Has anyone tried scaling out weapon ranges?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Just curious if anyone has tried to figure out what scale or the closest scale for weapon ranges is?

 

Meltas flamers and pistols are 12" all of which have a range of roughly 45-50 meters but trying to expand 24" to 100m seems too short for things like combat or battle rifles.

[Grotsmasha]

There isn't a consistent scale, in a White Dwarf it was explained that they did what felt good for the game on a per weapon bonus because if they has a consistent scale, things like Basilisks would be 3 tables away.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

There isn't a consistent scale, in a White Dwarf it was explained that they did what felt good for the game on a per weapon bonus because if they has a consistent scale, things like Basilisks would be 3 tables away.

i mean they kind of already are like 3 tables away at 200+ in range. Edited June 27, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Grotsmasha]

 

There isn't a consistent scale, in a White Dwarf it was explained that they did what felt good for the game on a per weapon bonus because if they has a consistent scale, things like Basilisks would be 3 tables away.

i mean they kind of already are like 3 tables away at 200+ in range.

 

 

Something about effective minimum range

[Trokair]

I can also vaguely remember an article long ago that said that the scale and time was logarithmic.

 

So a doubling in range/distance in inches represents more than just double the distance. So a 12” range weapon represents a distance more than twice a 6” pistol range, and a 24” rapid fire bolt gun is more than twice the 12” gun and more than four times the 6” pistol. A sniper rifle at 36” or a lascannon at 48” represent an even longer range then a strict comparison implies. That said it is an approximation at best and will not hold up for every example or comparison.

 

Along the same line, the movement phase or shooting phase might be minutes to chunks of an hour (imagine a devastator moving to a position, carefully taking aim and shooting) while combat (and charging by extension) was a few seconds to a few minutes.

[Cerberus1775]

I can also vaguely remember an article long ago that said that the scale and time was logarithmic.

 

So a doubling in range/distance in inches represents more than just double the distance. So a 12” range weapon represents a distance more than twice a 6” pistol range, and a 24” rapid fire bolt gun is more than twice the 12” gun and more than four times the 6” pistol. A sniper rifle at 36” or a lascannon at 48” represent an even longer range then a strict comparison implies. That said it is an approximation at best and will not hold up for every example or comparison.

 

Along the same line, the movement phase or shooting phase might be minutes to chunks of an hour (imagine a devastator moving to a position, carefully taking aim and shooting) while combat (and charging by extension) was a few seconds to a few minutes.

So weapon ranges are somewhat on a constant scale, while time in game is a sliding scale?  (Edited for spelling)

Edited June 27, 2021 by Cerberus1775

[Noserenda]

I wouldnt say it was particularly consistent, the main aim is to have a game where ranges matter, on a playing surface that is practical to play on. Otherwise you might need 20' tables or just have 90% of weapons constantly in range making that pointless.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I wouldnt say it was particularly consistent, the main aim is to have a game where ranges matter, on a playing surface that is practical to play on. Otherwise you might need 20' tables or just have 90% of weapons constantly in range making that pointless.

arent 90% of weapons constantly in range as it stands?

[Spleenex]

I sadly don't recall the name of it, but I have read a set of sci-fi minis rules where pretty much everything was always in range aside from maybe pistols, grenades, etc., and the figure scale was much closer to the ground scale. Which is pretty realistic, considering that most real-life small arms combat takes place well within the theoretical max effective range of the weapons used. However, that game had pretty in-depth cover, suppression, and psychology rules. So it is possible to do things that way, but the game has to be built from the ground up to accommodate it, which 40K obviously is not.

 

I wouldnt say it was particularly consistent, the main aim is to have a game where ranges matter, on a playing surface that is practical to play on. Otherwise you might need 20' tables or just have 90% of weapons constantly in range making that pointless.

[Noserenda]

 

I wouldnt say it was particularly consistent, the main aim is to have a game where ranges matter, on a playing surface that is practical to play on. Otherwise you might need 20' tables or just have 90% of weapons constantly in range making that pointless.

arent 90% of weapons constantly in range as it stands?

 

Oh yeah if you rule out nearly all the small arms, grenades, lots of special weapons and pistols you are dead on! 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

I wouldnt say it was particularly consistent, the main aim is to have a game where ranges matter, on a playing surface that is practical to play on. Otherwise you might need 20' tables or just have 90% of weapons constantly in range making that pointless.

arent 90% of weapons constantly in range as it stands?

Oh yeah if you rule out nearly all the small arms, grenades, lots of special weapons and pistols you are dead on!

on a 44x30 table most weapons will likely be in range of the enemyT1 when you deploy.

 

Pistols, grenades and flamers might be about the only ones that won't be in range from turn 1

 

Even 44x90 you'll have most of your weapons in range of an enemy most of the game.

 

You won't have every weapon in range of every enemy but you'll still have most weapons in range of at least one enemy unit at all times.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

I tried this, once, when I was younger and more stupid.

 

I messed up my math, one way or another, and did my best to never think about it again.

[MegaVolt87]

My headcanon is 6 inches= 100m. So, 6' infantry movement is an advance of 100m for a squad. On the other end, 200 inch earthshaker= 2km range, a sensible distance for an artillery piece etc. A firstborn 24 inch boltgun with a range of 400m also makes sense. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

My headcanon is 6 inches= 100m. So, 6' infantry movement is an advance of 100m for a squad. On the other end, 200 inch earthshaker= 2km range, a sensible distance for an artillery piece etc. A firstborn 24 inch boltgun with a range of 400m also makes sense.

2 km for SPA is kinda short lol

 

M7 priest had a 7mi range, that's what? 14-15km? And it was a short barreled gun

Edited June 29, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven