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.

 Manchu wrote:
lolno 40k is a setting as well as a game and bolters can shoot farther than 100 feet ... if it being a fictional setting confuses you too much then by all means think again about Bolt Action or Flames of War

The fluff of 40k has nothing to do with game design or what is seen on the table. Bolters in tabletop 40k have a range of ~150'. What happens in some novel involving space marines is about as relevant as what happens in the latest Star Wars movie.

OK so yes the fictional component is indeed too confusing for you.

 Manchu wrote:
OK so yes the fictional component is indeed too confusing for you.

No, you just for some odd reason believe that "40k's tabletop rules don't accurately represent the fluff" isn't an acceptable answer, and there must be some bizarre "ground scale" explanation that proves that it's actually realistic after all. Regardless of what some space marine novel says 40k is a 28mm game with 28mm scale models and 28mm ground scale. Whether or not you like the fluff of that is up to you, but that has nothing to do with the scale from a game design point of view.

You're the only one talking about space marine novels, chum. The difference between ground scale and fig scale in 40k ... just like in BA and FoW ... is self-evident regardless of it having no mechanical impact.

 Manchu wrote:
You're the only one talking about space marine novels, chum.

Excuse me for assuming that you could understand 'space marine novels' as a general reference to 40k's fiction and not nitpick whether or not you were literally talking about the novels or some other part of the fiction.

The difference between ground scale and fig scale in 40k ... just like in BA and FoW ... is self-evident regardless of it having no mechanical impact.

Calling it "self evident" over and over again doesn't make it true. I've posted the reasons why your supposed ground scale is a myth that exists only in your own mind, but here they are again:

1) 40k was not designed with this supposed ground scale in mind. According to the previous quote from one of the original designers distances are set as fractions of the table size for gameplay reasons. Bolters have 24" range because infantry weapons should (in their opinion) have a range of four times the movement distance of an infantry unit, not because 24" is the ground-scale equivalent of the "real" range. Any supposed ground scale that matches those numbers is complete coincidence, not the intent of the people who wrote the game.

2) Typical 40k tables represent a 450'x300' section of a battlefield at 28mm scale, with appropriate terrain features scaled to roughly 28mm. A ground scale of less than 28mm requires that the ground the game is played on be appropriately scaled, and most 40k games do not work this way.

3) No single ground scale can make 40k's distances realistic. A ground scale that makes 24" bolter range make sense fluff-wise fails when applied to the 48" range of an autocannon or the 18-36" range of a supersonic fighter jet. So you don't have a single unified ground scale for distances, you have a set of single-case scales for each different measurement. When you're firing a bolter it's a 3mm ground scale, when you're firing an autocannon it's a 1mm ground scale, when you're firing a flamer it's a 20mm ground scale, etc.

Now, if you want to make the argument that 40k's lack of a proper ground scale makes its rules a poor fit for the background fiction (or even a bad game in general) then that's fine, but your claim that 40k has a separate ground scale that is not 28mm simply does not match reality.

Since you already know that nothing I've said has anything to do with the claim that 40k uses a specific, consistent, mechanically relevant ground scale - which only you have been talking about ITT - you must therefore also know that those three points are irrelevant.

 Manchu wrote:
Since you already know that nothing I've said has anything to do with the claim that 40k uses a specific, consistent, mechanically relevant ground scale - which only you have been talking about ITT - you must therefore also know that those three points are irrelevant.

Then, since the subject here is game design and mechanics not "Manchu's headcanon explanations for his 40k games", what exactly is the point of anything you're saying?

Variable ground scale where no value of X in 1:X is equal to figure scale 1:Y and all values are greater than Y in a sigmoid distribution.

So for the purposes of a contrast in this thread about 1:1:1 scale ranges, the fact that 40k's variable ground scale can be called a non scale is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically the point is that harping on a about BA/FoW/40k variable ground scale being a non scale is pointless semantics. For the purposes of this thread, the sigmoid distribution of weapon ranges merelly serves as a point of contrast.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Variable ground scale where no value of X in 1:X is equal to figure scale 1:Y and all values are greater than Y in a sigmoid distribution.

That doesn't even make sense. You're essentially saying that if I measure from point A on the table to point B on the table the "real" distance represented can be anywhere in some huge range of values depending on what I'm measuring it for. IOW, that bunker is 50' away from my infantry squad if I'm moving them over to it, 300' away if I'm measuring for their lasguns, and 5,000' away if I'm measuring for their autocannon. Maybe this weird constantly-changing table makes sense for some Chaos-distorted demon world, but for normal games? Nope.

Take it up with Rick Priestly. He's the guy who invented specifically to allow a greater variety of model types on the table at the same time. And it's not by weapon but by distance. The variable ground scale telescopes on a sigmoid distribution of scale vs inches. In FoW, shooting an SMG and an Autocannon at 4" away represents both weapons shooting at maximum effective SMG range.

And again, you're still missing the point of bringing up such an approach which makes your semantic argument about calling 40k's variable ground scale a non scale irrelevant. It's only relevant is as a point of contrast with a 1:1:1 approach [EDIT And apparently it can matter when you think more of the figure scale side of things in certain LOS mechanics)..

And yet again

 Manchu wrote:
Well - I didn't think it would be necessary to explain that ground scale and figure scale are rarely 1:1 but now that we have ...

Funny, what prompted me to post in this thread was Richard Clarke's editorial on the sigmoid curve in the most recent issue of WS&S. I actually didn't even want to bring it up at all - it isn't necessary given I just wanted to make the rather simple point that the volume of the magic cylinder is probably larger than we might generally imagine in games with limited ranges, which ends up helping to rationalize limited ranges.

So there are two ways the differences between 40k's variable ground scale and a defined ground scale equal to figure scale matter. I guess me insisting there is only one way it is relevant (as a point of contrast) isn't quite true It comes into play when considering different ways of handling line of sight as those abstractions can increase the conceptual range between the attacker's possible positions within a magic cylinder and the target's possible positions. It's basically a point that the figure scale can be thought off as out of whack rather than blaming it all on the ground scale or a distribution of ground scales that telescope as you get further away.

That's actually kind of neat. I think it may have even more of an application when considering ranges for multi figure stands where the area the unit occupies can be larger relative to the height (ie, Flames of War type basing).

Interesting point! I had not even considered the application to multi-basing ... now I will have to dig out my DZC rulebook ...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

KOG light is a 1:1:1 game set in the near future. As the default unit is a robot suit (or tank or powersuit), I assume accuracy based on modern computer-aimed devices (e.g. M1 Abrams fire control system), so range doesn't really matter - LOS (i.e. terrain) matters.

That's actually very cool and adds a level of decision making to play. It now pays to be much more careful about model placement and TLOS offers an intuitive way of making decisions based on that. Am I right to say the game is literally about making TLOS based decisions because the attack system assume a level of accuracy that drastically surpasses that present in say WW2? That the probabilistic nature of magic cylinder approaches is undesirable when things are so definite and accurate?

In the case of KOG light, I simplify things to have unlimited range (which really means more than 100 meters), and then apply a non-optimal long range penalty.

Simple and effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Interesting point! I had not even considered the application to multi-basing ... now I will have to dig out my DZC rulebook ...

There's actually a couple factors here. Realistic ranges in terms of figure scale and realistic ranges in terms of comparison with other weapons (not using a sigmoid distribution). If realistic ranges aren't just about matching figure scales, then you can get more realistic by comparing weapons to weapons rather than just pinning everything on the figure scale. And when you have multibased models where the ground the base represents is much larger than the figure scale would indicate you can still have realistic ranges because of with what they are in relationship. My 54mm 19th century games have realistic ranges in terms of ranges compared to frontage of units, but not in relation to figure scale. There's probably something else here in terms of application that is worth considering that will come to me after I've let this sit with me for a while. I can probably be a bit more flexible with weapon ranges and still have a traditional bottom up ground scale type wargame experience meant to replicate results of historical battles. It's probably in that direction. A means of getting myself to think from a different angle in terms of inserting some top down thinking while still maintaining a bottom up approach.

 frozenwastes wrote:
It's basically a point that the figure scale can be thought off as out of whack rather than blaming it all on the ground scale or a distribution of ground scales that telescope as you get further away.

Except it doesn't help with this problem at all. Even if you assume that the figure scale is off and ignore it you still have the problem that all the other scales are also off. There is no figure scale you could change 40k's models to that would make the scale of the game consistent, no matter what you do the scaling is an inconsistent mess. It's much better to just accept that everything about the game is 28mm scale and weapon ranges are not fluff-accurate.

That the probabilistic nature of magic cylinder approaches is undesirable when things are so definite and accurate?

I don't understand this "probabilistic nature" of the magic cylinder approach. The magic cylinder is an abstraction, not a representation of anything in the real world. It isn't saying "the target is at some random location in this volume of space, and you may or may not hit it with a shot into that volume", it's saying "we're not going to bother representing model position at any greater level of detail". Fluff-wise the shooting model knows exactly where the target is, the rules are just doing the equivalent of rounding off all distances to the nearest 1" increment or playing a game on a hex grid. Trying to interpret an abstraction as any real-world situation is a pointless effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 frozenwastes wrote:
In FoW, shooting an SMG and an Autocannon at 4" away represents both weapons shooting at maximum effective SMG range.

And this makes no sense. When you shoot that SMG at 4" get out a pen and draw a line on the table between the shooting unit and the target. That 4" line represents a particular distance X, the maximum range of a SMG. Now, at some later point, a model with an autocannon measures a maximum range shot along the line you drew. Because the autocannon's ground scale is different from the SMG's ground scale that 4" line on the table now represents a larger distance Y in the "real" world. Somehow those two points on the "real" battlefield are significantly farther apart. And if there's a 4" long bunker next to the line, well, that bunker changes size depending on what weapons you're measuring near it.

Or, to give a visual example:

S-------------T|S-------------T
*-------------------------------*
A-------------------------------T

S = SMG unit, A = autocannon unit, T = target unit. * = dot on the table. All three horizontal lines are parallel and adjacent on the table.

Now, an autocannon's real-world effective range is clearly more than double the effective range of an SMG, even though in a game like 40k a heavy weapon might only have double the tabletop range of a basic infantry weapon. So clearly they have different ground scales.

If you measure the distance from the two 4" shots made end-to-end by the pair of SMG units you get a total of 8", representing X' in the real world (where X is double the effective range of an SMG). If you measure from A to T that same 8" now has to represent Y', which is more than X' because the autocannon's ground scale is not the same as the SMG's ground scale. So what is the real-world distance represented by the 8" between the two dots? Is it X' or more than X'? The answer depends on which gun you're currently measuring range for. Obviously this is absurd, a real-world battlefield doesn't expand and contract based on which weapons are currently firing.

The conclusion here is that you can have a separate ground scale and figure scale (40k doesn't, but a hypothetical new game might), but your ground scale needs to be the same for all distances or you get into absurd contradictions that are just as bad as having a 1:1 ratio between ground scale and figure scale with unrealistic distances.

The volume of the cylinder represents the space in which the target must be, within a certain time frame. The shooter does not know precisely where the target will be at the moment the shot potentially impacts.

About variable ground scale, you are getting mixed up by thinking of range as measurement of distance generally rather than a measurement of range of effective fire of a given weapon.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except it doesn't help with this problem at all.

I mean this 100% straight up with no sarcasm or facetiousness: I'm not trying to explain away the problems with Priestly's approach. I'm saying it has costs. All design decisions do and designs based on his framework, the publisher sees those costs as minimal. Sees the problems as things that can be ignored. For example, Warlord Games makes a Pegasus Bridge terrain kit. Here's the real bridge it is based on:



Using Priestly's approach to weapon ranges and a variable scale, there's a funny thing that happens. A soldier with a rifle can not fire the length of the bridge. It's less than 50m but at the scale they made the kit to work with their 28mm bolt action game, it is longer than a rifle range.



That's one of the problems that arises with this approach and nothing will explain that away. It's either accepted and ignored or it is not. I would suggest if you are trying to run a historical scenario where the models on one side have to shoot at the models on the other, then different rules or a different approach might be in order. Others are okay with the rules as is and their implications in this case.

...that would make the scale of the game consistent, no matter what you do the scaling is an inconsistent mess. It's much better to just accept that everything about the game is 28mm scale and weapon ranges are not fluff-accurate.

I completely agree. It would make no sense for a game with a variable scale that distorts and telescopes as you get further away to be described as "consistent."

I don't understand this "probabilistic nature" of the magic cylinder approach. The magic cylinder is an abstraction, not a representation of anything in the real world.

Here I disagree. Any model on the table top, however you interpret LOS rules or what range system you use is indeed a representation of the position of a soldier (or equivalent) at a given point in time.

It isn't saying "the target is at some random location in this volume of space, and you may or may not hit it with a shot into that volume", it's saying "we're not going to bother representing model position at any greater level of detail".

Describing it as probabilistic or likening it to something quantum is metaphorical, so sorry about any confusion. Basically it's a concept of representation that explains what is going on in a given abstraction. So while one may start with a "we're not going to bother" approach, one can build upon it in a consistent manner. Like allowing a model to get a cover save for a fraction of the base being obscured because of all the probabilities of where the soldier represented might be, it's probably in a position to hug cover as much as possible. Describing that LOS system as a probabilistic location of a represented soldier is basically saying "since we didn't bother defining exactly where the soldier is, when it matters for other parts of the game, where is she?" Made the cover save or the shot missed because of the cover? She must have been behind the cover. DIdn't make it? She must have not been hidden as well as she would like. In contrast, a TLOS system might say "we know exactly where she is. And not enough of her is covered by the terrain, so no cover."

Trying to interpret an abstraction as any real-world situation is a pointless effort.

No, because it lets you answer questions about where the target might be when it matters. It gives you a framework to use in design work. So it's not pointless.

 Peregrine wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
In FoW, shooting an SMG and an Autocannon at 4" away represents both weapons shooting at maximum effective SMG range.

And this makes no sense.

Pretty much every abstraction produces situations that make no sense. Our options are basically to compensate by adding another rule for the situation, accepting it and hand waiving away the situation or switching to a different game/approach. So of course it makes no sense.

When you shoot that SMG at 4" get out a pen and draw a line on the table between the shooting unit and the target. That 4" line represents a particular distance X, the maximum range of a SMG. Now, at some later point, a model with an autocannon measures a maximum range shot along the line you drew. Because the autocannon's ground scale is different from the SMG's ground scale that 4" line on the table now represents a larger distance Y in the "real" world. Somehow those two points on the "real" battlefield are significantly farther apart. And if there's a 4" long bunker next to the line, well, that bunker changes size depending on what weapons you're measuring near it.

Absolutely. I disagree with nothing there. That is one of the strange effects on conceptions of scale that an approach that cares nothing for consistency in that area creates. Distances on the table distort and telescope so it's best not to think of it unless the approach impedes the game. Like if you make a bridge for a scenario that you need to be able to shoot across but can't because the model is too big relative to the ranges picked for the game based on average table width...

Obviously this is absurd, a real-world battlefield doesn't expand and contract based on which weapons are currently firing.

So can you now see why a thread about "realistic" (at least in contrast to that) weapon ranges might exist? Why games with such ranges might exist?

The conclusion here is that you can have a separate ground scale and figure scale (40k doesn't, but a hypothetical new game might), but your ground scale needs to be the same for all distances or you get into absurd contradictions that are just as bad as having a 1:1 ratio between ground scale and figure scale with unrealistic distances.

Hey! Welcome to the thread!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The volume of the cylinder represents the space in which the target must be, within a certain time frame. The shooter does not know precisely where the target will be at the moment the shot potentially impacts.

Replace "shooter" with "player whose model is shooting." I'm guessing the shooter in fictional terms would know enough about the target to at least attempt the attack. I think the abstraction is more about player knowledge rather than in fiction knowledge if it's going to have much utility in game design. We don't know where exactly the shooter is within one volume and where the target is within another but when we use the system to see the results, we find out. Or chuck the whole approach for a TLOS system and accept the problems that come with that. Or do a hybrid. Lots of discussion about that lately

To tie this all into realistic ranges, the impetus behind considering them is that the approach used by many popular games creates problems. Problems that come up for enough people that books and magazine editorials have been written discussing the implications and/or benefits/problems. Shortly after Bolt Action came out, Battle Games magazine (could have been WS&S) had a generic WW2 scenario based on a real event and they presented it as rules agnostic so you could adapt it to your rules of choice. Maps, pictures of the actual site, a discussion of the forces and what they were attempting to accomplish. Unfortunately once you build the terrain between a machine gun position and a tree line to the proportions of the real battlefield in 28mm, the machine gun could no longer reach the tree line using Bolt Action ranges. The scenario designer got angry emails saying his scenario didn't work. Flames of War players on the other hand, had no problem with it as the terrain at around 1/100 for 15mm left the machine gun in range of the tree line. This is also an example of where my earlier musings of the figure scale being the thing that is actually off might be the case.

I don't think the shooter can absolutely know, either, foremost as a matter of time and the potentially unpredictable behavior of the target. But there are other considerations: the psychological state of the shooter, whether and to what extent LOS is obscured by conditions not represented with models, etc. I perosnally like the idea that this reflects the characters represented by the figs doingbthings in their world that we the players cannot explicitly see but can imagine - which is a large part of the appeal of miniatures gaming as an imaginative spectacle for me.

Yes, I see what you are getting at now. It's also a good practice to make sure our mechanics keep touching back on the imagined fiction of the scenario on the table top.

 frozenwastes wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

KOG light is a 1:1:1 game set in the near future. As the default unit is a robot suit (or tank or powersuit), I assume accuracy based on modern computer-aimed devices (e.g. M1 Abrams fire control system), so range doesn't really matter - LOS (i.e. terrain) matters.

That's actually very cool and adds a level of decision making to play. It now pays to be much more careful about model placement and TLOS offers an intuitive way of making decisions based on that. Am I right to say the game is literally about making TLOS based decisions because the attack system assume a level of accuracy that drastically surpasses that present in say WW2? That the probabilistic nature of magic cylinder approaches is undesirable when things are so definite and accurate?

In the case of KOG light, I simplify things to have unlimited range (which really means more than 100 meters), and then apply a non-optimal long range penalty.

Simple and effective.

Yup, KOG light is a LOS-based game, for both attack and coherency. Weapon lethality is pretty high, so you'd best find some cover to work with. Movement is also important. The "final" Beta version is discussed here:
- https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/668519.page#9221605

 Manchu wrote:
...there are other considerations: the psychological state of the shooter, whether and to what extent LOS is obscured by conditions not represented with models, etc.

Also the major factor of how supressed the squad is from fire they are taking, which is unfortunately non-existent in many rule systems

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
...there are other considerations: the psychological state of the shooter, whether and to what extent LOS is obscured by conditions not represented with models, etc.

Also the major factor of how supressed the squad is from fire they are taking, which is unfortunately non-existent in many rule systems

This is comes up as "negative activation" / failed morale often enough. I believe an initiative system can be sufficient to handle this implicitly, where explicit rules tend to add work and reduce enjoyment of many players.

A good demonstration of why realistic ranges are sometimes not used.

In a baseball diamond.

3km for the M1 Abrams is about right, and why 1/285 starts to fall apart for modern weapons in the desert. OTOH, if you're wargaming Vietnam, where it's mostly heavy cover, then LOS determines engagement rather than range.

A late WW2 Panther / Panzer IV with a 75mm main gun has an effective range of something more like 1,200m -- 4m on the 1/285 scale tabletop.

Really, the whole thing simply further highlights the fundamental need to move away from "maximum weapon range" toward games that focus on LOS and fire control for modern/postmodern timeframes. Infinity is like this, as is Relic Knights. KOG light is like this. 40k / FoW / BA are really obsolete dinosaurs in this regard.

The funny part is rogue trader acknowledged it and gave an extreme range of 10 times the weapons maximum range of the weapon, assuming you rolled a 6 to hit first and then roll to hit normally.

It was not perfect by any means, but a better direction than the one followed later on.

"Better" is subjective. From the point of view of allowing lots of vehicles and artillery on table and necessitating purchase of models representing them, the GW approach is probably "better".

 frozenwastes wrote:



A good demonstration of why realistic ranges are sometimes not used.

In a baseball diamond.

That was amusing. Thanks for sharing.

The trick with this issue is to take away the idea of "range" entirely. Easy E, bless him, has already cited Horizon Wars's approach which does away with weapon ranges, but I introduced an component in Zero Dark, in which critical successes (a 12 on a d12) adds a success (a hit, in shooting), so even shooting at a distant target has a chance to hit.

This creates a realistic motivation to deliver suppressive fire and reminds all players that, in a hot battlefield, you're never really "out of range".

R.

@precinctomega - I'm not entirely sure that range should completely disappear as a concept - some weapons are more effective at certain ranges, and it's OK to capture that if only for weapon differentiation purposes.

I believe in critical successes, and think it's a fun (if not strictly realistic) mechanic.

Knowing that ranges are so hugely foreshortened on the tabletop is becoming more and more immersion-breaking when units are "out of range". I wonder if this will characterize the next wave of wargaming.

some weapons are more effective at certain ranges

Certainly, yes. But not to the extent that some games suggest and often not in the ways that they suggest. For the purposes of the scales we're talking about - allowing for the idea that there's always an element of fudging scale on the tabletop - weapons are often more *appropriate* for certain ranges. But, for example, if you stand six feet away from me, whether I'm handling a pistol, rifle, shotgun or rocket launcher, you're still going to be easier to hit than if you were standing 12 feet away. I might prefer to use my pistol over my rocket launcher - but not because that makes you easier to hit, but rather because (a) I don't want to blow myself up with the rocket launcher and (b) I need to hold onto the rocket launcher in case I need to hit something big and nasty or something further away (because at that point, my pistol won't be so useful).

As has already been alluded to, what should distinguish weapons isn't so much their ability to hit or not hit, but what effect it has when the round arrives.

I've always been frustrated by weapons that can be lethal up to, say 32" (even with a diminished chance of hitting) but then magically become totally ineffective at 33".

Having said that, actually, HW did away with weapons almost entirely (it retained weapon effects, though). It's all boiled down to a single stat and a single roll. But HW if an admittedly abstract system. Zero Dark does the same thing, but has a much larger menu of weapon effects to add on.