One way to reconcile ranges in game and reality.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I know it’s not a perfect reconciliation, but it’s a bit better than trying to figure out how a rocket propelled round has a maximum range of approximately 144ft.

 

rather than ranges representing the weapon’s range, it represents the range models can accurately hit a target (or hit the target their base BS indicates) 

[TheArtilleryman]

The term I like to use frequently in all kinds of situations is “suspension of disbelief.”
 

Some things just need to be the way they are for the game to work, even if it isn’t realistic. A bolter having the same armour penetration value as a fist, for example.

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah, to me this has always been an acceptable abstraction as the game just couldn’t function without it. I don’t think it really needs reconciling.
 

That doesn’t necessarily mean I think they get all the ranges correct that they give to some weapons, but in reality there’s almost no projectile weapons in the game that aren’t flamers or pistols that wouldn’t reach the other side of the table if you used anything resembling a realistic scale for the ranges. That would render the range stat meaningless anyway. 

Oddly, saying the range is the max distance that someone like a space marine can reliably hit a target is actually a bigger immersion breaking problem than the short ranges. Marines have genetically enhanced vision, decades of training, armour that can stabilise their aim and targeting systems built into their helmets. They should be able to hit anything on the table realistically.

Edited July 27 by MARK0SIAN

[sarabando]

when the 13th black crusade world wide campaign was going on at my store, basalisks with their insane indirect fire range were allowed to take shots at other tables. We also called in orbital strikes from people playing BFG against peoples games in a store a few towns over. Unless you want to play 10ft x 20ft boards ranges are fine XD

[TheArtilleryman]

8 minutes ago, sarabando said:

when the 13th black crusade world wide campaign was going on at my store, basalisks with their insane indirect fire range were allowed to take shots at other tables. We also called in orbital strikes from people playing BFG against peoples games in a store a few towns over. Unless you want to play 10ft x 20ft boards ranges are fine XD

I remember this happening in what I would say was the best ever White Dwarf battle report. It was years ago when they did the Armageddon campaign and they had several different games going on at once, the results of which influenced a huge game going on in the centre. One of the boards was the orks trying to take down a basilisk battery, and as long as the basilisks survived they could shoot at the main table. Awesome stuff.

Edited July 27 by TheArtilleryman

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

Yeah, to me this has always been an acceptable abstraction as the game just couldn’t function without it. I don’t think it really needs reconciling.
 

That doesn’t necessarily mean I think they get all the ranges correct that they give to some weapons, but in reality there’s almost no projectile weapons in the game that aren’t flamers or pistols that wouldn’t reach the other side of the table if you used anything resembling a realistic scale for the ranges. That would render the range stat meaningless anyway. 

Oddly, saying the range is the max distance that someone like a space marine can reliably hit a target is actually a bigger immersion breaking problem than the short ranges. Marines have genetically enhanced vision, decades of training, armour that can stabilise their aim and targeting systems built into their helmets. They should be able to hit anything on the table realistically.

Tbf in the modern game, the range stat is nearly pointless.

about the only guns that aren’t going to be in range after a single move would are generally flamers and pistols.

basically anything 24” or greater might as well have a - 

 

also sure a marine might be able to ding a 2” steel plate at 2 miles, but on the battlefield targets move and dip, etc. it goes beyond just the individual’s ability to aim.

Edited July 28 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[HeadlessCross]

12 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

The term I like to use frequently in all kinds of situations is “suspension of disbelief.”
 

Some things just need to be the way they are for the game to work, even if it isn’t realistic. A bolter having the same armour penetration value as a fist, for example.

To be fair, this is a problem that would EASILY be solved if GW bothered to consolidate the Tactical Marine and Intercessor unit entries proper. Is anyone going to complain if the Intercessors Datasheet were allowed to take Special/Heavy Weapons?

[MARK0SIAN]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tbf in the modern game, the range stat is nearly pointless.

about the only guns that aren’t going to be in range after a single move would are generally flamers and pistols.

basically anything 24” or greater might as well have a - 

 

also sure a marine might be able to ding a 2” steel plate at 2 miles, but on the battlefield targets move and dip, etc. it goes beyond just the individual’s ability to aim.

If they can all already pretty much reach anything after a move anyway then I would say there doesn’t need any reconciling in the range system.

 

Targets do move and dip (although in 40k plenty of them don’t and just generally charge straight at the enemy) but a marine would still be expected to reliably hit a man-sized target above that 144 feet range you mention. A real life contemporary soldier is expected to hit targets further than that.

[Petitioner's City]

16 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I know it’s not a perfect reconciliation, but it’s a bit better than trying to figure out how a rocket propelled round has a maximum range of approximately 144ft.

 

rather than ranges representing the weapon’s range, it represents the range models can accurately hit a target (or hit the target their base BS indicates) 

 

Inquisitor worked this way :)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

If they can all already pretty much reach anything after a move anyway then I would say there doesn’t need any reconciling in the range system.

 

Targets do move and dip (although in 40k plenty of them don’t and just generally charge straight at the enemy) but a marine would still be expected to reliably hit a man-sized target above that 144 feet range you mention. A real life contemporary soldier is expected to hit targets further than that.

Wasn’t always this way, unfortunately GW sucks now.

 

also yes real life soldiers are expected to hit targets on static ranges at longer distances, but in reality, the hit results in combat and warfare are atrocious.

especially in WWII which much of this game is based on. I believe the US army hit rate was something like 15-20%
so basically less than a 6+ to somewhere between a 5+ and 6+
 

taking that into account a BS of 3+ with an average hit rate of 68% is absolutely fantastic.

Edited July 28 by Inquisitor_Lensoven