a while, but I don't think Eldar infantry were moving 12". Unless we're talking about a 6" move AND a 6" charge move after that. They had Fleet at some point, which was an extra D6 (but no shoot or charge?) I'm pretty hazy on it. I think they got Battle Focus in 4th ed.

Blood Angel Rhinos were banzai-ing across the table in 3rd though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Now, it's been a while, but I don't think Eldar infantry were moving 12". Unless we're talking about a 6" move AND a 6" charge move after that. They had Fleet at some point, which was an extra D6 (but no shoot or charge?) I'm pretty hazy on it. I think they got Battle Focus in 4th ed.

Blood Angel Rhinos were banzai-ing across the table in 3rd though.

I defer to someone who saved the rulebooks (I did not), but I do now that that from 2nd I liked shooting Marines, and so I tried to replicate them in 3rd, and was shocked with the Blood Angel Rhino Rush made contact with my Razorbacks...and they couldn't outrun them! I mean if you managed to contact a vehicle, it could only move 12" away, which was the infantry assault distance, so they could keep pace and continue hitting you.

Anyway, the abstraction of combat in 3rd (models not in contact could still "throw rocks") opened the way to making the scale elastic, just as having flyers zooming across the board at absurdly low levels destroyed the sense of distance.

^Ya okay, I could see how that feels wierd. But it is only the Assault move that does it, because otherwise the tank is twice as fast as the infantry.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
In 3rd, tanks could move 12", twice the speed of infantry normally, and the same speed if the infantry also charged. So infantry could only catch a cornered/boxed in tank or a tank they had already caught.

On the other hand, most tanks could not shoot if they moved that fast.

Yeah, so the rhino rush gets you into contact and then the tank guns its engines and...still can't outrun Eldar infantry.

Now, it's been a while, but I don't think Eldar infantry were moving 12". Unless we're talking about a 6" move AND a 6" charge move after that. They had Fleet at some point, which was an extra D6 (but no shoot or charge?) I'm pretty hazy on it. I think they got Battle Focus in 4th ed.

Blood Angel Rhinos were banzai-ing across the table in 3rd though.

Eldar did get fleet in their 3rd edition codex, so it is true they can move faster than a typical vehicle if within assault range. Fleet was a extra d6 inches though so they were generally still slower than vehicles when out of assault range, but had a theoretical threat range of 18" for melee (no assaulting restrictions for fleet).

 Haighus wrote:
Eldar did get fleet in their 3rd edition codex, so it is true they can move faster than a typical vehicle if within assault range. Fleet was a extra d6 inches though so they were generally still slower than vehicles when out of assault range, but had a theoretical threat range of 18" for melee (no assaulting restrictions for fleet).

Yeah, that's what I thought. I didn't play against them much in 3rd. Seemed like everyone was playing either red or black and white Marines for some reason.

Anyhow, the decision to have assault combat happen within an area rather than between models began to break down the old notion of figures being absolutely representative. The cover rules likewise pushed models into more abstract formations that were worried more about template impact than any kind of cover.

I'm not current, but it seems like there are various rules, strategems and traits that allow units to do oddball things, which further separates it from being just a handful of squads duking it out.

I hate to bring it up again, but I'm retired Air Force, so it bothers me more than most that you have fighters wandering around the battlefield as kite-level high and below stall speed. That level of abstraction makes effectively any argument about scale valid.