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.

Having recently started an aos army, I've been wondering if melee weapon ranged could, or should, be added to 40k.

I mean it doesn't seem too hard, just give melee weapons a range stat: basic cc weapons, chainswords, and powerfists could have a 1" range; most dedicated melee weapons, such as power weapons, and dreadnought cc weapons could be 2"; and polearms, thunder hammers, power lances (remember them?), and knight tier melee weapons could be 3".

Expand engagement range to be 3" horizontally to fit more weapon ranges, and remove fighting in ranks to allow melee weapons reach to cover that organically, instead allowing models to fight through other units.

Now a 3" engagement range is basically +1 to all charges, the highest roll you ever need to make is a 9*; and with weapon reach, I think removing the pile-in step in the fight phase for units who charged would balance this buff to melee units.

There is also the problem of characters, perhaps expand lookout sir to keep them from getting attacked unless they are within 1" regardless of weapon reach.

There's probably a simpler way to do it than that. Something like:

* Give all melee weapons a Range stat.
* Keep engagement range as-is.
* Models are now allowed to fight if...
A.) At least one model in their unit is within engagement range.
B.) The model that wants to attack is within range with its melee weapon. This replaces the whole being within an inch of a model within engagement range (or whatever it is) mechanic.

That should keep rule changes to a minimum while still accomplishing the basic premise.

That said, I don't feel there's much merit to giving melee weapons a variety of ranges. Right now, you're usually able to swing with everyone in a given unit unless said unit is a horde. And letting hordes take spears that functionally add about 1" to their threat range doesn't prevent some of those guys in the back of a horde from being out of range; it just means that you end up with 2/3rds of the horde swinging instead of 1/3rd.

Plus, you'd risk slowing the game down if you had to measure a variety of melee ranges. We're talking about relatively small measurements that will often have to be done in the air over a model, so there's likely to be a lot of squinting and uncertainty as to whether a guy with a spear is 1.4" away or 1.6" away.

And honestly, I can't think of a ton of non-character infantry models that are equipped with long enough weapons to warrant a longer-than-usual Range stat. Off the top of my head we're talking about what? Celestian sacresants (spelling), some aeldari sergeants, custodes spears, and maaaaybe lych guards' war scythes?

tldr; Could you? Sure. Should you? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be convinced if someone can show some benefits that outweigh the downsides.

Weapons ranges are a whole lot more natural than the fighting in ranks we have now; emergent gameplay based on fundamental rules (all weapons have a range and can shoot/stab over other units, los permiting) rather than layering on mechanics. This is something aos does better than 40k.

I've never found measuring small distances to be a problem in aos, if you even have to in the first place; certainly no worse than now where we have to take half inches into account.

As for more substantial benefits, making dedicated melee weapons (power swords) reach 2", while more mundane ones (chainswords, cc weapon) reach 1", would give a real difference between how melee aggressive units and normal units move during the fight phase; the former able to be more confident in their reach and ranks while the latter gives up valuable consolidation space simply getting in range and must scramble to get hits in.

 Eipi10 wrote:
Weapons ranges are a whole lot more natural than the fighting in ranks we have now; emergent gameplay based on fundamental rules (all weapons have a range and can shoot/stab over other units, los permiting) rather than layering on mechanics. This is something aos does better than 40k.

To confirm, we're talking about this portion of the main rulebook, right?

Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in the unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 198) of an enemy unit, or that are within 1/2" of another model from their own unit that is itself within 1/2" of an enemy unit, can fight.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "natural" in this instance, but that's literally a single sentence rule. Two sentences if you count the bullet point on page 198 that explain Engagement Range is basically just 1" horizontally and 5" vertically. Adding a melee weapon range stat would be an almost identical rule. You'd just replace the reference to engagement range to a reference to the weapon's stat. Something like...

Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in the unit that are within the melee range of one or more of their equipped melee weapons can fight.

And then to that, you'd probably need to add a sentence explaining that you can only use weapons that are actually in range when attacking; having a 3" spear weapon doesn't let you swing with your 2" power sword (better stats but shorter range). So adding melee weapon range probably ends up slightly wordier than the system we have now.

I've never found measuring small distances to be a problem in aos, if you even have to in the first place; certainly no worse than now where we have to take half inches into account.

Fair enough. Maybe it's a non-issue.

As for more substantial benefits, making dedicated melee weapons (power swords) reach 2", while more mundane ones (chainswords, cc weapon) reach 1", would give a real difference between how melee aggressive units and normal units move during the fight phase; the former able to be more confident in their reach and ranks while the latter gives up valuable consolidation space simply getting in range and must scramble to get hits in.

Wait. That sounds wonky to me. Looking at my models, my power swords don't look significantly longer than my chainswords. Certainly not a full inch longer. So you're proposing that the range of a melee weapon isn't about the physical properties of the weapon so much as the fighting style of the wielder? Because that sounds much more like something that would be tied to the unit's data sheet than to the weapons themselves. I imagine howling banshees are much better at eating up ground when attacking than something like a phalanx of storm-shield-lugging crusadres. Similarly, a berzerker with a chain sword sized for his physique really seems like he ought to have more reach than a guard sergeant with a power sword.

And as mentioned earlier, I've found that people are almost always able to get their entire unit into fighting range with the main exceptions being horde units. Hordes (ork boyz, hormagaunts, etc.) aren't generally packing power swords. So the power sword vs "mundane" weapon example you gave, while understandably probably just an off the cuff thing, would end up helping small squads like my banshees (who don't need the help) while actually shrinking the threat range of boyz in a mob.

Also, just how much variation in range do you see melee weapons having? Because I can sort of understand grouping melee weapons into "long" and "not long" categories, but you can only provide so large a gap before things start to get weird or so specific a value before it looks unnecessary. Like, a power sword is 2" in your example. Alright. Surely a celestian sacresant's spear of the faithful or sacred halberd should have more reach than that, right? So are we talking about melee weapons with 3" range at that point? A necron lychguard is physically large. Is its warscythe a 4" range melee weapon? And conversely, is it useful to anyone's gaming experience to have to remember that a choppa is Range 1", but a big choppa is range 1.25", and a huge choppa is range 1.5", and a power klaw is only range 0.75", etc?

I think this idea kind of falls flat for me. It feels like a solution searching for a problem. You could add melee weapon ranges without it being a huge headache, but it would add some unnecessary complications and rules bloat (if only in the form of an extra stat) for no real gain. Like, if they decided to give all melee weapons a range in 10th edition, it wouldn't hurt anything, but going out of our way to assign Range stats to every melee weapon in the game and then convince people to use those modified rules doesn't seem like a worthwhile time investment.

I haven't really played AoS yet, but I sort of see why melee weapon ranges would fit in that context. AoS encourages having at least one big blob unit in many armies, so choosing spears over swords and shields is a meaningful choice; you're functionally choosing to get an extra rank's worth of attacks on the charge at the cost of whatever benefits the sword and shield were offering. And if I'm not mistaken, AoS is a bit more melee-centric as ranged attacks tend to be either a bit less lethal or a bit harder to squeeze into your army for most factions. So melee gets more spotlight, and how many dudes can swing on a given turn is more likely to be a game changer.

I was thinking of the fighting in ranks rule. And I was only thinking of 3 tiers for everything from ccw to a thunderstrike gauntlet, like aos; 1", 2", 3". Anything more would break engagment range, and who measures half inches?

But yes, as 40k has become more melee accepting in 9th, and not in a broken way like 4th (so I've heard) I thought this would be nice. It came to me fast and suprisingly didn't seem broken.

Tbh the lore consideration scarcely crossed my mind, only that it would be nice if my custodes spears meant something while blissfuly ignoring my feudal guardsmen with bayonets on top of fantasy handguns taller than them. I mean, a lot of horde units would have to have 2" weapons to keep up their previous attack power, and not just becuase big choppas are very much 3" polearms. Chainswords should be 1" weapons since they are quite ubiquitous (have to keep a baseline), excellent for their price with ap-1 (for SM at least), are usually the steping off point to better options on melee centered units for whom they matter.

You could. It'd be awkward to measure and it'd be a straight nerf to melee units on big bases unless you're going to let, say, an AdMech Dragoon's lance get them into melee if they're within 3" of another model in the unit that's within 3" of the enemy, which seems like a long way.

 Eipi10 wrote:
I was thinking of the fighting in ranks rule.

Just to clarify, you're referring to AoS rules, right? As far as I'm aware, no such rules exist in 40k.

And I was only thinking of 3 tiers for everything from ccw to a thunderstrike gauntlet, like aos; 1", 2", 3". Anything more would break engagment range, and who measures half inches?

Okay. So in that case, I don't think you want a Melee Range stat. You generally make something a numeric stat when you want to be able to play with the exact numbers and have some variety. What you're describing is more of a... short/long range special rule that does... something. Modifies a model's Engagement Range I suppose.

But yes, as 40k has become more melee accepting in 9th, and not in a broken way like 4th (so I've heard) I thought this would be nice. It came to me fast and suprisingly didn't seem broken.

Tbh the lore consideration scarcely crossed my mind, only that it would be nice if my custodes spears meant something while blissfuly ignoring my feudal guardsmen with bayonets on top of fantasy handguns taller than them. I mean, a lot of horde units would have to have 2" weapons to keep up their previous attack power, and not just becuase big choppas are very much 3" polearms. Chainswords should be 1" weapons since they are quite ubiquitous (have to keep a baseline), excellent for their price with ap-1 (for SM at least), are usually the steping off point to better options on melee centered units for whom they matter.

I wouldn't say what you're describing is "broken" in a balance sense, but it has some wonky consequences that don't seem desirable.
Like, anything you give a 1" range to is functionally being nerfed, so then the question becomes, "Why do those units need nerfed?"
Anything you give a 2" range to is basically breaking even. You say that most units would remain unchanged, so that makes me wonder, "What specific issue is being addressed? What problem is being solved OR how is the game being improved by this change?"
Anything you give a 3" range to is functionally buffed (and also covering a lot of ground with their reach), so see the above question. How is the game improved by a nob having half again as much melee reach?

Why is a chainsword being a common weapon (in the imperium) a reason for it to have shorter reach? If you want the "baseline" to be weapons with the shortest reach, surely that would be covered by pistol whips, punches, claws, teeth, etc. Is a striking scorpion chainsword (a weapon wielded by an elite specialist melee combatant among the eldar) also a 1" range?

I'm also not clear on what you're talking about in regards to your custodes. Are you having trouble getting all of your custodes into melee range? Because their small numbers and large base size makes me think that shouldn't be a common issue for you. Are you saying that you want to be able to fight enemy units with both your guardsmen and your custodes at the same time? Because you can; just leave a small gap between your front row of guardsmen so that your custodes can scoot within 1".

I'm really struggling to see how this would make the game better, but I'm definitely seeing how this has potential to introduce new problems unnecessarily. :S Sorry. Not trying to be harsh and dump all over your idea.

I thought of it after played game systems that have melee reach. There is no pressing problem it's trying to solve, just a neat thing that doesn't change the complexity of the game. More tactical choices in a simpler game is always better.

AoS has no fighting in ranks rule, it's handled by weapon ranges. 40k does: "[models] that are within ½" of another model from their own unit that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight" Also, striking scorpions need their melee to be buffed in other ways, like all the other foot-based aspect warriors. I always thought of them as very close-in melee fighters, what with their sustained attack rule; if you want to talk lore. And I have no issues with my own models, though "Fix Bayonets!" giving guardsmen aditional reach would be cool.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
You could. It'd be awkward to measure and it'd be a straight nerf to melee units on big bases unless you're going to let, say, an AdMech Dragoon's lance get them into melee if they're within 3" of another model in the unit that's within 3" of the enemy, which seems like a long way.

I don't see what the problem is, a big base gives more area on top of an already large reach, and even dreadnoughts are only on 60mm. Especially the measuring part, which is trivial in aos.

 Eipi10 wrote:
I thought of it after played game systems that have melee reach. There is no pressing problem it's trying to solve, just a neat thing that doesn't change the complexity of the game.

So my concern here is that you risk injecting problems into the game. Meaning the pros/cons look something like:

PROS:
* Is a "neat thing."

CONS:
* You risk nerfing units that don't need nerfed.
* You add to the number of stats that have to be memorized. (Currently, we just have to remember a single value of "Engagement Range.")
* There seem to be some fluff/crunch disconnects.

More tactical choices in a simpler game is always better.

Trying not to ask this in a dickish way. What tactical choices does your proposal create, and how does it simplify the game? From what I see, it doesn't add any tactical decisions (except in the list writing stage) and actually adds a tiny bit of complexity to the game rather than simplifying it.

AoS has no fighting in ranks rule, it's handled by weapon ranges. 40k does: "[models] that are within ½" of another model from their own unit that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight"

How is giving melee weapons a range stat less a matter of "fighting in ranks" than using engagement range? Both mechanics are basically a way of saying, "Dudes this far away from enemy models can attack in the Fight phase."

Also, striking scorpions need their melee to be buffed in other ways, like all the other foot-based aspect warriors. I always thought of them as very close-in melee fighters, what with their sustained attack rule; if you want to talk lore. And I have no issues with my own models, though "Fix Bayonets!" giving guardsmen aditional reach would be cool.

No argument here that scorpions don't need other buffs, but that's not the point I was trying to address. My point was more that your logic on what gets a shorter or longer range seems to be a bit hazy or arbitrary. Some of my scorpion models are in full on fencing lunge stances which seems like it should correspond to a reasonably long reach. BL novels sometimes describe chainsword wielders using fencing-like techniques (even though those don't make much sense for a chainsaw on a stick), so it seems like a guard model probably ought to have a similar reach to a scorpion if we're going off of fluffed weapon stances (which is going to be arbitrary and limiting as heck). If we're going off of physical weapon/model properties, it's really weird that a banshee has significantly more reach than a scorpion. If we're going off of an abstract notion of how freely the wielder can push forward/dance around in melee, then it's weird that a towering berzerker marine with a chain sword longer than some people are tall would have less reach than a guard sergeant with a power sword.

Basically, weapon scarcity doesn't seem like it should be an indicator of reach. It kind of feels like your chainsword vs power sword distinction is an example of one of the eyebrow raising changes you'd end up making for the sake of justifying your melee range stat. Which is a red flag (to me) that maybe the melee range stat shouldn't exist.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
You could. It'd be awkward to measure and it'd be a straight nerf to melee units on big bases unless you're going to let, say, an AdMech Dragoon's lance get them into melee if they're within 3" of another model in the unit that's within 3" of the enemy, which seems like a long way.

I don't see what the problem is, a big base gives more area on top of an already large reach, and even dreadnoughts are only on 60mm. Especially the measuring part, which is trivial in aos.

Imagine the dragoons are in a triangle formation rather than a straight line. With engagement range, a single model being in base to base with the enemy is sufficient to let his two buddies swing. If you introduce your range stat instead, the back two models in the triangle might not be in range to swing. So things like tiny pieces of scatter terrain and exact positioning might suddenly make it difficult for such units to get everyone into stabbing range. You could give them all sufficiently long melee ranges to bypass this problem (and certainly the models justify it). But the point is that you have to make sure you don't forget about such potential problems when handing out melee range stats or else you risk nerfing them.

Engagement range is 2", fight range is 0.5". I propose expanding and varying the fight range radius within the engagement range. It removes fighting in ranks and makes melee rules more similar to shooting rules, simplification. If you want realism or modeling accuracy, having weapons reach is better and less limiting than not having it. And even for marines, man-sized chainswords are called eviscerators. I mean, don't model things that are effectively non-canon and expect the game to bend to you; I don't expect that with my guardsmen, and you shouldn't with your reposed striking scorpions.

And I still don't get the dragoon example, they would be able to fight through their friendly model so long as their target is within 3" of them (obvious dragoon reach). Their friendly can fit in that space, some terrain can fit in that space. Now dragoons would be able to do interesting things in melee; a long reach would reduce their effective charge distance, letting them be comfortable even if they only make it into the edge of engagement range (triangle positioning notwithstanding). Any unit that tried to fight back against them would have to give up an inch or two of pile in distance to get to them, if they chose to hold back like that. There is a choice of moving up to reach other units or make it harder to pull casualties that would get the enemy unit out of combat, or stay back to still fight while making an easy fall back in the next movement phase, both by having more space to fall back from and being harder to tripoint due to distance.

 Eipi10 wrote:
Engagement range is 2", fight range is 0.5". I propose expanding and varying the fight range radius within the engagement range. It removes fighting in ranks and makes melee rules more similar to shooting rules, simplification.

One sentence's worth of simplification, but sure. Of course, you lose a bit of that simplification by adding to the stats that need to memorized, but I'll give you that one. Technically, you do standardize the rules slightly with this change. Assuming there aren't any weird interactions that would have to be patched as a result. I'd argue that this really doesn't remove "fighting in ranks" though. If you're making most weapons 2" range, then you'll still have a couple "ranks" of dudes swinging.

If you want realism or modeling accuracy, having weapons reach is better and less limiting than not having it. And even for marines, man-sized chainswords are called eviscerators. I mean, don't model things that are effectively non-canon and expect the game to bend to you; I don't expect that with my guardsmen, and you shouldn't with your reposed striking scorpions.

Not reposed. Just older versions of the unit in a slightly different stance. Given that said models are made of pewter, reposing them would be a bit of a project. My point was that the sword is about the same length as a banshee's power sword, and the pose suggests that scorpions aren't afraid to use a fighting style that takes advantage of their reach. So that seems to be a poor fit for the 1" chainsword 2" powersword example you gave.

There is a choice of moving up to reach other units or make it harder to pull casualties that would get the enemy unit out of combat, or stay back to still fight while making an easy fall back in the next movement phase, both by having more space to fall back from and being harder to tripoint due to distance.

I'm afraid I'm not picturing whatever point you're trying to illustrate. Those choices sound like things you can already do with the existing rules.

I should probably stop replying here though. I, personally, am not convinced that your proposal would add value to the game. I do worry that your proposed changes have the potential to create several problems that I've already outlined above. But I'm sure you're not overly concerned with what a rando like me thinks. If you really think this would add a lot to the game, feel free to do the work of assigning Melee Range stats to every melee weapon in the game and using those rules with your friends. Hopefully my concerns will be totally unfounded and your games will be all the better for your efforts.

In the old Inquisitor game weapons had a reach stat. Polearm type weapons were reach 4, swords (both power and chain) were reach 3, Axes reach 2, Powerfists and Knifes were reach 1. Well roughly.

The 54mm one? Ranges would be halved in 28mm, but that was an rpg.

I should clarify that I don't want to remove fighting in ranks at all, I want to remove the rule needed to do it. And if you are that hung up on a particular weapon for a single unit being 2" instead of 1", the scorpion's chainsword is already different from the free one everyone else has, it could be 2"; I don't play them so, idk.

Before, if you were close enough to hit you were close enough to get hit, your opponent didn't really have to move to reach you; and you could only hit the unit in front of you (pile in swing arounds being situational), instead of having a couple inches of range to pick targets.

I mean, this rule is not much, it's not supposed to be much, and there are analogs of it in the current rule set, but I think it's a small step to making the game that much better. Of course, most of the 40k players I know think a lot like you; and if I couldn't convince you of it, even a little, I would have no luck with them (half of them thought an "ap1" typo mean +1 to saves). So thank you for giving it the time you did. But I don't think it wil be more than a one time novelty, not since some of them have tournament aspirations.

Yes I meant the 54mm one. My intent was to give a GW product that has the weapons reach in it so there would be consistency applied to other systems. Chainswords and powerswords both had reach 3 in Inquisitor, so in whatever system you/we/GW come up with should be consistent and give them the same reach as each other.

I don't think this would make the game easier, in fact I think it would make it harder. Clustering models around a melee would become more annoying, and having to remember or reference weapon ranges (and then properly arrange the people in a mixed-weapon unit) would be a pain.

And ultimately I think it's a non-issue. Within 0.5" of 0.5" isn't hard to remember or execute.

I don't own 40K models with polearms so reach doesn't bother me much. However to avoid this fiddly measuring in close range you could just give pole arm welders the ASF special rule vs. Non-poleaem wielders. This would be more elegant and very quick to apply.

If you want to differentiate further between knife and sword wielders than you could introduce ASF in levels:

0: Bare hands
1: Knife
2: Sword and other cc weapons
3: Polearms

Tygre wrote:Yes I meant the 54mm one. My intent was to give a GW product that has the weapons reach in it so there would be consistency applied to other systems. Chainswords and powerswords both had reach 3 in Inquisitor, so in whatever system you/we/GW come up with should be consistent and give them the same reach as each other.

I thought Chainswords ought to be 1" because lots of buffs shouldn't be given to an otherwise free upgrade. But it seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people, so they may as well be 2". When my units with chainswords get into melee, I expect them to immediately die, so I don't really know them.

kirotheavenger wrote:I don't think this would make the game easier, in fact I think it would make it harder. Clustering models around a melee would become more annoying, and having to remember or reference weapon ranges (and then properly arrange the people in a mixed-weapon unit) would be a pain.

AoS does this all the time and it's not a problem. The shooting phase has weapon ranges and they aren't a problem. Melee as it is has clustering models with fine measurements and that's not a problem.

Oh I agree it's not a big problem.
But what problem are you trying to solve?
It's not like there's a big problem at the moment either.

 Eipi10 wrote:

kirotheavenger wrote:I don't think this would make the game easier, in fact I think it would make it harder. Clustering models around a melee would become more annoying, and having to remember or reference weapon ranges (and then properly arrange the people in a mixed-weapon unit) would be a pain.

AoS does this all the time and it's not a problem. The shooting phase has weapon ranges and they aren't a problem. Melee as it is has clustering models with fine measurements and that's not a problem.

I disagree. Measuring a long range like 18" or even 6-12" is normally not a problem because you're only concerned with anything at the extreme edge of that range. Once you reduce that range down to the 1"-3" range it becomes infinitely more fiddly and time-consuming to measure every model's range, especially because there will be other models in the way. I found the AoS CC weapon range to be a nightmare to accurately measure and I can see this being similar.

I agree with Kiro that this doesn't seem like a useful change. I'm not sure what problem it really solves and it seems to just introduce more problems in itself. I think I'd prefer to see changes going the other way, making it even easier to deal with measuring ranges in CC rather than more time-consuming.

Do you measure down to the millimeter? Most AoS players I know measure out one model in the unit and then eyeball the rest, 40k players do that all the time too. And why isn't measuring pile in and consolidate moves a problem right now?

This doesn't make the game more complicated in any way and adds a tiny bit of realism it's otherwise missing. If you really want maximum simplicity, play one-page-rules 40k.

I try to measure accurately, yes, especially when it could be the difference between getting 5+ extra attacks in a unit. Consolidate and pile-ins are annoying to measure sometimes but those have additional restrictions that streamline the process and usually the only time the distance really matters is if you're trying to tag a new enemy or tri-point the current one.

It clearly does make the game more complicated. You're adding an extra rule and taking nothing away, which by definition is more complicated. I never said I wanted maximum simplicity, so your strawman about playing one-page rules can safely be ignored. Adding realism is fine as a goal but I question whether this is the way to go about it. You need a balance of abstraction, for playability purposes, and realism, for verisimilitude. I think the drawbacks of adding CC weapon ranges outweigh the small realism bonus you'd get. That's even assuming you think it does add realism. If CC is a swirling melee it could be argued weapon ranges are just not important enough to model given how dynamic a Fight is supposed to be.

This rule removes fighting in ranks and makes fighting rules more similar to shooting rules. All it adds is a stat already present on most weapons in the game.

Although I suppose I shouldn't assume people have the eyesight to see one arc length, or aren't so anal that they measure to the quarter inch.

But as discussed above with the chainsword example (for which I was in the wrong), you can't make assumptions for what fights will look like in your rules. That is up to the player to imagine, a phalanx certainly isn't a swirling melee. The best you can do is give stats that represent base characteristics.

Eh... I shouldn't be rejoining the conversation, but here I go.

 Eipi10 wrote:
This rule removes fighting in ranks and makes fighting rules more similar to shooting rules. All it adds is a stat already present on most weapons in the game.

You say it removes fighting in ranks, but it really doesn't. Unless "fighting in ranks" is just a term you're using to replace the words "engagement range." Under both your system and the current system, multiple rows (ranks) of dudes can make attacks against the enemy provided they have enough range. You've stated that you imagine most weapons having a range of 2". So the only real difference here is that the exact threat distance of a melee weapon in your system is a fixed value (that varies by statline) whereas in the official rules, the threat range varies slightly based on the size of the base of the friendly models near the enemy.

Which is a pretty horizontal change, and not one I would describe as, "removing fighting in ranks."

Although I suppose I shouldn't assume people have the eyesight to see one arc length, or aren't so anal that they measure to the quarter inch.

I'm a pretty chill gamer, but I'm definitely going to do my best to be accurate with my measurements when figuring out who can swing. I don't want to cheat my opponent by accidentally giving myself 10 extra attacks because I assumed a couple extra wych models were in range. I always do a quick range check when figuring out who can swing if it isn't super obvious at a glance. Under your proposal, I potentially have to do multiple range checks because I have a higher Range weapon in the mix somewhere.

But as discussed above with the chainsword example (for which I was in the wrong), you can't make assumptions for what fights will look like in your rules. That is up to the player to imagine, a phalanx certainly isn't a swirling melee. The best you can do is give stats that represent base characteristics.

I mean, I don't know if this is still the case, but for several editions the main rulebook explicitly stated that the reason you couldn't shoot into melee was that it was a chaotic mess with combatants jumping around all over the place. IIRC, that was also part of how they explained not being able to snipe out specific models when assigning attacks in melee; the "swirling melee" was too chaotic. So there's definitely precedent for how the game designers want us to assume melee looks. Sure, models with a shield and spear loadout are prooobably mainting some sort of phalanx, but what percentage of units in 40k have a loadout like that?

In the past, weapons with longer reach (GK halberds, various whip weapons) were represented by giving their wielders a higher Initiative stat meaning they got to swing first. That was an imperfect system too, but the general idea was that the guy with the longer reach had a chance to kill the other guy before they could get close enough to attempt a stabbing. Something like that might do a better job of representing the properties you're trying to reflect. Frankly, 1" melee ranges create a lot of problems, 2" melee ranges don't change much, and 3" and longer ranges seem like they should be rare AND probably only matter for models on large bases or in big mobs of dudes. So a melee reach mechanic has the potential to create troubl while also not doing much for the game in a lot of situations.

Consider a power sword chaos lord fighting a force halberd Grey Knight Captain. In theory, the halberd should have more reach than the power sword. But in a 1v1 duel (or any fight where there aren't a lot of intervening bodies), that extra reach does nothing in your ruleset except make pile in move a bit more mandatory. Now if you said that models with halberds got to swing first on turns that they were charged or something, it could mean that the GK gets to swing before the chaos lord. Or you could grant polearm weapons some sort of bonus when they use the Set to Defend reaction. Or let them Set to Defend outside of terrain. Or any number of things that would be both more impactful and less prone to accidentally injecting problems into the game. And that's assuming that the added level of "realism" in our lightning sword vs space fungus game is worth the extra trouble.

Wyldhunt wrote:
You say it removes fighting in ranks, but it really doesn't.

Fighting in ranks is a rule in the BRB, it used to be explicitly called such in 8th. That rule is no longer needed.

I'm a pretty chill gamer, but I'm definitely going to do my best to be accurate with my measurements when figuring out who can swing. I don't want to cheat my opponent by accidentally giving myself 10 extra attacks because I assumed a couple extra wych models were in range. I always do a quick range check when figuring out who can swing if it isn't super obvious at a glance. Under your proposal, I potentially have to do multiple range checks because I have a higher Range weapon in the mix somewhere.

Don't you talk to your opponent to declare movements and ranges before executing them? Say "I move my wychs towards the nearest marine such that they are also just within 2" of the guardsmen behind them, except for these two here who don't seem like they will be in range. So all my wychs can attack your guardsmen, except these two with 1" weapons and the two only in range of the marines."

the reason you couldn't shoot into melee was that it was a chaotic mess

But pistols can still shoot in melee? Accurately at that?

In the past, weapons with longer reach were represented by giving their wielders a higher Initiative stat meaning they got to swing first.

I liked initiative, even if it broke the design rule of letting players, not rules, imagine fights. But all your suggestions add more rules to the game. What I like about weapon reach is that it only better utilizes the existing statline to add a bit of flavor.

 Eipi10 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
You say it removes fighting in ranks, but it really doesn't.

Fighting in ranks is a rule in the BRB, it used to be explicitly called such in 8th. That rule is no longer needed.

I can't find any rule called Fighting in Ranks or even text mentioning it in the Fight phase rules (admittedly in the rule form the GT 21 book rather than the big core rulebook). Do you have a page reference for the Fight in Ranks rule? 9th doesn't seem to have such a rule. Colloquially the phrase refers to the way units tend to rank up in order to maximise attacks in the Fight phase.

 Eipi10 wrote:

Don't you talk to your opponent to declare movements and ranges before executing them? Say "I move my wychs towards the nearest marine such that they are also just within 2" of the guardsmen behind them, except for these two here who don't seem like they will be in range. So all my wychs can attack your guardsmen, except these two with 1" weapons and the two only in range of the marines."

Yes, but just saying it doesn't magically make it happen. In many cases it's easy - you announce intentions and there's no need to argue over it because what you're trying to do is obviously easily possible. Even in those cases I still try to measure accurately though. The problems arise when it's not obvious you can do what you're announcing as your intentions, at which point you need to measure. When it comes to actually measuring ranges with models that can potentially have 4, 5 or more attacks each, getting the measuring correct is important.

You seem shocked that people actually measure ranges accurately, which is odd to me when your proposed rules introduce a whole bunch of new ranges in the one phase in the game that small changes in range could have the biggest impact.

page 182 of the 8th BRB, under choose targets; and under which models fight on page 229 in the 9th BRB.

It's enough to have both players agree something can happen in order to make it happen. Disagreements can often be resolved with a single measurement of the worst case senario, no need to check the better cases. I can't imagine a situation where that standard is too lax, but maybe I just play with easy-going people; especially in AoS, where I got this rule from.