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.

5ft 1 inch
10 seconds 1 turn

Throwing Weapon can be thrown up to 30ft
Javelin/Pistol can be thrown/fired up to 60ft
Shortbow/Sling can be fired up to 90ft
Bow/Handgun can be fired up to 120ft
Longbow/Crossbow can be fired up to 150ft
All fired once per 10 seconds.

move 2ft a second
march 4ft a second
charge from 3 to 8ft a second

human models would be 6ft~ tall

In combat soldiers would be attacking once per every 10 seconds [edit: 5 seconds]

Problem [Many ranges seem a little low, though by their names alone you can't tell much for the quality of the weapon.]

In combat soldiers would be attacking once per every 10 seconds

You can dismiss a lot with this. Who knows how many thrusts and parries went into an individual melee for it to equal one roll? However much to make it believable.

I.e., guys are standing there scratching their noses when an enemy swings, misses, hits, whatever. Then the other guy takes his swing while the previous attacker scratches his nose. They are rolling around and kicking and screaming and fighting and out of all that, a dice roll (or two or three or four) take place.

Time can be expanded or contracted as we like. The magic phase might be .0000001 seconds. It might take a handgunner a few moments to fire and a cannon a good few minutes. Even though they happen in the same shooting phase.

The phases and such are just for organizational purposes but feel free to embelish them as much as you like.

Trying to scale the timing in a game is the same as trying to scale actual soldier numbers. No little scouting party of 100 soldiers happens to have a dragon running around with them.

So really, the characters are the only models on the field that should be counted as accurate representations. A unit of 25 halberdiers would more likely be 250 men. A horde of 100 goblins would be 1000.

Wars are not fought by small little skirmishes of a few dozen men(in general), especially not the epic wars we see in WFB lore.

A small Empire army is 2000 men plus artillery. A small detachment of heavy cavalry is 50 men.

So that single dice rolled for that one model actually should represent 10 men fighting.

Clearly fighting battles of that size is prohibitive for many reasons in wargaming. But when you are writing the battle report, those numbers would be more accurate for story telling.

Interesting, Aerethan.

That actually would solve several problems in the system (and for the realism in the game.) Why would the army be fighting in one line vs one line while barely (if at all) moving in to the enemy ranks?

Well within the space of both players front ranks there are 40+ guys fighting then it starts to make sense, for lack of space etc.

The only problem would be characters. Which could be explained by saying its the character and his entourage. This way the extra attacks for characters are also explained.

While the general may not actually need to be this ultimate god of warfare killing as fast as a dragon would, his entourage consisting of elites would be able to in their group because you could divide the power within his entourage.

The magic weapons/items either their power outstretching to their entourage, or simply the entire entourage has the item.

Ehh, that doesn't really hold up. (I would like it be true. It would make more sense that the solid block of reptilian sinew which an enemy wishing to attack the Slann must first fight consists of more then a single rank of Temple Gaurd) but for example if every guy represented multiple, then why would a character take the space of 5 guys that now must make supporting attacks.

Like why is does a Vampire riding Terrorgeist take as much physical space as 30 men?

How can a Scar-Veteran be killing as much as like 15 Saurus?

How can the Slann Mage Priest block the attacks of 20 Temple Gaurd?

"Ehh, that doesn't really hold up. For example if every guy represented multiple, then why would a character take the space of 5 guys that now must make supporting attacks....
How can a Scar-Veteran be killing as much as like 15 Saurus?"

This is already explained by the concept of their entourage.

"Like why is does a Vampire riding Terrorgeist take as much physical space as 30 men?"

It is several terrorgeists with each being ridden by a member of the entourage. Or we could assume the terrorgiest was 10x the size that the model implies and it is being ridden by the entire entourage. The latter idea is backed by the images in the army books of monsters and other beasts being much larger then the model implies. For example the Lizardmen Salamander picture implies he is ridiculously large (for that it could simply be one giant beast instead of 10 separate.) The kroxigor are also that way.

"How can the Slann Mage Priest block the attacks of 20 Temple Gaurd?"

His entourage is using a strategy, that keeps a radius around him and prevents people from attacking him. This prevents them from effectively being part of combat, or we could assume that his entourage is simply worse then the average soldier (while having some separate effectiveness outside of combat.) In combat his entourage may fail to compare to the soldiers because they may be scribes, advisers, etc.

This is endlessly editable and solves all problems.

Why does each cannon only kill 5~ troops per shoot?

Well don't apply the 10x to cannons maybe its only x5 and each cannon shot is killing 10 troops.

Why firebellies breath attack only (under normal view) kill 3 troops?

Well in this perspective it can kill 30! If 30's too much then how about a firebelly is perhaps accompanied by other firebellies. 1? 15 each. 3? 8~ each.

Why do cannons reload so quickly?

Add more cannons to your view. They are firing/reloading out of sync.


This... this is beautiful.

 Grand Hierophant Khatep wrote:

"Like why is does a Vampire riding Terrorgeist take as much physical space as 30 men?"

It is several terrorgeists with each being ridden by a member of the entourage. Or we could assume the terrorgiest was 10x the size that the model implies and it is being ridden by the entire entourage. The latter idea is backed by the images in the army books of monsters and other beasts being much larger then the model implies. For example the Lizardmen Salamander picture implies he is ridiculously large (for that it could simply be one giant beast instead of 10 separate.

The Salamander thing is true.

 Grand Hierophant Khatep wrote:

"How can the Slann Mage Priest block the attacks of 20 Temple Gaurd?"

His entourage is using a strategy, that keeps a radius around him and prevents people from attacking him. This prevents them from effectively being part of combat, or we could assume that his entourage is simply worse then the average soldier (while having some separate effectiveness outside of combat.) In combat his entourage may fail to compare to the soldiers because they may be scribes, advisers, etc.

If you are partially implying that some maybe Temple Gaurd that is impossible. (The attack is made with STR 2, WS 2). But I guess he could have a "The Infanta" style Skink entourage.

I'm warming up to the idea. I guess it would make more sense with the rank thing. Like why would a unit lose Steadfast if the enemy had a single rank more than them, but if they had like 5-10 more it might be a different story.

Why would Tiq'Tak'Toe be leading a unit of like... 5 Terradon riders...

It would make more sense that the shield the Engine of the God emits isn't only large enough to cover like... 12 warriors on either side, but instead is quite massive and protecting like 50-100.

I still am a little skepticle though. Like on the subject of Tiq'Tak'Toe. He mount has abilities that unique to that mount (Killing Blow)... Why would his mount be killing so many?

Like why would a unit lose Steadfast if the enemy had a single rank more than them, but if they had like 5-10 more it might be a different story.

I didn't think of that. Good point. And ranged weapon's range are actually more accurate if you apply it being 5-10x~ more.

"I still am a little skepticle though. Like on the subject of Tiq'Tak'Toe. He mount has abilities that unique to that mount alone (Killing Blow)... Why would his mount be killing so many? "

It could apply to all in the entourage (who could be riding similar mounts.) Or simply that the ones that successfully get killing blow (rolls of 6 to wound) are his own mount while the rest are his entourage.

The basic warhammer system is already heavily abstracted, if we're shooting to make a "realistic" ruleset I'd think that we'd need to start from the ground up, really.

A lot of this stuff sounds very similar to Warmaster though, where a single base represents multiple models.

"...causing the ground to split...revealing a tooth-lined bottomless pit...eternal pain for those who fall within.."

That only kills about 4 guys... that's kinda underwhelming. From this perspective it kills 40! much better.

"The Ruination of Cities... the ground trembles..the very tectonic plates grind together..the earth lets out an infernal groan..the power of the continents is unleashed..the ground splits open forming terrible wounds."

It kills 10 guys... uh that... that feels stupid. It kills 100? AWESOME.

I'm not changing the rules, just the view on the game. I don't truly care to much about it being more realistic, just more dramatic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My new life goal. I want 2 warhammer armies. Each base is 9x the size (as if you were putting the bases 3x3) containing 9 or so guys. The board is 54ft by 36ft. Each piece of terrain is 9x the size (a forest would contain 45 trees instead 5, etc) The range of everything is simply x9. I get Blue Table Painting to paint both armies (max level). I open a large wargaming store and in the basement we got this giant warhammer set and we let people rent out the basement for games. I would need custom templates bout the size of pizza trays. Characters would be accompanied by an entourage. Monsters would be custom sculpted to fit the size of the tray... This... this is awesome.

The units of infantry would contain around 225 each.

I've always used this "rule of 10" for envisioning my battles. With characters you just use that whole suspension of disbelief thing. In duels characters work as is. Against units I just break them down to being that bad ass that they could cut down perhaps 4 or 5 men for every model they actually kill instead of 10. It still makes them badass, just a little more reasonably badass.

Another reason you can't take model counts at face value for scale is ranged weapons. If 1" is more or less equal to 6', then a bow can only shoot 144 feet? A rather short range for a bow.

A longbow in WFB would have a 180' range, which is about 1/3 the actual range of such a weapon.

There are many ways in which WFB should avoid realism. Scale is one, fluff is another.

You are a mad, mad person wanting to do that. xD

I've always seen standard games Warhammer / 40k as a 'snapshot' of a larger battle - you're focusing on a few minutes, of a small part of a massive conflict.

Things like Apoc / Whatever equivalent you could apply to fantasy being a bigger snapshot of those same battles.

"I've always used this "rule of 10" for envisioning my battles. With characters you just use that whole suspension of disbelief thing. In duels characters work as is. Against units I just break them down to being that bad ass that they could cut down perhaps 4 or 5 men for every model they actually kill instead of 10. It still makes them badass, just a little more reasonably badass."

They don't need to be ridiculously skilled, the entourage concept helps with the problem with "Why is every general a god of combat" well they aren't. They just have an elite entourage. This also explains why they take up equal space.

"Another reason you can't take model counts at face value for scale is ranged weapons. If 1" is more or less equal to 6', then a bow can only shoot 144 feet? A rather short range for a bow. A longbow in WFB would have a 180' range, which is about 1/3 the actual range of such a weapon."

Yeah, it becomes more realistic when taken at a third the size with x3 troops.

"There are many ways in which WFB should avoid realism. Scale is one, fluff is another."

Yeah, and again, I care about how dramatic it is not how realistic. If bows are shooting only as far a person can throw something, it kinda breaks the drama. I incorrectly named the topic.

"I've always seen standard games Warhammer / 40k as a 'snapshot' of a larger battle - you're focusing on a few minutes, of a small part of a massive conflict. Things like Apoc / Whatever equivalent you could apply to fantasy being a bigger snapshot of those same battles."

I used to think so as well all the time. And that is one reasonable view. I just think having both views available increases the amount of experiences you can have with the game. Believe or not I would not have near as much fun with warhammer if there was no story, if all the pieces were just bases with numbers attached to them.

What I'm trying to say is the "view" is important part of the game for me and having both experiences available makes it better.

Warhammer is highly stylistic and abstract. Trying to fit realism in is like trying to swim while carrying an anchor.

In real life, a large creature can easily turn and attack someone a few feet off to the flank. In Warhammer, not only can it NOT turn and attack them, it has to move straight forward or backward because their presence (and the 1" rule) prevent it from turning at all! This and many other ridiculous artifacts of the rules precludes Warhmmer being realistic even by the standards of a fictional swords and sorcery world.

yeah..

When you look at ranged fire it just gets weirder and weirder. Not only do ranged weapons only have ranges slightly greater than thrown weapons, but it seems when they do fire a third of their shots hit at long range, which is an outrageously high number. But then only a half of those shots manage to wound an average unarmoured human, which is a ridiculously small number.


It's just... Warhammer spends a lot of time simulating all kinds of stuff, but when you put it all together none of it really fits. Ultimately its pretty hard to translate a game of Warhammer into a plausible narrative without saying the number of models on the field are abstract, the range between units are abstract, the length of a turn is abstract, the number of hits scored is abstract, and so on. Best to just not think about it, I reckon.

Just a note to the OP

A Longbow easily outranges a Crossbow, completely devastating in skilled hands, but with a VERY steep learning curve. Also its rate of fire was around 6x that of an Xbow.

 Grand Hierophant Khatep wrote:
Problem [Many ranges seem a little low, though by their names alone you can't tell much for the quality of the weapon.]

Early editions of Warhammer (3rd and before) indeed included a note to the effect that ranges had been dramatically decreased for the sake of playability. Going by Warhammer's original scale (weapon ranges haven't in the main changed despite the miniatures having become c20% taller) of 1 inch = 6 feet, a crossbow's range of 24 inches (i.e.144 feet) and a longbow's of 30 inches (180 feet) compares very poorly with the range of reconstructed renaissance-era weapons, both of which could - at the most conservative estimate - reach out to 300 yards (i.e. 900 feet!). A game played on a 6 x 4 table in which standard missile weapons had a 150 inch range, however, would be less than interesting, so the abstraction is quite forgiveable.

You say at the most conservative estimate, but with your average archer, Long Bows range was usually topped out at around 200yds, with less for shortbows and such.
The thing to remember is a lot of these bows would have been made by the people firing them, with low quality materials and tools, with quantity being the focus over quality.

It very much depends on the type, and quality of bow at the end of the day.
Native american bows rarely shot further than 50 yards ( 150ft), bows from medieval Europe such as the typical English Longbow could reach 150-200 yards. (450-600ft)

Composite bows (bone and wood glued together) could just about break the 200yd mark.

Modern replicas will have access to better materials (less flaws, more appropriate boughs), better tooling, and lots of experience, and of course modern compound bows can break 500 yards (1500 feet) but for accuracy and decent stopping power, it's reccomended you don't go past 60ish yards (180-200feet).

Even modern firearms don't have THAT ridiculous a range when it comes to actual accuracy and lethality, such as pistols ( around 50 yards / 150feet ), assault rifles ( 300-400 yards, or around 1000 feet ), even sniper rifles are really only 800-1600 yards (under a mile).

Typically, archery wasn't really about about accuracy, it was about launching massive volleys of arrows in the general direction of the enemy and hoping a reasonable amount hit and do some damage.

I am curious as to where you get your scale from?

 marielle wrote:
I am curious as to where you get your scale from?

Prolly from the little blurb about scale in the 4th edition rule book.

MarsNZ wrote:
Just a note to the OP

A Longbow easily outranges a Crossbow, completely devastating in skilled hands, but with a VERY steep learning curve. Also its rate of fire was around 6x that of an Xbow.

The statement about range is not really possible, given the crossbow evolved considerably over the medieval period. Sure, the longbow undoubtably had an advantage in range at Crecy and throughout the 14th Century, but into the 15th Century a field crossbow had increased in drawstrength massively and could outrange longbows.

We have no idea, of course, what level of sophistication crossbows in the Old World have. It probably varies considerably from crossbow to crossbow.